By: Gerkeil Owens
In this case analysis I will be looking into the critique of Siva Vaidhyanathan on Google Street View. Vaidhyanathan raises concerns about the potential privacy infringements resulting from Google’s mass collection of street-level imagery. This paper aims to analyze a few ethical implications of Google Street View using the concepts presented by Luciano Floridi and James Grimmelmann and applying a specific ethical tool. The central argument is that, in light of Floridi’s information ethics and Grimmelmann’s contextual integrity, a more ethical implementation of Google Street View could have involved enhanced transparency, privacy-by-design principles, and a thorough consideration of contextual integrity. I will argue that using a consequentialist ethical tool such as utilitarianism could help Google Street View implement a more private and ethically sound approach during the development and deployment of street view.
Google Street View is a feature of Google Maps that provides users with panoramic views of businesses, streets, and locations. However, the implementation of Street View has raised ethical concerns regarding privacy and the collection of personal information. In his article, Vaidhyanathan highlights the case of Google Street View capturing and storing personal data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks during its mapping process. This data included emails, passwords, and other sensitive information, leading to legal actions and public concerns.To analyze this case, I will first turn to the different informational concepts proposed by Floridi.
Floridi’s concept of “informational norms” emphasizes the need for responsible information practices. Applying this to Google Street View, ethical considerations should have prompted Google to prioritize transparency.The lack of sufficient information provided to the public about data collection and processing methods, as noted by Vaidhyanathan, raises concerns about informed consent and informational norms. According to Floridi, informational privacy refers to the control individuals have over the collection, use, and dissemination of their personal information. In the case of Google Street View, the collection of personal data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks without consent violates individuals’ informational privacy. Google should have respected individuals’ control over their personal information and obtained explicit consent before collecting and storing it. Google’s actions prioritize the collection and aggregation of data over the protection of individual privacy, resulting in an ethical imbalance. Which relates to another concept from Floridi’s work, that concept being informational asymmetry. This concept refers to situations where one party has more access to information than another, leading to a power imbalance. In the case of Google Street View, there was a significant informational asymmetry between Google and the individuals whose images were captured.Google had access to detailed information about people’s homes and neighborhoods, while individuals had limited knowledge of how their data was being used. To address this asymmetry and promote ethical implementation, Google could have been more transparent about its data collection practices and provided individuals with clear options to opt-out of having their images captured. By empowering individuals with more control over their personal information, Google could have mitigated the power imbalance and respected their privacy.
Floridi’s concepts of “Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)” and “informational friction” offer valuable insights into the privacy concerns associated with Google Street View. The service, falling under ICT, minimizes informational friction, thereby influencing anonymity and privacy. Google Street View, as an ICT, plays a role in the reduction of informational friction. The seamless flow of information facilitated by this technology diminishes barriers that traditionally impede data dissemination. While this feature enhances accessibility and convenience, it raises privacy concerns. Anonymity, as Floridi defines it, is the unavailability of personal information. In the context of Google Street View, the service’s ability to capture detailed images of identifiable locations, including residential properties and personal vehicles, erodes the veil of anonymity. The reduction of informational friction leads to an increased availability of personal information, challenging the conventional notion of privacy.
The scenario of being able to spot an individual’s vehicle on Google Street View vividly illustrates the potential privacy implications. A single identifiable element, such as a unique vehicle, can serve as a gateway to discovering the owner’s residence and subsequently, more personal information like the social security number or even medical records. The reduction in anonymity, driven by the low informational friction facilitated by Google Street View, highlights the need for ethical considerations in balancing technological advancements with privacy rights. In addressing the challenges posed by reduced anonymity, ethical frameworks should be applied to guide the development and implementation of technologies like Google Street View. Which is why using utilitarianism is very important, because it would make the creators of google street view consider and implement ways that could help tourists or people new to the city navigate unknown territories, while also making sure they maximize protecting their privacy, residents privacy, and security measures in place to ensure that everyone is safe and happiness, so that it can maximize the good and happiness for everyone as whole and not just tourists or people new to a certain place.
Looking at this problem through a utilitarian lens, it provides a valuable framework for weighing these factors and guiding decisions to maximize overall well-being and minimize harm in society that could help google street view implement improvements and ways to get consent from consumers to maximize their safety, privacy, happiness, and user experience while using the app. Looking through the utilitarian lens the right thing for google street view to do is add security measures that could help users not be able to identified so easily, so that it could help society as a whole because this could not only protect tourists, but also the people and others who have already know that area privacy as well and that truly matters because it helps more people and it also protects privacy, which will lead to less carjackings, robberies, and decreases the likeliness of criminals being able to plan escapes. While also maximizing the users’ experience keeping them and society happy by knowing their privacy is protected, knowing the app is a secure app, less crimes, less likely to be targeted for a robbery, residents privacy is protected, and they will still be able to use the app.
While the service offers undeniable advantages in terms of navigation and accessibility, its potential to infringe on privacy rights and facilitate malicious activities raises concerns about its net utility.This involves careful considerations of consent, transparency, and the potential impact on individuals’ privacy. Floridi’s concepts provide a foundation for understanding the intricate relationship between ICT, informational friction, anonymity, and privacy, prompting a critical examination of the ethical dimensions surrounding the use of technologies that influence our informational environments.
Grimmelmann’s concept of “contextual integrity” adds another layer to the analysis. Privacy norms are context-dependent, and Google Street View, by capturing detailed images without sufficient regard for contextual integrity, may violate individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy in certain contexts. A more ethical approach would involve understanding and respecting the contextual integrity of different environments and communities as whole, because that’s where utilitarianism comes into play because the right thing to do is put the safety and happiness of everyone into consideration while increasing the amount of good, which is keeping individuals’ information private, keeping them secure on the app, and decrease the rate of them being a target to robberies from criminals being on the app watching their every more. Google street view is doing more harm than good with how it’s being runned now, because it puts users on the app and residents at risk by allowing locations, vehicles, and addresses to be seen. From a utilitarianism point of view that would be bad because it doesn’t maximize the amount of good considering the problems I have provided throughout this analysis, although it does some good, but some isn’t good enough compared to what good could be done, if they had implemented using the utilitarianism ethical tool. Another thing to add while looking at Grimmelmann’s perspective, his concept of publicness is relevant to the case of Google Street View. Grimmelmann argues that publicness is not a binary concept but exists on a spectrum. While streets and public spaces may be considered public, individuals still have a reasonable expectation of privacy within those spaces. Google Street View’s indiscriminate collection of personal data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks violates this reasonable expectation of privacy.
The issue of seller liability, as discussed by Grimmelmann, aligns with Google’s automatic blurring of personal details. The admission that the process of viewing things is not foolproof raises concerns about design defects. Grimmelmann emphasizes that liability drives sellers to adopt better and safer designs. In the context of Google Street View, this implies a responsibility for continuous improvement in fixing algorithms to enhance user privacy and mitigate potential risks.Grimmelmann’s insights on product safety laws, as applied to Google Street View, reveal crucial considerations regarding disclaimers, safety, and liability. These aspects contribute to the broader discussion about the ethical implications of deploying technologies that capture and disseminate public and private spaces. The assertion that disclaimers and warnings are not a substitute for a safe product is relevant to the topic of Google Street View. While Google may provide disclaimers regarding the use of Street View images, the potential misuse of images and easy access to notice someone’s vehicle as noted throughout this analysis, underscores the limitations of disclaimers. The interplay between product safety laws and Google Street View prompts a critical examination of the ethical obligations of technology providers. It underscores the need for a balance between innovation and user safety. Grimmelmann’s argument reinforces the idea that technology companies like Google should actively address design defects, prioritize user safety, and acknowledge the evolving landscape of the threat and privacy concerns. Another argument in Grimmelmann’s case would be that a genuinely safe product would entail a design that inherently prevents the possibility of aiding criminal activity, acknowledging that disclaimers and warnings alone are not enough to safeguard sensitive and personal information.
Grimmelmann’s perspective on product safety laws offers a lens through which we can evaluate the ethical considerations of Google Street View. The limitations of disclaimers, the importance of intrinsic safety in design, and the liability of sellers underscore the ethical responsibilities that accompany the development and deployment of technologies that intersect with public and private spaces. Really looking deep into grimmelmann’s perspective it holds this standard that encourages sellers to explore and adopt designs that prioritize user safety without imposing undue financial burdens. It establishes a benchmark against which the quality of a product’s design can be measured, promoting a proactive approach to safety. In the context of Google Street View, this perspective suggests that the automatic blurring process, while a step toward privacy protection, should be continuously refined to meet evolving standards. The consideration of alternative designs that enhance privacy without compromising the functionality of the service becomes important, aligning with the ethical principle of ensuring the safety of users’ information.
Using a utilitarian framework to evaluate Google Street View’s operation in bigger cities yields a nuanced perspective on its ethical implications. Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, assesses the morality of an action based on the overall balance of good versus bad consequences It produces. In the case of Google Street View in bigger cities , the potential benefits include increased tourism and community visibility, which can contribute to economic growth and social connectedness. However, these positives must be weighed against the negative consequences, such as heightened fear of criminal activity, robberies, can help criminals plan escape routes after doing wrong, the amount of information you can see on there, individuals’ vehicles can be easily seen, and privacy violations.
Vaidhyanathan’s observation of residents blocking a Google vehicle out of fear that criminals would exploit Street View to plan burglaries underscores the perceived risks associated with the service.This fear reflects a concern that the net bad resulting from Google Street View’s operation in different cities outweighs the good. Indeed, the possibility of criminals using Street View to scout potential targets or individuals being photographed in compromising positions raises legitimate ethical concerns. These negative outcomes can have significant repercussions for the safety and privacy of residents in these cities, potentially outweighing any perceived benefits that the app provides.Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, if the sum of bad consequences outweighs the sum of good consequences, Google Street View’s implementation in different cities would be considered unethical. While it may offer certain benefits, the harm and negative impact on the community suggests that greater caution and ethical consideration are warranted in its deployment, which is why I argued that using a consequentialist ethical tool such as utilitarianism could help Google Street View implement a more ethically sound way to do things that will help society as a whole be happy and safe not just tourists, but everybody including tourists.
In conclusion, an ethical implementation of Google Street View, viewed through Floridi’s concept of privacy, necessitates prioritizing informed consent. Respecting individuals’ autonomy in the digital realm is crucial, and Google should have taken more deliberate steps to ensure users’ understanding and agreement with the data collection process. This approach aligns with the broader ethical imperative of considering the impact of technological advancements on individuals’ informational environments. While on the other hand Grimmelmann’s exploration of product safety laws provides a framework for evaluating the ethical dimensions of deploying technologies that intersect with public and private spaces. By emphasizing the limitations of disclaimers, the importance of intrinsic safety in design, and the liability of sellers, Grimmelmann contributes to the ongoing conversation about responsible technological innovation and the protection of user privacy. The use of utilitarianism prioritizes the overall consequences of actions rather than adherence to rules or principles. By applying these frameworks to Google Street View, decision-makers can prioritize actions that lead to the greatest overall benefit while minimizing harm, thereby promoting the well-being of society as a whole. Utilitarianism provides practical guidelines for decision-making by emphasizing real-world outcomes and consequences. When addressing the ethical challenges posed by Google Street View, these frameworks offer a systematic approach to evaluating the effects of different policies, regulations, and interventions, helping stakeholders and users make informed and ethically responsible choices for the safety and happiness of everyone. While also raising questions about the ethical implications of prioritizing the greater good while acknowledging and addressing potential concerns to ensure responsible and ethical technological implementation.