In “The Googlization of Everything,” Vaidhyanathan compares Google’s Street view deployment in Google Maps to furthering universal surveillance across the globe. He gives specific cases in various locations around the world that are highly based on the level of surveillance that the population is accustom to, the notification prior to the image capture, and the inevitable die down after the initial uproar. He voices the concerns of some people groups and use cases for those areas it is already implemented. Because of varying regulations, the Google Street view experience will vary. Protestors of the service tend not to win over the government in completely rejecting the image captures that make up Google’s Street view. In case-by-case examples, at least one method exists to have people’s faces, vehicle license plates, and some other things blurred in the photos. There is a period in which the image is accessible by the public, until it is requested by an individual to be blurred out. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Utilitarianism shows us that Google should have done this because the good outweighs the bad.

            First, with regards to Floridi’s concepts of the four kinds of privacy. I believe of the four, only informational privacy is violated by the Google Street view posting of images. The collection of images outside a person’s home, workplace or other places frequented by the individual which the images trespass can vary greatly. There are several things to consider here through the eyes of Floridi. Posting photos to the world wide web reduces the informational friction. The individual may not be aware of the photo being taken if they did not see the Google Street view vehicle or were not immediately aware of the purpose of the vehicle they saw. The environment captured in the photo does not explain the circumstances at that moment and out of context could be construed in a negative light.

            Anonymity is affected in that while the image captured is in public and would otherwise be seen by anyone with internet access and a web browser, it now can be collected with other public information that could lead to sensitive information. This collection of data could easily be used to correlate additional information about an individual should someone have the desire to do so. The impact varies on the community in which the photo is taken. A larger impact will occur in a small town or village where the population is small and not frequented by outsiders and it will be small if it is a busy city street with lots of transient traffic.

            The perceived invasion of privacy will also be determined by whom was photographed. The idea of privacy varies from generation to generation, and some may be less inclined to act or even see a photo taken of themselves posted to the web as anything more than a fun fact. I believe the older generations who had lived in less of the digital age may be more inclined to find themselves on the internet without forewarning as a violation of their privacy simply because it is unexpected.

            In the case of empowerment both as inclusion and as improvement vary in which country is used. In a modern democracy, empowerment as inclusion would include a medium for individuals to take their concerns with legal capacity should a voting majority feel the same. Floridi speaks of empowerment as inclusion more towards marginalized groups which those opposed to technology or what they see as the invasion of privacy can be described as. I believe empowerment as improvement is also applicable because appeal and even request to remove something captures from Google Street view can be made directly with Google. This is an increase in the quantity and quality of options. Being the complaint is a very specific one, it makes sense that the options available are specific too, still there is more than one option.

            In the view of a utilitarian the actions taken by Google in collecting images to make up the Google Street view in Google Maps was for the greater good and therefore acceptable. The use cases can be limitless for the technology, a few examples were given in the required reading. I think the concern for privacy is mitigated by the fact that if requested by an individual to blur a face, vehicle license number or another item of concern, Google seems to accommodate such requests. The photos are a capture of a moment and tie back only to that, in many cases the area may have changed significantly from when the photo was taken. I have used Google Street view to aid in my work scouting road conditions, identifying parking and the actual destination prior to making the trip. It can be a tremendous time saver when used in this manner.

            Second, in “Privacy as Product Safety,” Grimmelmann compares and contrasts how the questions asked about product safety can apply to social media applications in terms of privacy. He gives examples how privacy is important to companies like Facebook, but they do a sometimes-bad job at rolling out new features. Users can control who sees their data on what is by nature an anti-privacy service, however, they misunderstand the full implementation of their privacy and sharing choices. 

            Grimmelmann focuses on four myths concerning privacy; users don’t care about privacy, users make rational privacy choices, users desire for privacy is unrealistic and regulating Facebook as a database will solve the privacy problem. The first is disproven when Facebook first introduced the news feed which elicited public uproar by posting user latest updates to friends, coworker, and bosses Facebook feeds. The second he uses statistics to disprove in that 35% of Facebook users changed their privacy settings at periodic design change making up 100 million users, leading that the other 250 million must have approved of the changes. Thirdly, users desire for privacy is unrealistic is addressed by majority of users who post information to Facebook not intended for the majority but select groups of friends and most does not end up on the nation’s headlines. The settings a user has available to them in Facebook allows for posting to not be completely open to the public, it is designed not to be so. Lastly, database regulation will make Facebook privacy safe is dismissed because the term privacy means something different to everyone. Everyone has control of their information in the decision to post or not post something they consider private. Once posted everyone can limit the information to a select group of friends, communities, or networks. If someone does something in front of others, it is not realistic to believe that word of the act will not spread to others via those who witnessed it, especially if it contains some interesting (in the eyes of the posting individual) or otherwise comedic purpose to gain likes.

            Google Street view in perspective of Grimmelmann has common ground. Users of Google Street view do care about privacy in the protests made at several locations around the world and the attempts to file lawsuit in some instances. The use of the information and an individual’s ability to limit some of that information is misunderstood through a lack of information when the vehicle is deployed to collect the images and when a user logs onto Google maps to use the collected images in street view. Users may make irrational privacy choices when it comes to Google Street view because they may demand their person, their home, their street, or their neighborhood be completely removed which leads to the third myth. User desire for privacy is unrealistic, if a photo of a specific time does not make someone identifiable by others, is it a privacy concern? And the regulating of Google Street view images as a database would require more data collection increasing privacy concerns rather than the only tether being a photo linked to a location with a month and year.

            The utilitarian view of Google Street view through the concerns raised by Grimmelmann still lead me to believe that the benefits outweigh the detriments of the service. There is a process in place to address privacy concerns such as people’s faces, license plates and maybe some case-by-case exceptions as requested or otherwise enforced by regulating authority. People’s views on what should or should not be private may vary greatly, and some may not even be rational thinking. And to regulate the photos in a database may require the adding of data fields which would decrease informational friction.

            In summary, using a utilitarian view through the concerns raised by both Floridi and Grimmelmann, the benefits brought about by Google Street view taking a series of photos through various populated areas from public roads looking towards private property as much as a person standing on the street could see at a single point in time provides more utility than harm or invades one’s privacy. The fact that at least one process is in place to remove sensitive information like faces and license plates aids drastically in minimizing public concern in the use of Google Street view for nefarious purposes. Google Street view has been online over a decade and no major headlines detailing a serious infringement of privacy has been seen is a testament of how bad use cases if any severely fall short of the benefits of having a service like Google Street view that have demonstrated in the readings that it aids individuals in recreational and work activities.