Siva Vaidhyanathan’s The Googlization of Everything aims to point out flaws in Google’s rollout of Google Street View (GSV). GSV uses photos of streets and public spaces to provide virtual tours to users. Though this seems like a great technological advancement, many have raised questions concerning privacy. People’s homes, cars, and living environments are now on display for the world to see. Google ensured the public that they could request the alteration or removal of photos that made people uncomfortable but ultimately defended the adoption of this service as being more beneficial than harmful. Vaidhyanathan’s work highlights the lack of transparency on Google’s part, which has led to legal repercussions. In this Case Analysis I will argue that utilitarianism shows that Google should have focused more on gaining consent and protecting privacy. This would ensure that Street View could reach its intended goals without jeopardizing the reception of its services. 

Floridi presented the concept of “empowerment” in the class readings about privacy. The idea of empowerment is to provide individuals with the tools necessary to control how their information is shared and used. Floridi makes the case that technology should help people manage their data and make wise decisions when sharing information online. Keeping this in mind, we analyze how well Google aided people in keeping their information safe. Google Street View is an amazing tool but it has failed to protect the property and physical appearance of many people. Google did blur faces and license plates but did not ask for consent before using images with unsuspecting adults and children in their program. In a world where digital threats are ever-present and affect a greater number of people each day, it would be in the best interest of Google to help people make wise decisions with their information instead of using it without consent. As a consequence, under the lens of empowerment, Google not only failed to empower but actively disempowered individuals. They pursued goals that would benefit the company but overlooked the privacy rights of each individual. Google could have taken a few steps to enable people to be a part of the process and protect their privacy. For example, they could have notified residents before they began taking photographs of their homes and property or made it easier for them to control how their property was viewed. 

A utilitarian believes that we should maximize the overall happiness and comfortability of society. Though this was Google’s intention, their desire to improve things like navigation and education dismissed the problems that could result from the new technology. As previously stated the threat of cyber exploitation is real and constantly evolving. Denying people the right to govern their data could lead to insecurity and mistrust in technology which will negatively affect society long term as we become more technologically advanced. From the perspective of a utilitarian, Google needed to find a happy medium between technological advancement and user control. Increased transparency would have helped make Street View’s rollout better. Letting people know how and when their things would be photographed would allow Google to maintain its intended benefits while reducing backlash. This would make the service more efficient and sustainable. 

Grimmelmann also introduces a key concept in our readings. The idea of “privacy as product safety” describes the necessity of having privacy being a key component of a product or service. Under this lens, companies not only have the responsibility of protecting a user physically but in the realm of privacy as well. Similar to the ideas previously discussed, privacy should be close to the top of the list of concerns in a world that has people connected more than ever before. Google failed to treat privacy in high regard when it snapped photos without the knowledge of homeowners. Google opened the door for people to become the victims of burglary, stalking, and possibly indecent exposure. Again, some features blur parts of images and remove sensitive information, but this came after the complaints began to pile in. According to Grimmelmann, these features should have been in place prior to the rollout of Street View. In the same way that other features designed by Google have customization and security built-in, Street View could have come with similar standards. Upfront communication about the methodology that would be used and even the option to opt-out would have met the initial requirements of having privacy be a part of product safety. 

When looking at Grimmelmann from a utilitarian perspective, it is easy to see that privacy as product safety would promote utilitarian ideals. Having privacy features as part of the initial rollout would have negated the negative consequences of people feeling like they have no control over their data. Vulnerability can produce insecurity and broaden the divide of technological distrust. Protecting individuals from harm is good for society overall and would bring more happiness. Being proactive about privacy would have reduced the negatives if not prevent them, therefore contributing to utilitarian ideals. 

In summary, Google could have handled Street View more ethically by focusing on giving individuals greater control and treating privacy as a fundamental aspect of the service. Floridi’s idea of empowerment shows how Google undermined people’s ability to manage their own digital presence, while Grimmelmann’s concept of privacy as product safety highlights how Google failed to protect users from potential risks. A utilitarian would have ensured that Google was more transparent in the development and rollout of Street View. This would keep the intended benefits on Google’s part and prevent it from negatively impacting the happiness of individuals. Less insecurity and more trust would set up an easier path for future technological advancements and the sustainability of Street View.