The Googleization of Everything by Siva Vaidhyanathan, emerges as an article in which expresses how Google is not only an advertising business but is also a primary source when seeking information. As Google continuously becomes the main source in which many individuals heavily rely on in terms of retrieving information, Vaidhyanathan’s focus within the article mainly inquires on if Google Street View is disclosing accurate information and if the information is indeed reliable or necessary. Google mostly emerged as a system in which offers free information to those that seek it and in 2007, implemented Google Street View. As a tool that provides users with a 360-degree view of streets and roads, many feel as if it’s an invasion of privacy. Utilizing the works of Luciano Floridi and James Grimmelmann on Privacy ethics along with Vaidhyanathan’s notion of why Google Street View can potentially be dangerous, one will emphasize and dissect the importance of privacy ethics. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that Contractarianism shows us that Google should have prioritized the privacy on the surveillance that occurs when individuals use applications such as Google Street View to access information.

Within Luciano Floridi’s Privacy article where he dissects every aspect of Privacy, embedded within the article are four different types of privacy that he analyzes regarding Facebook. As technology advances, it is easier to obtain anything due the emergence of the internet and with this, individuals can gain access to any type of information. Google is a tool that comes to mind when discussing privacy because it carries a vast amount of information that can have its benefits as well as harms in terms of accessing. The four types of privacy that Floridi analyzed within the field of privacy were physical, mental, decisional and informational privacy (Floridi, 2014). However, Floridi only focuses on the informational aspect of privacy because Informational Friction, defined as the forces that oppose the flow of information within a religion of the infosphere, refers to how not it is important but emphasizes on the importance of privacy. Google Street View does not compare to this notion because the ethics of privacy is compromised.

Within the case of Google Street View, the activity of privacy remains scarce because there is only so much individuals can rely on in terms having their potential home exposed. Due to privacy being a function of information friction, Google repels this concept because it is frequently used as a tool in which can potentially compromise the privacy of others. Individuals are not even aware of the data Google accumulates as they navigate the website, which can be dangerous. The internet has been set up in a way to explore freedom through a technological aspect, so there are no repercussions faced when exploring information that may be potentially harmful to those that seek it such as Google Street View. Floridi’s concept applies to Google in the terms of expressing that any factor decreasing or increasing informational friction can affect privacy. Meaning that because privacy is so hard to ensure within society where information is immensely visible, it is a tool in cannot excel within society.

Google being such a broad tool within modern society, the instance of privacy is not rationalized because the information of individuals is out there without their permission. As society continues to develop into a social media era, individuals are not aware that whatever they are posting can be used against them whether harmful or not. Contractarianism is applied into this because regardless, the data Google has accumulated of many individuals does seem to be decreasing so it must establish the notion of trust and social contract. Contractarianism can be applied if Google stopped embarking on collecting data because it is the moral and ethical thing to do. Google could implement Contractarianism by admitting that collecting the data and information of individuals without their consent is immoral. Google can exhibit care by not focusing on the power of acquiring the information of individuals, but instead doing what is right in terms of ethically protecting individuals from having their information accessed.

Unlike the ideas of Floridi who expressed that privacy is a requirement and a humanly right, Grimmelmann focuses more on the aspect of the four myths regarding Facebook within his article Privacy as Product Safety. In this piece, he debunks a few common misconceptions about Facebook privacy. The first misconception is that Facebook users are unconcerned about their privacy. As Grimmelmann notes, this is a common misunderstanding because individuals frequently post on Facebook. The second misconception is that Facebook Users Make Rational Privacy Choices. This misconception is shattered by the truth that privacy regulations can be perplexing and complex, and even the most diligent user can rapidly get perplexed by a large range of privacy options. For instance, consider Facebook’s previous policy of immediately sharing a user’s photos with their entire network. Applying this to the instance of Google Street View, privacy expresses that it is not preserved efficiently.

The third myth is that users’ desire for privacy on Facebook is unattainable. The author makes the counter-argument that if someone did not want their information to be available to the public, they should not have shared it in the first place. To some extent, this is acceptable because any data put on the internet may be quickly replicated and distributed. The website was not created to be completely open to the public, with the account of an individual visible to everyone. Grimmelmann explains how it allows small groups, as well as family and friends, to have back-and-forth dialogues. The fourth myth is that database regulation will ensure that personal information is kept private as well as safe amongst those who are affected by having their information exposed out there.

A myth might be applicable to the Google case is that people’s need for privacy is unreasonable because they are outside of their homes. This is also false, because people need to be allowed to maintain their privacy at all times, including in public. In these circumstances, both Facebook and Google failed to use contractarianism as well as the aspect pertaining to ethics of care. Google should have utilized care ethics as well to recognize that not everyone wants the same thing. These companies should have considered the fact that some people want to live a private life and value their privacy, Google Street View does not ensure this effectively because regardless an individual’s privacy is still exposed. The Google staff was well-versed with Street View and how it worked, so they most likely prepped for it and alerted their families about it so that they could make adequate preparations for the software recording. The rest of the world affected by this program would have received the same kindness. Google should have treated the rest of the individuals within the globe with the same respect.

Due to Google Street View launching in 2007, it was initially only available in a few U.S. cities, including New York and San Francisco. Many internet users rushed to the new service, only to discover that it contained numerous embarrassing and revealing photographs of themselves and their homes. Although some customers complained that the service was “too intrusive for comfort,” Google proceeded to expand it over time. People in several other nations, like the United Kingdom and Germany, have condemned this new technology and expressed concern about the invasion of privacy it entails. Despite the fact that Google Street View has received a lot of criticism, one discovered that many individuals do not have a problem with it and quite enjoy it. Many people do not mind if others know what sort of car they drive or if they’re caught doing something embarrassing, while others do because they value their privacy. That is why, while creating this program, Google should have utilized contractarianism by implying social contract by having someone physically view the images and blur out or erase any images that may be infringing on someone’s privacy.