Case study about street view.

    In the case study, Vaidyanathan talks about Google and the launch of street view.  The add-on to google maps was a hit for most.  This add-on also had many people who had problems with the invasion of privacy that came along with it.  Google did offer to “blur” or remove images if people did have problems with what came out when they were done with their area in street view.  This might have been a peace offering fix from the company.  This fix though did not take into consideration the length of time of the process.  The time to contact the proper number and do the proper email or paperwork.  Then when approved, the time it took to find and do the proper fix or “blur”.  This process left whatever improper view or picture on the internet for everyone to find.  Once on the internet, always on the internet.  In this case analysis I will argue that google was taking a Utilitarian approach to the roll out of street view, help the best by bringing this project online, but Google should have worked harder on the program prior to the world- wide release of the program.

     The idea presented by Floridi of informational friction is central to the argument that Google should have worked harder and fixed more bugs before rollout of the program.  Informational friction is basically how easy it is to obtain or find the information you are looking for.  The author goes into how this simple thing can have a great affect on someone.  The amount of informational friction in the case of street view is zero.  Google when starting the street view program, basically just drove a car around with cameras all around the car.  This alone was a heavy-friction activity.  Though anyone could in theory go around and take pictures of houses, intersections, building because it was from a public street.  The work needed for one individual to walk around and take all the pictures would take days, weeks, months, and even years to do.  This would be a whole lot of informational friction.  This is just the picture work, that would not even include legal or physical harm that the person might incur.  The Google project though from a public area were taking very private video or pictures with this work.  The projects ground- work was very informationally heavy.  The pictures or video were not easy to find yet.  The video or pictures were of peoples’ homes, cars, businesses, places of worship, and on more than a few occasions of people themselves.  This in of itself was not very troubling it is the second part of the project that is where concern start to form.  Google then takes the information that it has collected from a public street or road and put it on the internet for all the world to see.  Google having made a tool that will become useful for some and fun to use for others, and in their eyes will be very beneficial to more than it harms, opens it to all the world.  Google being one of, or the number one search engine made this add-on easy to find.  This now removes any amount of informational friction, the search for street view information is easy to obtain.  This is where I feel google needed to do more work prior to the launch of street view.  People were finding out that pictures of there license plates and even weird pictures of them doing things that normally would not be available were now out there of them.  They were caught off guard because they never knew they were being filmed by anyone.  Google allowed for fixes after the fact for people.  The issue is once on the internet always on the internet.  The Utilitarian approach to this was unfair to a great many people.  These people’s privacy was attacked by the lack of any informational friction.  Though public in nature the people had no warning that a vehicle with cameras was going to be going through your neighborhood today.  This warning may have helped a great many people avoid the embarrassing photo or situation that is easily to get to information caused them.  Would it had been easy for the company to give the areas a heads up to its action?  Google, though its heart and wallet might be in a general good spot, could have been more forth coming with its information on its activities when it was doing it photos or video- taping. They seem in my opinion to take not only the Utilitarian mind set for the roll out, but also, the frame of mind it is easier to ask for forgiveness then permission.

     Grimmelmann writes about that privacy should be thought of with product safety in mind.  He explains that the evolution of how industrial products over time changed how their products were viewed in regard to their safety.  First, take it or leave it where the product was what it was and that is it.  You bought the product as is and if it harmed anyone that was just a by product of the use of the product.  Second, when the consumer base grow, the money was king in the market.  Meaning that if your product was unsafe it did not sell as well.  The so-called supply of good products was in demand.  The third evolution was that the company’s being so big and powerful and rich from the product should be responsible to the customer and provide a safe product.  The courts started to see that the companies before were not concerned at all to the customers who could and possible would be injured by their actions.  The courts and juries were putting a portion of the income gained by the products to make sure the injured were taken care of.  He goes not to say that privacy as a by product of an industry should be consider in the larger laws that cover product safety.  This is where Google should have taken a good long hard look at the photos and video of street view before the world- wide launch.  The company should have considered the safety of the product in this case privacy.  The company should have known that the cars that were video taping or taking photos were going to take inappropriate photos or videos. The statistics alone would have spelled this out to them.  I also, bet that google employees or related people by percentage were not caught as often as the normal folks in inappropriate photos.  The company did not live stream the information straight to the internet.  The cars went out to collect the data.  The data was returned to home office.  Then the tech people went to work on it and did what it is they do to make it work.  Then the final step was the launch.  The missing step was the safety of the photos or video that they received.  The rule should be that be opt for their privacy and have to opt in to have all the video or photos out there.  The company should have blurred all license plates and faces out as a standard.  They could have taken to an area at a time to have opt in information for people.  This company took the easy way and stance that it would rather make it hard for the people, who had no prior knowledge of this invasion to their privacy, to have the bad removed.  These people will never be able to get this information back under lock and key once google did this.  The company took the stance of that we have deep pockets and the laws of the land has not caught up with technology so good luck.  The company as stated before was coming from the best for the most with the least harm.  It did this by making a product that people in the end enjoy and it is useful to some.  This product harm is so irreversible that even though it only bother a very few, it harmed ones that can’t or don’t know what is going on. 

  I feel that Google took the Utilitarian approach to the ethical nature of the street view add-on.  The company should have done more to protect the privacy of people.  An objection to my view would be that laws are very ambiguous in the world of privacy in the United States and very different in other parts of the world.  This would lead to a long and hard process of doing the least harm. Even possibly slow down the launch of the product. I would argue that the company should have used the country with the most stringent privacy laws and used that as the blueprint to what should be blurred and what should be put out into the internet without permission. I do feel that my position would make it harder for companies to launch new and exciting products more often. I know another major problem in my argument is that advancements would be slowed down or even dead in the water. The privacy of people needs to be considered more of a right, than an after thought for profits.  There needs to be laws to make this more of a balance than just how much could it cost us.