What would have been a more ethical way to implement Google Street View?
Introduction
In my opinion a more ethical way to implement Google Street View would have been to have an opt in approach versus an opt out approach that Google used when first implementing this technology. When they started this technology, they went along roads filming them and posting the pictures to the Internet. As stated in the article many areas of the world were perturbed when Google first started doing this and there were a number of negative reactions including one in which a number of locals in Broughton created a human chain to prevent the Google car from continuing. Additionally, Google’s opt out approach took three steps of effort. Additionally, several hours or days may pass before offending images would disappear from the Google Street View.
Google, in my view came in assuming many things and decided to just take photos and deal with the consequences later while also having a less than simple approach to removing images that also may take a long time. In this Case Analysis I will argue that the ethical tool of Utilitarianism shows us that Google should have proactive in their introduction of this new technology (instead of reactive) and should have a simpler way to remove photos.
Discussion involving Floridi
When discussing Floridi’s work I think that the author’s discussion of information privacy applies to this case. Informational privacy is freedom from informational interference or intrusion. This freedom is due to the restriction on facts about a person that are unknown or unknowable. In this case Google had many vehicles that roamed the United States taking pictures of peoples streets and then posting them on the Internet. I think it could be argued that a lot of such material was not present before Google did this and was thus unknown. However; now an individual from New York could now find out what the condition of a person’s home in Houston, Texas was. Therefore, this person’s home has lost informational privacy.
Additionally, Floridi mentions the concept of Informational Friction. Informational friction is defined as the forces that oppose the flow of information within a region of the infosphere. If Google did not roll out their Street View technology, then the informational fiction regarding what someone’s house looks like would increase. It would be more difficult for one to drive a hundred miles to view someone’s house versus staying at home and looking at it online. As stated by Floridi informational friction is connected with the amount of effort required for some agent to obtain, filter or block information about other agents in a given environment. Therefore, Google Street view would decrease the informational friction for the one that lives a hundred miles away because obtaining that information would be easier.
Also, Floridi mentions the concept of anonymity. Anonymity is defined as the unavailability of personal information, due to the difficulty of collecting/correlating different bits of information about a person. With the introduction of Google Street View and more broadly the Internet anonymity was significantly reduced when it came to peoples homes. This anonymity was lost to people because Google Street View introduced a pretty open (opt-out) system. One lost anonymity and had to actively work to preserve that anonymity. As a result of this I thing that Google’s introduction of this system in an opt-out format was the wrong decision to make.
In reference to the ethical tool of Utilitarianism I think that it is possible that harm came to certain people as a result of this introduction of Google Street View. In the Vaidhyanathan source there were instances of people being photographed in possibly damaging situations. One involved a man vomiting outside of a pub and the other involved a man leaving an adult video store. Additionally, there was a situation in which a naked toddler was photographed was well. This photo was up for 48 hours before it was removed. Vaidhyanathan makes the comment that there was no way to tell how many people saw the image or how many copies were made during that time. It is possible that these images could be used for criminal purposes. Finally, in my opinion this technology, while positive in a small way to a great many people (like having one remember a restaurants name) could have very negative impacts on other individuals (like falling prey to child pornographers). As such I think that the greatest good would not be achieved through the introduction of Google Street View in a opt-out fashion.
Discussion involving Grimmelmann
In terms of the discussion involving Grimmelmann one of the main things he discusses is privacy on Facebook and the myths surrounding it. In his article he states that people that are on Facebook do care about privacy. He notes when New Feed was introduced on Facebook there was massive user protest (such that Mark Zuckerberg had to apologize to the Facebook community). Other examples he references were protest occurred was with Facebook’s Beacon advertising system and a year after with a change in its data-retention policy. These examples of how users act in relation to privacy supports the opinion that Google Street View should not have introduced an open (opt-out) system. According to Grimmelmann there appears to be many Facebook users that care about privacy and it is not unreasonable to think that there care would translate to Google Street View.
Additionally, another section of Grimmelman’s article discusses Privacy as Product Safety. In section he compares Facebook to a hammer with Facebook being potentially hazardous to one’s privacy and a hammer being potentially hazardous to one’s thumb. He goes on to say that one should not ban Facebook or hammers rather the challenge that exists is to make sure that the tools people use are not unnecessarily dangerous. This adds to the argument that Google should not have implemented their Street View technology in such an open (opt-out) way. Google Street View’s implementation was unnecessarily dangerous in my opinion and exposed people to criminal elements. In my opinion I believe that negative consequences occurred from Google’s implementation of their Street View technology and that changes should have occurred.
Also, Grimmelman discussed the technology of Google Buzz. Google Buzz is a combination of email, blogging as well as social networking. It got in trouble when it allowed one to import one’s list of most emailed contacts from Gmail. This action, combined with Google’s requirement for Buzz users to set up public profile pages – public profile pages that listed their Buzz contacts caused privacy trouble. As a result, turning on Buzz published a list of users’ most emailed Gmail contacts automatically. This caused a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) complaint and a class-action lawsuit to be triggered. This is another example of the privacy problems that can occur and adds weigh to the argument that Google Street View should not have been so open (opt-out) in regards to its implementation.
Finally, I think that the ethical tool of Utilitarianism can be connected to Grimmelman’s article through the protest that ensued among Facebook users when News Feed was introduced. Utilitarianism (which is a common form of consequentialism) would say that due to protesting this would lead to a lot of dissention and conflict among people and ultimately not increase the amount of good in the world. This argument could be applied to Google’s implementation of Street View. When Street View was implemented in Japan there was concern about how the technology was being implemented. As a result Google had to reshoot the streets lower, to avoid peering over hedges and fences. It is not unreasonable to think that Google’s implementation of this technology caused distress among the population of Japan and I argue that it did not increase the amount of good.
Conclusion
In conclusion I believe that Google should not have implemented their Street View technology in an open (opt-out) manner. Rather they should have adopted a more privacy centric approach and instead provided an opt-in system. In my view this would have reduced security concerns. In the book The 4th Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality by Luciano Floridi they discuss different terms that are involved in this discussion. The terms of informational privacy, Informational Friction and anonymity are discussed and are used to support the argument of the paper. Additionally, the article “Privacy as a product safety” by James Grimmelmann is discussed and its statements about Facebook Privacy, Product Safety and Google are used to support the argument of the paper. Finally, the ethical tool of utilitarianism is explained and is used in support of the paper as well. Information provided by Floridi, Grimmelmann and the ethical tool of utilitarianism provide support to the paper and help to inform the understanding of the topic.