Case Analysis Privacy
People need to have privacy to relieve stress in their life. Prilives are the condition or
state of being free from being disturbed or observed by other people. In this case analysis, I will
be explaining thoroughly all the privacy ethics that should have been used to incorporate into
their web application to make it better on Google Street Views. Google Street Views is a virtual
representation of our different surroundings on Google Maps. Street Views can come from two
sources which are Google and contributors. Using that can enable people to explore the entire
world on the internet. Google Street Views use satellite databases to let people gain access to
see different street addresses. It can be given to specific users to stalk individuals or invade
other individuals’ privacy, like their financial information or private information. It can be used as
high-tech surveillance for given users. In some cases, it can make Google Maps unethical. In
this Case Analysis, I will argue that the deontology tool shows us that Google should have
gotten explicit consent from people before taking their pictures and collecting data about their
homes and businesses.
The 4Revolution book written by Luciano Floridi shows the differences between
practices for privacy. He describes four different freedoms or privacy forms that individuals need
to practice in their relationships with others. He also said that there are two theories about the
value of our privacy that are particularly popular: the reductionist and owner-based
interpretations. The owner-based performance argues that informational privacy needs to be
respected. The reductionist understanding defends the need for respect for privacy given the
misuse of the information acquired. The first privacy form is decisional privacy, which creates
daydreams or interferences to help people escape the family drama and other stress problems
for an individual. The second privacy form is physical privacy. Google Maps doesn’t have a
method of interfering with other individuals’ physical privacy unless the users use Google Maps
to go to the other person’s house and harass them. The most critical privacy form is called
mental privacy. It’s important because it deals with individuals mentally, and if a person doesn’t
have enough space in their mind to feel mental, they would be unstable or lose their mind,
which they are in the world. Many people have gone through different experiences that might
not have time for themselves and not function properly without it. The final form of privacy is
information. This form of privacy is to help people to set apart informational distractions about
the person. According to Floridi, informational friction refers to the forces opposing information
flow within a region of the infosphere. A perfect example would be when a coworker hears a
rumor about him quitting, and the coworker believes it’s not true. The article discusses the
concept of the “right to vanish.” The right to vanish is the right of individuals to have their
personal information removed from public view. The article argues that the right to disappear is
a fundamental human right and should be protected by law. The report also discusses the
concept of the “right to be forgotten,” which is the right of individuals to have their personal
information removed from public view if they request it. Google Street View has been criticized
for taking pictures of people without permission and collecting data about people’s homes and
businesses without their knowledge or consent. These activities violate the right to vanish the
people affected by them. The right to disappear is a fundamental human right, and Google
Street View should have been designed in a way that respects this right. The deontology tool
shows us that Google should have gotten explicit consent from people before taking their
pictures and collecting data about their homes and businesses. This would have been a more
ethical way to implement Google Street View and avoid causing harm to the people affected by
it. The article also discusses the concept of the “right to be forgotten.” The right to be forgotten
is the right of individuals to have their personal information removed from public view if they
request it. Google Street View should have been designed to respect the right to be forgotten.
This would have allowed people to request that their personal information be removed from
public view if they wished. The right to vanish and the right to be forgotten are fundamental
human rights. Google Street View should have been designed to respect these rights.
The James Grimmelmann reading expresses how selling products to different
consumers is safe for use and not used to invade people’s privacy. It also shows that many
Facebook users don’t care about protecting their privacy. They should have privacy options and
feel the ability to express themselves if they choose to. Google Maps takes away people’s
privacy by having users look up other people’s houses and business buildings. It can also find
out where a person lives with a ridiculous button click. This can be a perfect example of
deontology because people can just pick up their phones or smart devices to choose to harass
or stalk another user, no matter if it’s wrong or right. Grimmelmann argues that they are two
types of privacy which are informational and decisional privacy. Informational privacy is the right
to control data about oneself, and decisional privacy is the right to make decisions about
themselves without any interference. He also states that Google violated a lot of people’s data
without their knowledge about gathering it. Since Facebook users are not caring about
protecting the privacy of other users, it lies in the hand of the law to execute demands on
Facebook to have privacy options for their consumer users. In the story, Grimmelmann displays
many objective points used to create the product disturbed to consumers. The first objective is
to make the product sellers liable if the consumer is at fault for the accident. According to
Grimmelmann, comparative fault principles may reduce the consumer’s recovery. However, the
seller is still held liable for selling the consumer a defective product in the first place.
Sometimes, it may help with their medical bills or financial situations if the accident occurs. The
second objective is to make the product safe to disclaim so that the consumer doesn’t use
disclaimers and remains with the safety rules of the product. Grimmelmann makes disclaimers
unenforceable “for harm to persons,” and many states have laws forbidding the disclaimer of
product warranties. He also said that this rule has particular importance for services like
Facebook, which require users to “consent” to contractual agreements when they sign up,
along the way disclaiming all liability on Facebook’s part for any harm in this life or the next. It is
also designed to keep the consumer safe from anything that causes damage while using the
product by getting users to sign a condition and agreement when signing up first for the product.
A perfect example would be playing on Xbox live or signing up on a social media platform; any
user id has to be demanded to agree to all the conditions to protect all product consumers. This
can be a method designed for Google Maps whenever users use the satellites for the street
views without invading other individuals’ privacies. The last point is that the seller or the
company is liable for generic defects of the product whenever it’s sold to a consumer. It will
protect the consumer from not being scammed out of a nonworking product when completing a
purchase. But, if people still scam or misuse people out of money due to many circumstances,
other sellers will have trouble providing for themselves. It is the study of duty, obligation, and
right that Grimmelmann refers to as deontology. When it comes to morality, deontologists are
Hunter Murphy
5/27/2022
more concerned with what one should do than what one accomplishes. Regarding Google
Street View, this means that the company’s primary focus should have been on safeguarding
the privacy of the people whose photographs were used (i.e., providing a detailed street-level
view of cities worldwide). To give a precise street-level picture of cities around the globe,
Google Street View was launched in 2007. Google equipped its vehicles with cameras that
captured photos of the streets as they drove to accomplish this. The photos were stitched
together to gain a full image of the location. WiFi networks within range of the Street View
vehicles were also used to collect data while the cars were on the move. In addition to network
names and addresses, this information also included the MAC addresses of the devices linked
to those networks. The people who owned the networks and the devices did not know or
consent to collect this data. Google claims this information was gathered to enhance the
company’s location-based services. However, many people feel that the firm obtained this data
to spy on people and gather information about them without their permission or knowledge.
The deontology tool reveals that Google should have done more to protect the anonymity of
people recorded in Street View photographs. The company should have ensured that the data
they acquired was only used for the purposes they stated it would be. Even more importantly,
they should have confirmed their data wasn’t used to spy on people or obtain personal
information without their permission.
Many people have been saying that Google Street View violates the privacy of the
individuals who live in the areas where all the photos are taken. Some may say that Google has
been accused of taking pictures of people without their consent and publishing the images
online. Individuals have often complained about their businesses and homes being
photographed without their consent or knowledge. Another complaint many people have been
telling Google Street Views on the review page is that anyone can use it to follow people around
and see where they live. People have often been using this service to learn about someone’s
movements and where a person lives. It can be dangerous to target vulnerable people or
women that predators or stalkers might target. There has been a lot of criticism for their crimes
that criminals used Google Street View to plan robberies and other crimes. In other cases, many
criminals have used Google Street View to find their victims. Even though there are many
criticisms, Google Street View remains a popular service, and millions of people use Google
Street View every day. A more ethical way to implement Google Street View would have been
to get explicit consent from people before taking their pictures and collecting data about their
homes and businesses. This would have respected the autonomy of the people affected by it.