Google street view is a program that was implemented between 2007 and 2009 throughout the world. Many companies had issues with this program coming to their countries due to privacy concerns. People’s faces being seen, homes being shown to the world from the privacy of their cul-de-sac, and cars being recognized worldwide were all common complaints, but after a short time, people got used to it and accepted the program for what it is, a tool to help people not have to drive around looking for locations. London was one of the areas with the largest concern, yet it is one of the most heavily monitored locations in the world. Google released this project without having the full support of communities, but it would be nearly impossible to get everyone to agree on everything, leaving Google to decide its next step. In this case analysis, I will argue that the consequentialist tool shows us that Google should have done what it did with more concern for privacy issues that cities and states made known prior to implementing it within their localities, however, Google did a good job in their attempts to fix the problems that occurred in the beginning leading to a successful program.
As Floridi discussed, anonymity has never been a real concept for people. Anonymity is the ability to be essentially hidden from those people around you and being able to keep every aspect of your life hidden. The problem with anonymity is that it is not possible for people living in the world. Those that grew up in an era with no internet accessibility knew it through shopping at the grocers and walking around their neighborhoods. Google street view has taken that lack of anonymity to a new level with the ability to see any place with the click of a button. With google street view, people no longer need information to find a place they once went or saw, and they are able to find places and view everything around them. The case of worrying about the googlization of everything causes concern for those who already experience little anonymity due to the accessibility that is allowed into the world with this kind of software.
Floridi also discusses empowerment through inclusion as well through improvement which discusses equal opportunities and larger amounts of opportunities as well. Google street view has many opportunities for both of these topics. Inclusion through google street view will allow every person to have access to a world outside of their own with the click of a mouse. This service allows many people to see dreams that they did not know they had due to their current lifestyles. Empowerment through improvement is achieved by the opportunities presented to communities through something as simple as google street view to encourage companies to pour resources into communities that need it. Restaurants, banks, businesses providing jobs to the community, and everything that comes along with those resources can view google street view and find spaces for their businesses to fit leaving room for growth.
The consequentialist tool is the perfect tool to describe why google street view pushed so hard to ensure that they had space in all communities to thrive and provide views for all to see. The best thing for the largest amount of people is to implement google street view. Providing resources for free while providing people with a view of the world that is not directly around them allows people to increase their knowledge of the world. This is not a negative thing. The negative is the few people who have an issue with it and based on the reaction during the implementation of google street view are less than those who have had positive reactions to the rollout of the software. The main issue with the google street view layout was that it did not initially blur things such as license plates and faces, and instead waited until after a complaint came from it. The best thing for the largest amount of people would be to protect their privacy while simultaneously rolling out google street view to let others seek out the world from the safety of a computer screen. Google attempted to protect those that felt threatened, but they dropped the ball and have since had to reconcile with those who were hurt.
Grimmelmann discussed the loss of privacy through social media. The loss of privacy is a common complaint about social media and that does not change based on the website. The most common complaint is that people do not feel as if their information is secure, and the problem is that it is often not. Many people do not know how to secure their information on social media sites leading to a feeling of vulnerability that they do not want. The lack of knowledge of how to protect a person’s information is the leading cause of one feeling as if social media has no security measures within the system itself. Although nothing is foolproof, the knowledge of securing one’s information will lead to a greater sense of security within the world of social media.
Grimmelmann also discusses the lack of privacy during the launch of Google Buzz and the problems that it caused. Due to the release of personal privacies such as most frequent contacts shown upon implementation, google buzz dropped the ball in terms of personal protection. Many people expect a certain level of privacy within their chosen methods of communication and Google buzz put many at risk with the release of this information. The rule known by developers is to not threaten people’s privacy more than necessary and the release of information by Google during this launch broke that rule. A woman specifically mentioned in the text had her contacts shown, although it also included her abusive ex-husband which created chaos in her life unnecessarily. Issues such as this create a concern for privacy through social media and justifiably so. Although the issue was corrected, the issues from the launch were never forgotten because it could have easily been prevented by using the tools Google used to fix the problem. This was giving the user the option to participate in sharing the information or not, and these are issues that companies do not always think about when launching applications such as Google Buzz.
The consequentialist tool works to describe the issues described by Grimmelmann because they are not what is best for the largest amount of people. Google street view does, in fact, release information that is considered personal to some people. In the view of Grimmelmann, Google Street View created a space where people were left vulnerable to intrusions of privacy even though they stated that they would not like to participate going as far as putting signs on their doors. The need for a person to submit a claim to have their face or license plate blurred out of photos is a threat to their privacy because everyone with internet access has access to that information. The right thing to do for the launch of Google Street View would have been to take a step to protect privacy from the beginning, which is simply blurring personal characteristics before publishing the information online. Google Street View caused issues from the beginning, yet they have taken the steps necessary to mitigate the risk to citizens which is what is best for the largest amount of people.
The Google Street View launch posed problems for a small group of people who were not comfortable with their front door being shown to the world. This made a case for anyone who wanted to pick what would be allowed on the program and therefore made multiple cases worldwide. However, Google Street View helped more people than it hurt which leads to the conclusion that allowing this program to record street views worldwide was worth the negative connotations that come along with it. Consequentialism makes it clear that as long as the majority of people benefit from the topic in discussion, it is the right decision to push through. Through the readings of Floridi and Grimmelmann, the evidence was clear of the decision of this case and the relevance of the consequentialist tool. The articles published by both authors showed many sides of the argument of privacy, and they both made valid points throughout their work. Although the right to privacy is important, there are many factors that can mitigate what is right versus what is wrong. Although some were hurt, Google made the correct choice by continuing the operation of Google Street View.