Introduction

With the modernization of the world, there have been many advancements throughout life especially within the likes of technology. The Googlization of Everything by Siva Vaidhyanathan examines the impacts of how Google has transformed the lives of humans and how it has disrupted the culture, economy, and society. With the continuous use of technology worldwide Google’s so-called reign in the world has only grown larger with each passing year. Google is a massive entity within the technological atmosphere, this brings into question the goal that Google is seeking which entire societies must be disrupted to achieve. Vaidhyanathan expresses that Google’s intentions are associated with influence amongst humans and creating a world in which only Google provides the information we seek. Furthermore, this allows Google to be at center stage in terms of a concentration of power within the technological world. With Google’s dominant influence on people and technology, there must be an examination of how Google’s intentions are immoral and constructed only for the success of Google itself.  This case analysis along with the help of the consequentialist tool will show that Google should let go of its evil methods which would allow for a balance to be formed between the technology Google uses and people around the world.

Privacy: Informational Friction

With this case dealing with Google’s technology, more specifically Google Street View, the use of other concepts from two other authors will allow for a better examination of why Google’s intentions are unethical. Luciano Floridi expresses a couple of concepts with his book The Fourth Revolution. In this book, Floridi  has a section in his book that addresses aspects of privacy and the issues that arise within these aspects. One of the concepts being discussed throughout this book is the issue that informational privacy is a function of friction within the so-called infosphere. This means that informational privacy is determined as the force that is disrupting the flow of information throughout cyberspace. Floridi also points out that information and communication technologies are creating friction within the infosphere, which is in turn affecting the true nature of the infosphere. Since these information and communication technologies are disrupting the true nature of the infosphere this results in humans underappreciating the value of informational privacy. Florida believes that this disruption of nature by these information and communication technologies can be seen as a breach of one’s information privacy as well as hostility towards one’s identity. 

Luciano Floridi’s concepts express the notion that information and communication technologies should be balanced as well as not disrupt the true nature of the infosphere. Since the infosphere is a collection of personal information, data, and knowledge, having protection that does not disrupt or alter this data is a must. Protection and anti-disruption are key crucial factors that information and communication technologies should be able to achieve. By delivering protection amongst information that is connected to a plethora of people a proper balance can be achieved. This proper balance is determined by the technologies’ ability to protect the data, information, and knowledge about everyone it encounters as well as not disrupting the privacy that is attached to data, information, and knowledge. Once the information and communication technologies can achieve this obstacle of protection without disruption, humans can be able to put more trust in these technologies. 

The concepts that Luciano Floridi mentions can be connected to a consequentialist mindset because consequentialists judge things right or wrong according to what the consequences are. Floridi’s consequentialist mindset is shown by how he thinks that information and communication technologies are disrupting and altering the flow of informational privacy. Floridi stands against information and communication technologies because these technologies are creating and presenting many negative consequences that are affecting one’s identity. Floridi also feels that information and communication technologies are portraying many instances of friction and aggression throughout the infosphere. These instances of friction, aggression, and disruption are also negative consequences that Floridi can stand with and must stand against. While Floridi is only one man standing up against the information and communication technologies’ actions, more individuals could stand against them in the future.   If the information and communication technologies were able to find a way to eliminate these negative consequences Floridi’s consequentialist mindset would be able to agree with how information and communication technologies operate.

Privacy as a Product of Safety

Luciano Floridi’s concepts provided valuable information about how the infosphere, and personal privacy can be affected by information and communication technologies. The next article is called Privacy as a Product of Safety by James Grimmelmann. Just like Floridi’s book, Grimmelmann’s article discusses concepts connected to the ideas of privacy. Grimmelmann’s concepts about privacy are more focused on the aspects of social media. Facebook is at center stage and where Grimmelmann constructs and expresses his concepts. Grimmelmann expresses the idea that people who use social media platforms care about privacy. Grimmelmann brings into focus that people who use these social media platforms deserve a sense of privacy. With social media platforms being a place where people exchange personal information, Grimmelmann addresses that some might have trouble securing information privately amongst these social media platforms. Many of these social media platforms fail to engage in the social aspects that are created within these social media environments.

               James Grimmelmann’s concepts examine the common assumptions about privacy amongst social media platforms that differ from reality. With people who are common users within these social media platforms, the distribution of personal data and information is a common occurrence. Like most social media platforms Facebook can use their user’s data and information in ways that the person is not familiar with. Grimmelmann sees this distribution of one’s data and information as problematic and stresses the importance of physically safe platforms. On top of stressing the idea of having a physically safe platform, he also brings to light the need for software that protects one’s privacy as well. Facebook’s attachment to a person is why this social media platform needs to be physically safe. The importance of keeping a social media platform physically safe is due to its constant contact with individuals, information, hardware, and software. If a social media platform is unable to upkeep its physical protection this could result in an action or event that could cause economic loss for the platform or cause injury to one user. While keeping a social media platform physically strong is a vital aspect, having privacy-safe software is also key within a social media platform. By keeping privacy-safe software this will allow the social media platform to safeguard the user’s personal information if it is transmitted across the platform’s environment. Safeguarding user’s personal information will allow users to gain a sense of trust that their privacy is being protected across the social media platform. 

James Grimmelmann’s concepts can be connected to a consequentialist mindset because social media platforms have confounded their users’ expectations about privacy. Grimmelmann’s consequentialist mindset is shown by his examination of how users of the social media platform Facebook care about privacy and do not want to be confined by the platform’s expectations. With a consequentialist mindset, Grimmelmann sees the expectations that are maintained by these social media platforms as wrong since they can disrupt and cause problems for the users of the platforms. If social media platforms like Facebook were able to dissolve these common expectations of privacy and implement a safe environment as well as privacy-safe software Grimmelmann would be able to agree with social media platforms. 

Conclusion

The unethical implementation of Google Street View was better examined with the help of the consequentialist tool, Luciano Floridi’s book, and James Grimmelmann’s article. With the help of these two pieces of literature the question of does Google value privacy can be brought to light. The answer to this question is no, google does not value the principles behind privacy. With the implementation of Google Street View people were blinded by the expectations that were created by Google. These false expectations of privacy bring more consequences that can disrupt the flow and friction of private information. Understanding big technological companies like Google create these false privacy expectations is the first step in creating a world where technology and humans can be balanced. While some people may say that Google does not create false privacy expectations, that statement is wrong. This is because it is not just Google that creates these false privacy expectations, but its other information and communication technologies as well as social media platforms. If these technological companies and social media companies continue to stand behind these false privacy expectations a world where technology and humans can be balanced will never exist.