Google Street View launched in 2007, it offered a pedestrian level view of buildings and homes. Street View received instant criticism, with many citing privacy concerns over its launch. It also received praise for its usefulness. An architect described using it to help plan community design, since it effectively eliminated the long process of taking hundreds of photographs of an area. Using Street View the architect could seamlessly “walk” down a street and view the whole community, instead of having to flip through individual photographs (Vaidhyanathan, pg 99). In 2008, Osamu Higuchi, wrote a letter to Google. His letter was meant to show Googles lack of understanding of Japanese customs, given that it is not considered good behavior to take pictures of people’s private homes and alleyways (Vaidhyanathan, pg 103). In Britain, there was also backlash towards Google, with citizens pleading that Street View would give easy access to criminals who could plan robberies from a computer screen (Vaidhyanathan, pg 105). Barron, made a point to explain the differences between urban and rural areas. Urban areas are much more used to the lack of privacy, with CCTVs being on every major street corner in the UK. In these urban areas, citizens were much more accepting of Street View, they instantly put it to use to find their way around the city (Vaidhyanathan, pg 107). In this Case Analysis I will argue that consequentialism shows us that Google should have opted to blur out faces, and license plates by default, rather than leaving it to citizens to do. Especially considering that many private citizens may have been photographed unaware. Google should also have done a better job in planning to accommodate the customs of different countries and areas.
Floridi elaborates greatly on the shortcomings of both the reductionist and ownership-based interpretations of privacy (Floridi, pg 11). He also explains that privacy has a different context in a public setting, with an example that fits in perfectly with the case of Google Street View. He poses the question “How could a CCTV system be a breach of someone’s privacy if the person in question is accessing a space that is public in all possible senses anyway? (Floridi, pg 11)” Floridi then explains that ICTs can degrade and strengthen informational privacy, and this falls in line greatly with the Case Analysis.
The former question posed by Floridi brings a great point about Google Street View, given that Google Street View vehicles completed all photography from public streets and access points. The pictures are the exact same view that a jogger, deliver person, or salesperson would have while traveling through the community. Another point to make is that it is a vast difference in Google Street Views captures, which occurred at a single point in time, rather than CCTVs in urban areas which capture constant footage. From a consequentialist viewpoint, I believe the benefits of this service Google provided, far outweigh the negative points. Some of the protesting arguments, such as thieves being able to stake out robberies online, do not seem to hold much weight. While being able to see the neighborhood layout and location of front doors and windows might give the aspiring thief some information. It does not provide the would-be thief with knowledge of the victim’s day to day schedule, total number of occupants, or even if there is a dog at the house.
In a consequentialist view, Google brings about a service that can benefit the common person greatly. This is shown in the number of helpful tools that utilize Google Street View. For instance, a new delivery driver can easily plan their route and make note of proper areas to park when making deliveries. They can make note of whether they will be entering a gated community, or a long driveway. There have been issues where delivery drivers have been harassed, and even detained by homeowners. In some cases, it seems that the homeowners acted in a racist manner, so I believe it is best to provide delivery drivers with whatever tool is available to help protect them.
“In many countries where Street View has launched, there is a degree of controversy within the first few weeks. There is an element of the shock of the new. People aren’t used to Street View and perhaps feel a bit uncomfortable with it in the beginning. But after a couple of weeks it tends to die down.” Quoted from Bannon (Vaidhyanathan pg 103). This quote sums up a great deal about the initial complaints of Street View, where it seemed to be an outspoken minority who complained about Street View. While, a majority of people were silently enjoying the service provided by Google. This silent majority supports a consequentialist viewpoint for this case.
Grimmelmann elaborates about the myths of privacy, relating to Facebook. These myths correlate greatly into the case of Google Street View, especially given that both companies deal greatly with the collection of data. These myths include that one does not care about privacy, one makes rational privacy choices, and one’s desire for privacy are unrealistic (Grimmelmann pg 796). These lead into his fourth “half-myth” about privacy law and Facebook, which is: “Regulating Facebook as a database will solve Andrea’s privacy problems” (Grimmelmann pg 796). This brings about his idea about database regulation being a “good idea, but also a distraction from other privacy issues.” Based on this reasoning, we can conclude that many of the complaints about Google Street View, do not really hold any basis. Given that the photos taken by Google, could be taken by any single individual. Meaning a regular person could walk down a street and photograph houses as much as they liked, while this might cause a confrontation with neighbors, it is not illegal.
There is a great correlation between Grimmelmann’s analysis of “Privacy as Product Safety” and the case about Street View. He notes a study (Grimmelmann pg 801) that determined over half of the users questioned had no idea that their profiles were searchable by people that did not know. Then again, another study found that about 40% of people were accepting the friend request of a green, plastic fraud. This shows that much of the user base is lacking in actions to take regarding privacy. While it does fall on the user, I feel that these companies should better cater to non-technologically sound users. This brings about a point made in the Google Street View case. Since most citizens were not aware that their residences and properties were being recorded, Google should have erred on the side of caution by blurring license plates, as well as people. Google’s failure in setting the default to “maximum exposure” leaves much to be desired in this case. The right course of action, from a consequentialist view, would be to have blurred personal information and faces right from the start.
From a utilitarian ethical perspective, Google Street View brings great services right into the hands of consumers. Given that most of the population uses technology, or knows someone that could use technology for them, there are many helpful services that utilize Street View as a core component of said services. Zillow allows users to search for prospective homes to purchase. Users can see pricing, sales history of a home, as well as a picture of the property, thanks to Street View. This service helps people choose a location that fits budget, as well as customer tastes. Given that military members change location every few years, and on-post housing is not always accessible, I believe this service is of great importance to them. From a utilitarian viewpoint, having a military brings a benefit to the greater good of society, I make the argument that Google Street View is utilitarian in its ethics.
I can see the initial privacy concerns and outrage when Street View first released. It monumentally changed things, and there was going to be some friction with the initial release. However, as time went on, those against Street View either changed their opinion as they began to use the service, or they just gave up when they realized that Street View is here to stay. The main arguments about privacy concerns seem to disappear when users find that personal info (license plates) have been blurred out. While browsing Street View, I found my old vehicle in front of my parents’ house. I never changed or requested any privacy options from Google, however my license plates are still blurred out. This shows that Google did indeed listen to concerns and implement solutions to those concerns. It can be determined that the societal benefits of Street View vastly outnumber the negative impacts. With a quick google search, there are several articles about actual crimes that were help solved thanks to Google Street View.
Sources:
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012). “Street View” And the Universalization of Surveillance. In The googlization of everything: (and why we should worry). essay, University of California Press.
Floridi, L. (2016). Privacy: Informational Friction. In The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. essay, Oxford University Press.
Grimmelmann, J. (2018). Privacy as product safety. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/pkcvd