Since the release of Street View, there have been a ton of privacy concerns regarding Google and the public. There are a lot of things that Google could have done during the release of Street View regarding people’s privacy. Throughout the case presented by Vaidhyanathan, multiple privacy and ethical concerns made a lot of people unhappy with the release of Street View. The biggest issue is the technology that was made to blur people did not always work and would lead to people getting caught in embarrassing scenarios. Criminals would take advantage of Google’s false promises by taking screenshots of embarrassing moments that were caught on street view. The main issue that Google Street View has is the fact that they wait till someone reports there is an inappropriate or embarrassing photo of them to take it off of Street View. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that utilitarianism shows us that Google should have done a lot better with its promise to keep people’s privacy.

  Luciano Floridi is one of the best philosophers of our time and from his book, The Fourth Revolution how The Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality, specifically chapter 5 titled Privacy. With the multiple privacy concerns that come with Google Street View, this chapter can help a lot in assessing and analyzing the issues and solving them using utilitarianism. Why utilitarianism?, because I believe that the privacy issues that arose with Street View are a larger problem than it seems, and fixing said problems would lead to many people’s privacy being restored. 

Before I get into why Google Street View is terrible at controlling the privacy of the public I have to explain why it is useful so that the pros and the cons can be properly discussed. Google Street View is a great tool for anyone who can access the internet. My favorite thing about it is the fact you can scout for parking lots near your destination. It also can be good for exploring cities, looking at houses that you could buy, the neighborhood around it, and even seeing some historical sites from the comfort of your own home. These are all amazing things, just imagine showing a Victorian child this, their mind would be blown. With these pros come a lot of cons and there are some major ones. Privacy is important to everyone and Street View seems to not care. The issues it comes with bring up a lot of ethical concerns that I believe need to be discussed. 

 Floridi talks about types of privacy and the one in particular that relates to the case is “Informational Privacy.” Floridi says that it is freedom from informational interference or intrusion. When reading Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Googleization of Everything, every issue that Google had was due to taking pictures without people’s consent, this includes taking pictures of private property. When Google Street View was released the public did not have any idea of when the photos were to be taken. This was the first red flag I saw when learning more about Street View. 

In Vaidhyanathan’s case, he talks about the street view pictures going as far as taking pictures over people’s fences. This was such a problem that they had to lower the camera on the car so people’s privacy could stay intact. This was a good step for Google, one of the few promising changes Google made to make people more accepting of Street View and would make Floridi happy. This change was only made in Japanese cities because a man named Osamu Higuchi sent an open letter to Google asking them to remove some residential areas from the map because they value privacy more than the states. He said that taking photos of people’s living spaces was impolite which I agree with. In the US it is usually just a sign that tells when something is private property but in Japan, the street in front of someone’s house is considered there and they treat it as such. 

With all this being said how does it pertain to utilitarianism? Luciano Floridi talks a lot about anonymity in his case and how in the nineteenth century there were no privacy concerns because of how hard it was to get information about someone. With how Google had Street View in launch there were licence plates and addresses shown in Street View. Any criminal could use street view to look at nice cars or homes to target and simply look up the address or license plate to see who it belonged to. Information now is way too easy to get. I believe it is a bad thing when it comes to this. The bad severely outweighs the good in this situation. Shutting down the service would be better for the majority. It is not ethical to keep it up because it has more use for criminals than it does for the average person. This is why I think the case pertains to utilitarianism.

Privacy and consent go hand and hand. With technology becoming more and more viable every day there are times when small things can get past the normal person. Privacy policies are something that every website requires nowadays. I have a bad habit of not reading them and just accepting them without knowing the reason behind them. I believe that Google should have a privacy form or a consent form that needs to be accepted before taking pictures of people and their homes. Street view could be a better place and yes it would mean having gaps in the streets but it would be better for everyone because they would have the choice of having their home or self on it. 

Facebook also has some privacy issues according to James Grimmelmann. Just like Google taking pictures of people without their consent and posting them on Street View, users on Facebook can do a similar thing. By taking a picture of a party or posting random videos of people doing things like keg stands, they can post it without the consent of the people in the videos. They can go as far as tagging them in the post. Someone who has a professional job would not want their boss to see them partying the night before a big meeting which could cause them to get fired. James Grimmelmann makes a point that college students got really good at checking Facebook and removing their tag from a post that someone made about them so their future would not be affected. 

This is one of James Grimmelmann’s ideas coming to fruition. He believes that online actions have real-world consequences and I think that it is 100% the truth. Digital footprint is a real thing and companies look at your social media when applying for a job so it is important to keep things to yourself especially if it is something not suitable for a professional. What does this have to do with the Google Street View case? Well, the Street View car goes around on a random day to take pictures of the area and has been known to take pictures of embarrassing moments. In Vaidhyanathan’s case, he discusses the matter of criminals taking screenshots of a man throwing up outside of a bar and a man walking out of an adult toy store to presumably blackmail them with embarrassing pictures. These pictures were posted online after Google took off the spots with the embarrassing moments of those poor souls that were caught on camera. This could have made them get fired, just like Grimmelmann’s idea. The real problem with Street View is that even if a photo is inappropriate or embarrassing they will not take it off unless someone reports the image. This is an issue because not everyone who uses Street View knows how to report a sighting. Some people are less technically able and struggle to deal with those issues. All these issues need to be fixed to help people not get fired or worse, blackmailed.

The trouble that social media seems to bring does not seem worth it. Facebook could do an easy fix and not allow people to post photos or videos but that seems like something they would not do. From a utilitarian lens, I think there should be something that asks for consent to a person being posted. They could implement face recognition that requires consent from the other person when the program notices their face. This may seem like a lot of work but I know with how quickly technology is evolving that it can be a possibility. The same could be used for Google Street View. If they get someone in their photos they could send them a message asking if they wanted to be removed from Street View. Google’s latest phones use AI to photoshop unwanted things in photos and they could use a similar program to remove the people who do not wish to be shown. I believe this constitutes utilitarianism because of the majority of people who wish to keep their privacy.

In conclusion, by installing a consensual privacy policy Google can solve their privacy issue with their street view. They need to make it easier for those who are less technically able to report an image. I know making everyone in the world who uses Google accept or deny the consensual privacy policy would be hard but I know it can be done to preserve their privacy. If there can be no such policy, make a program that can take humans, cars, and addresses off-street view. It will make it much safer and much more respectful of people’s private lives. Japan was on to something when they made the camera on the car lower so it does not peep over people’s fences. I think that should be implied across the world. Finally, make it known to people when the car is coming so that they can be aware and not be caught off guard by the camera. It will make people glad to know when it is coming so that they can prepare. It would also be nice to have an assumed timeslot so they know when they can be out and about. Getting rid of Street View is another option. These changes would make the world a more private place and would make the majority happier.