In the situation that Vaidhyanathan has described, the use of Google Street View has given
rise to serious ethical questions, many of which are centered on privacy issues. Google’s first
strategy comprised indiscriminate data collection, which constituted a serious threat to people’s
privacy. This data collection included unblurred faces, license plates, and peeks into private
locations. Discussions regarding how to strike a balance between technological advancement and
ethical issues, notably the respect for individual privacy, have been sparked by these acts.The
ethical ramifications of Google Street View’s use go beyond simple convenience in the age of
constantly evolving technology and its incorporation into daily life.

The widespread use of this navigation technology has altered how people move through the
real world, but it has also raised concerns about how much privacy should be compromised by
technological advancement.In this Case Analysis, I’ll make the case that a utilitarian ethical
framework shows that Google should have prioritized privacy protection more during the
development of Google Street View. The ethical analysis will show that placing privacy first
would have resulted in a more responsible and morally sound approach to this frequently used
navigation tool, in line with the broader objective of increasing overall happiness while
minimizing harm.

An influential researcher in the area of information ethics is Luciano Floridi. The idea that
knowledge has intrinsic value and should be handled ethically is one of his key ideas. Information
ethics is the study of how, in the digital age, we should handle, manage, and respect information.
The idea of the intrinsic value of information proposed by Floridi is extremely pertinent in
the context of Google Street View. In essence, Google Street View is a vast database of visual and
geographic information that includes pictures of streets, structures, and even specific people.
According to Floridi, information has intrinsic value, just like the data gathered by Google Street
View. This benefit results from information’s potential to advance knowledge, comprehension, and
judgment.

The moral dilemma arises, though, when this crucial data is gathered without sufficient
authorization, as Google initially did. Ethical questions about how this important data is collected
and used are raised by Street View’s indiscriminate data collection, which includes not only
capturing streets and buildings but also people without their explicit agreement.
The approach is based on a utilitarian viewpoint, which we presented before, and centers
on increasing total enjoyment while reducing harm. The utilitarian ethical tool argues that the
proper course of action should prioritize the worth of information while simultaneously
preserving privacy when it is applied to Floridi’s concept of information ethics.

The correct course of action in the Google Street View case would have entailed finding
a balance between the importance of information and the right to personal privacy. Google might
have taken a more responsible stance by putting in place strong consent systems that let people
choose whether or not to have their homes and photographs included in Street View. In addition
to adhering to Floridi’s idea of the utility of knowledge, Google would have satisfied utilitarian
ethics by reducing possible harm and enhancing overall happiness by respecting people’s
autonomy and privacy.

The inherent value of information proposed by Floridi offers an important framework for
analyzing the moral implications of Google Street View’s implementation. By applying the
utilitarian ethical framework, it is clear that the proper course of action should have required
carefully balancing the value of information and the right to personal privacy, ultimately leading
to a more moral and responsible use of this technology. Google may have more closely matched
its actions to information ethics and utilitarianism by protecting privacy and offering consent
methods.

In his writing, James Grimmelmann emphasizes striking a balance between the ideas of
publicness and privacy. He investigates how the boundaries between people’s private and public
lives are being blurred by technology, particularly in the digital age. Even as technology
continues to make more information accessible to the general public, Grimmelmann contends
that there is a need to safeguard and respect individual privacy.

Grimmelmann’s idea of publicness and privacy is significant in the context of Google
Street View. Residential neighborhoods, homes, and even specific people are all covered in great
detail by Google Street View, which also makes this information available to the general public.
There are ethical questions raised regarding how technology like Street View affects people’s
right to privacy as a result of the blending of the public and private spheres.

We can evaluate Google Street View’s behavior in light of Grimmelmann’s idea by using
the utilitarian ethical tool. The best course of action should involve striking a careful balance
between the right to individual privacy and the publicness of information. Google ought to have
taken the public-private divide into account when developing its technologies. A more moral
course of action would have involved putting strong privacy protections in place. For instance,
Google might have respected the private character of residential neighborhoods by using cutting-
edge blurring technology to automatically obfuscate faces and license plates. Additionally,
Google ought to have offered a simple and easy way for people to ask that sensitive or personally
identifying information be removed from Street View.

Google might have matched its actions with Grimmelmann’s idea by achieving a balance
between the public’s need for information access and people’s rights to privacy. Such a strategy
would have been more in accordance with utilitarian ethics’ ethical precepts of preserving
individual privacy and enhancing overall happiness.

Furthermore, Grimmelmann’s idea of publicness and privacy provides a useful
framework for analyzing the moral ramifications of the use of Google Street View. A more
ethical and responsible approach to this technology can be achieved by using utilitarianism as an
ethical tool. It becomes clear that the proper course of action should have required a careful
balance between publicness and privacy. Google might have more closely matched its actions
with the ethical ideals of publicness, privacy, and utilitarianism by preserving privacy rights
while maintaining open access to information.

In conclusion, the analysis of Google Street View’s application using Luciano Floridi and
James Grimmelmann’s ethical frameworks, along with utilitarian ethics, shows how important it
is to prioritize privacy and strike a balance between the value of information, publicness, and
individual rights. Grimmelmann’s concept of publicness and privacy and Floridi’s conception of
information ethics emphasize the necessity for a responsible use of technology, especially when
it entails the gathering and sharing of sensitive information.

Works Cited
Business, Clare Duffy, CNN. “Google Agrees to Pay $13 Million in Street View Privacy
Case.” CNN, www.cnn.com/2019/07/22/tech/google-street-view-privacy-lawsuit-
settlement/index.html.

“Hate Your Home Showing on Google Maps Street View? Kill It THIS Way.” HT Tech,
15 Jan. 2023, tech.hindustantimes.com/how-to/hate-your-home-showing-on-google-maps-street-
view-kill-it-this-way-71673782512469.html#:~:text=All%20you%20need%20to%20do.
Accessed 18 Sept. 2023.

Streitfeld, David. “Google Concedes That Drive-by Prying Violated Privacy.” The New
York Times, 12 Mar. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/technology/google-pays-fine-over-
street-view-privacy-
breach.html#:~:text=SAN%20FRANCISCO%20%E2%80%94%20Google%20on%20Tuesday