In 2009 Google launched a feature called Google Street View, which allowed users to drop a pin in various locations around the world and see it from a street view. This allowed people from various countries to look into the neighborhood of other various countries. This sparked a lot of controversy at its launch as this to some individuals, cultures, and countries was a violation of privacy. Google faced serious backlash and pushback for varying violations of privacy, having cameras too high that can see over fences violated laws in some countries. Google in many cases took the easy way out.  In this case analysis I will argue that if Google had followed the ethical beliefs of Kantianism, by treating people and peoples’ privacy with respect it deserves no matter what. Google could have saved itself from this backlash and could have potentially approached Google street view from a different perspective, using ideas provided by Grimmelman and Flordi, to provide the same product.

Grimmelman introduced the idea of thinking about privacy through the eyes of product safety. There are three basic points when thinking about product safety, first is that the seller makes their product safe, and can be held liable even if the user is at fault. The second implicit is that warnings and disclaimers do not make a product inherently safe. The third implicit is that

Warnings and disclaimers do not make a product safe. The third point is that sellers are liable for design defects and any manufacturing defects. Google did not follow the idea of privacy as product safety, the first implicit here is violated by Google because their product wasn’t safe, to begin with, but the second half of the first implicit does not relate here because the user can’t be at fault when Google took this information without asking, not respecting peoples privacy at all. The second implicit is one I believe that Google violated the most and did not even consider. Google constantly iterates that any user can request images to be taken down and blurred but as the article states the process is difficult and very time-consuming. This is barely even a disclaimer on Google’s behalf and does not make the product safe. Through Kantianism possibly google could have respected everyone’s privacy and created google street view as a private club, only those that want to participate, as in allowing Google to screenshot their house or their street to be able to view other streets and houses. This is a perfect example of Google, asking for forgiveness rather than for permission, and relates to Google taking the easy way out.

The third and final implicit Google broke was, “the seller is responsible for the design defects and individual manufacturer defects”. Google violated cultural beliefs in Japan and caused harm by having their cameras mounted high enough to peer into yards and had to redo their pictures of the streets with cameras mounted lower on the car. This is another example of “asking for forgiveness” but they could have avoided a backlash by either getting an expert on Japanese culture or have worked with the government to grasp a better way of handling the situation. 

The second part of the third implicit here is very difficult, because since everyone has access to this information, if they were to do anything bad or illegal with it, Google will and should be held liable. That is difficult because, how can we figure out if this information was used to cause any damage or harm? Today VPNs and the sheer number of traffic Google receives make it impossible to track down who accesses what information. The one way I believe of possibly fixing this is going back to the idea of only those who opt-in can access Street View. If a user consented to join, then they would need to provide more information, more than what’s required, but at least users will have consented. This would limit the traffic on the site and how many users would sign up even more, but make it easier to track who accessed what information and be able to hold Google and the bad actor liable. This also acts as an incentive for people to not use this information for bad reasons. 

Florid introduced the idea of information friction, and how there is a balance between what and how much information should be shared. A frictionless world would be without individuality, respect, and honor, privacy would not exist. Google, is hiding behind information friction while at the same time destroying some aspects of it. By releasing these images all over the world, Google is tearing down information walls, allowing people to see the world they never had been to before, but at the cost of violating millions of people’s privacy. Google hides behind information friction as well, with its terrible process of removing or blurring images. This information friction is vital to some cultures such as Japan as the reading mentions that mutual discretion is necessary there, in their heavily dense living spaces. Floridi also mentions two theories about the value of privacy, one being the reductionist and the ownership-based theories. The reductionist believes that people deserve privacy because of the potential harm certain information can do if it were to be released. The ownership-based interpretation believes that their information is their right like property, it is our possession. Most of googles backlash was from people afraid of the damages or the crimes that might happen with the release of this information. The couple whose claimed that the images Google took required the car to trespass. They took Google to court and lost due to them not attempting to go through googles process of removing the images, but this is hiding through information friction, some people may not be able to find the process, and some people might not know the process is out there, possibly the only solution people believe there is, is through the courts but that failed for one couple.

On the other hand, Japan and one particular search-engine professional Osamu Higuchi followed a more ownership-based approach to privacy, his analogy was that a person peering into the window or yard of someone would be watched right back by the person inside the house and it is up to the person to act on whether or not to call the police, however in the sense of google the “owner” never has that option until well after the fact of the information be out there. He got enough support to get Google to reshoot the images.

If Google could have seen google street view threw the eyes of Superman or a Kantian, they would have not chosen the easy path of, “easier to ask for forgiveness, than for permission.” The stakes are not as high as the deal is with Superman, but when it comes to privacy, respect should be given no matter what. Back to the opt-in Street View I proposed, it may produce very low users initially but after some time, just like the reading state, people stopped caring. Google could have regular announcements where they say they are doing more rounds of images and users can opt-in, they could spam emails until people sign up, still respecting their privacy but another spam email, in the thousands we receive.

Google did not respect people’s privacy, they did not follow a Kantian way and could have done this with less harm. If they had followed the ethical beliefs of Superman, maybe Google Street View would have done so without violating the privacy of its customers. The opt-in approach would respect the individual privacy of everyone, and allow those that want their privacy to have it, while also not allowing those to violate others’ privacy, a bit of “quid pro quo”. Although this approach would severely limit the scope of Street View, give Google more information about you if you decided to opt-in, and users who don’t opt-in will possibly find a way to access that data. This would be a tough battle, mostly at the cost of Google, However, this is the Kantian way, like Superman it is the harder but better way. The cost should never outweigh the value and respect for someone else’s privacy.