| jcrab005

Jacob Crabtree
Old Dominion University
PHIL 335E
Case Analysis #1

In the publishing of Vaidyanathan’s work titled “The googlization of everything”, the author is
emphasizing their wiring on the occurrence and implementation of Google Street view. It was a new and
strange technology to most of the world that allowed an all-around view of every street within a given
city. Vaidyanathan explains how in different countries how it was rolled out and the difference in
opinions that occurred. A general consensus is that most people were not excited that their personal
photos or property were being advertised for everyone across the globe to take part in viewing. Some
parties were even deeply offended and several countries did try to fight Google on their levels of
“privacy”. Vaidyanathan also discusses that even though Google seemed to have an answer for every
complaint, they never truly broke down what their ideas or rules of “privacy” were and how it was, if at
all, empathetic to different cultures and religions as to what is considered public and private. The author
does speak on that even though there is surveillance and other types of media that do in some ways
hinder our privacy at times, the reach and detail that the street view technology covers is alarming and
does eliminate allot of what we as a society hold as private information or space and definitely evokes a
sense of alarm and discomfort. Rather than re-evaluate how they carried out their technology and their
settings they had in place, google chose to continue their vague privacy setting as well as continued the
global introduction of their new technology as well. In this case analysis, I will argue that Deontology
shows us that Google should have revised or even rolled back their technology until they could ensure
the privacy of society that was being asked of them and they could respect the difference of privacy
amongst the different countries as well.
In the excerpt from Floridi, Floridi discusses the different levels of privacy as well as how
important privacy. Often times privacy is usually considered important and high value because of some
outside relevance or aspect that people tie to it but it is more so overlooked that privacy is important to
us as society simply because it is private. There is no outside reasoning or explanation needed to explain
why keeping certain things private is necessary other than the owner of said information or items deems
it private, the concept of privacy is self-constituting and Floridi makes it a point to touch on this and
then break down some of the different types of privacy. The author discusses the different types of
privacy as physical, mental, decisional, and informational. The author focuses more into the
informational aspect of privacy and the level of privacy is ultimately determined by the level of
informational friction there is. Informational friction is the force or object that impedes the information
from being transferred from one person or space to another, so the lower the informational friction, the
more easily accessible the information is to someone which then lowers the level of privacy. Even
though the author focused on informational privacy, the idea of informational friction applies to any
type of privacy because they all involve some level of information so in order for that particular
information to stay hidden or private, there needs to also be a higher level of friction or security to keep
it that way.
Floridi’s concept of informational friction ties in with the ethical tool of deontology. Deontology
is the ethical view that an action is considered right or wrong under rules that have been set in place and
not purely based off the consequences of the action. Often times this view is seen similar to “do onto
others as you would have them do to you” or the golden rule. This ethical view can apply to the
informational friction aspect. Privacy is deemed self-constituting and therefore important to our society

and that privacy is only upheld through there always being some level of informational friction or level
of privacy and security. If the level of privacy cannot be upheld, then the person or person privacy is no
longer being acknowledged or respected and this is an action that is wrong. Most people do not want to
lose their sense of security or privacy, so they should not infringe on the same right of another person.
Google is clearly infringing on most everyone’s privacy by implementing their street view application.
Google in no way tried to notify people that they were carrying out such an invasive technology nor did
they ask permission to start taking photos of not only peoples houses and property but obtained photos
of individuals in the process. This is a clear invasion of privacy and violates the freedom of choice in the
action of surveillance as well. In the United Kingdom, they have no choice but to be surveyed in the
cities due to overall safety concerns for society, but Google does not weigh into decisions of the public’s
safety nor do they have any say to what information or photos are deemed private to an individual,
much less the entire world. In rolling out their technology, Google lowered the level of informational
friction to almost zero which directly impacts the privacy of everyone affected. Since the right of privacy
has been affected and decreased, it is clear that Google acted unethically in regards to society and how
they rolled out their technology. They had plenty of opportunities when lawsuits and complaints from
different governments came through, to take a step back and re-evaluate, but they didn’t. Instead,
Google continued on with their roll out of their technology and continued issuing the same vague
statements that “privacy” was a key value of their company without ever giving details of what they
deem that privacy to be.
In the essay we read from Grimmelmann, the author discusses that clearly Privacy is important
to us as a society, but in regards to apps on phones and computers, it should be considered more
heavily as required to help ensure the safety of the software or product. If the apps and products are
designed more with privacy and security in mind, then there is less possibility of there being instances of
things posted or used within the software or application to where it can affect the users negatively and
in turn, the company. Grimmelmann speaks on different examples in the paper like if there is a teacher
who may face repercussions for a drunk Facebook or Myspace post or if someone’s job may be in
jeopardy due to old photos or even someone’s self-esteem could even be affected by a simple photo or
post made that could cause people online to bully them. Having gaps in the privacy settings and profile
vies on the applications can have negative implications for the users. When the user is not pleased with
the service they have agreed to, then they may take that up with the application company in form of
lawsuits or even the potential boycott of the application and the companies’ products as a whole. When
a user subscribes to an application or product, they know what they are signing on for and what they are
agreeing to in terms of use, but if this was improved upon from the companies view, then it would not
affect the users as much as it occurs now.
In regard to the ethical view of deontology, If the company wishes to keep their profiles and
reputation in good standing as well as maintain their level of privacy, they should also want the same for
their users. The companies such as Facebook or Google should not invade, revoke, or negatively affect
the privacy of the users. As stated earlier in this paper, deontology falls in line with the golden rule, or
“do onto others as you would have them do to you” and although companies aren’t individual people,
they are still entitled to their own level of privacy. If these companies enjoy that right to privacy, then
they should allow their users to be able to evoke their own right to privacy even when using their
applications and software. To not allow them a high level of informational friction or security, the

companies like Google are infringing upon their overall privacy and that in turn has negative effects on
the users in various ways. It is nearly impossible for a company nor a user to wipe away all possible
infringements to one’s privacy but there can be more diligence from the side of the application
companies. In regards to the google street view software technology, Google claims to have “privacy” as
a high value, but consistently is removing the level of friction for individuals by showing their property
and personal photos across the internet. If google itself wants to be allowed to perform their research
and ay to day operations without infringement into their corporation’s privacy of information, they owe
it to their users to at least uphold that level of privacy for them. To hold themselves at a higher point of
privacy and security and to infringe upon society’s privacy and personal space and information is
ethically wrong and does not follow the deontological view. Google is a big enough company and if they
are able to use their power and reach to photograph and document and map out all of society, then
they have the ability to take the time and implement a similar process and technology that does not
infringe on the privacy of the users as much.
Google implemented their new street view technology globally to give a digital updated map for
users to view full view photos of neighborhoods and cities across the world. There are some who take
advantage of this technology as helpful for architecture, city planning, and even to help notate
directions for other but overall, the consensus is not a positive view of the technology. Many people and
countries across the globe feel that this implementation of personal information and photos made
available to the public as a severe invasion of privacy. Google clearly invade privacy of users and did so
without seeking permission of those who are being photographed. They used the mentality of “don’t ask
permission, ask forgiveness” and handled removing photos that were frowned upon after uploading
them. In the deontological view, Google acted wrongly when they themselves seek privacy and expect
that to be upheld, they are not willing to do the same for their global span of users.