Privacy and the Googlization of Everything
In this case analysis, we review the story The Googlization of Everything (and why we should worry) by Siva Vaidhyanathan. This story follows the introduction of Google’s Street View service that was added to their Google Maps application back in 2007. This service would soon become the subject of controversy because of the photos taken as part of the service. Many people had found the Street View service as a great tool that was utilized in many different projects. On the other hand, many people had problems with the service as it was seen as an invasion of privacy.
This had led to many complaints and a few court cases against Google regarding their privacy and Google’s lackadaisical approach to protecting people’s privacy by simply blurring faces and license plates. Google would later encounter problems with other countries and their privacy laws, which would end with some legal troubles and bans in certain countries.
Kantianism is an ethical theory that focuses on actions that should be done out of a responsibility to respect others and for the sake of duty. The duty to respect others is absolute, and it’s never right to fail to respect others for the greater good. In this case analysis, I will argue that the Kantianism philosophy will show us that Google should have better respected people’s privacy when taking photos of streets worldwide.
Floridi
Luciano Floridi’s concept of privacy was defined as freedom from sensory interference or intrusion that is achieved by the restriction of another’s the ability to have physical interactions with or invade their space (Floridi, n.d.). When using Floridi’s concepts, I can see that Google was not respecting people’s rights to privacy when they were using the Street View service. Google would utilize their specialized vehicles to drive around the globe taking pictures from a street view; they would pick and choose which elements were necessary to be blurred out, like people’s faces or a vehicle’s license plate. By following Floridi’s concepts of privacy, Google should not have invaded a person’s space by driving around in vehicles with cameras.
Floridi’s concepts of privacy involve four different forms of privacy that are formulated in terms of “freedoms from.” Physical privacy is freedom from sensory interference or intrusion, which is achievable by restricting others’ ability to interact with one’s personal space physically. Mental privacy involves freedom from psychological interference or intrusion, which can be achieved by restricting others’ ability to access or manipulate one’s mental state. Decisional privacy is about freedom from procedural interference or intrusion that is achieved by excluding others from decision-making. Informational privacy is defined as freedom from informational interference or intrusion achievable through restrictions of facts about oneself that are unknown (Floridi, n.d.).
Google’s Street View service had violated people’s physical privacy by taking pictures of people while driving down roads and streets. The cameras and other technology utilized by Google’s Street View vehicles can be used to see over walls, fences, through windows, and any other angles to peer into a person’s private space. Some of the photos taken have been used to show activities people try to hide from average views, such as gambling dens, strip clubs, sunbathing, adult entertainment stores, etc.
Floridi pointed out that people’s privacy perspectives have evolved as generations go by and technological advancements are made. He had pointed out that this cycle had blossomed after the printing press was invented. People’s perspectives of privacy have changed with each generation. There are significant differences between how Generation X and Generation Y perceive privacy. Those views are vastly different from how Generation Z perceives privacy, especially with the conventional usage of the internet (Floridi, n.d.).
Floridi has given examples of how digital ICTs have affected privacy. He talked about how digital ICTs had allowed terrorists to communicate over the internet. However, it also allowed British law enforcement to identify and detain the London bombers of 2005 a couple of hours after the incident. This event reminds me of the January 6th Capitol Riot, in which after the event took place, where social media allowed groups such as the vigilantes known as the Deep State Dogs to scour the internet for information on those that participated in the riot and publish their findings on social media and send the information to law enforcement and the FBI (Murray, 2021).
Google could have changed its Street View service if it had followed Floridi’s concepts of privacy and the Kantianism philosophy. Google could have implemented its Street View service by adhering to Floridi’s concepts of respecting people’s “freedom from” privacies because it is morally right from a Kantian perspective. Respecting people’s privacy, in a way, follows the Kantianism philosophy as it is our responsibility to respect others, yet Google’s Street View service disregards that duty.
Grimmelmann
James Grimmelmann’s concepts of privacy were defined by examples of the myths that many people believe when looking at big corporations like Facebook or Google. His concepts had compared privacy to product safety, as they were synonymous in their evolution through history. Grimmelmann had mentioned a few different authors and professors in his journal, whom each had insights relevant to his concepts of privacy as product safety. Author Eric Jorstad noticed that current privacy regulations were similar to product safety regulations before the liability and regulatory revolution in the 1960s. Professor Benjamin Sachs had made a connection that existed earlier, finding parallels between the rise of the industrial economy at the beginning of the twentieth century and the beginning of the information economy in the twenty-first century (Grimmelmann, 2010).
Grimmelmann had stated three primary points of product safety law that he believes can apply to privacy regulations and laws. The first point implicit in the basic duty of sellers to make their products safe is that sellers can be held liable even when the consumer is at fault in the accident (Grimmelmann, 2010). Google could have adjusted its Street View service’s programming to coincide with this point by providing liability to its customers and other civilians during an event or incident. A few examples that Google could take to coincide with this point are taking the blame for any errors that occur during the service’s usage or adequately understanding the issues that a customer brings to the company. By holding themselves accountable and liable regarding incidents regarding privacy, they could be seen as a more ethical and trustworthy company.
The second implicit point in the basic duty of sellers to make their products safe is that disclaimers are not a substitute for a safe product (Grimmelmann, 2010). Google could adhere to this point by ensuring they have a safe product instead of deflecting any responsibility for any possible wrongdoing or incidents. Thorough testing of the service’s systems before its debut and making sure that any disclaimers that are made do not hide any flaws or errors are just a few examples of options Google could have taken while following this point.
The third point is that sellers are liable for generic design defects and individual manufacturing defects (Grimmelmann, 2010). Google could have followed this point by making sure they hold themselves accountable for any defects or errors in their service’s programming or any pictures taken. Checking for errors and better screening of any pictures that the service’s vehicles had taken are examples that Google could have taken that adhere to this point.
Google could have changed its Street View service if it had followed Grimmelmann’s concepts of privacy and the Kantianism philosophy. Google could have followed Grimmelmann’s privacy concepts by following similar lines to the product safety law he had explained earlier in his journal. By implementing their Street View service with the product safety law’s points, they could have prevented backlash from customers. Following that law for the morally right reason would entwin with the Kantian philosophy.
Conclusion
Google could have prevented the backlash that would ensue after their Street View service became more prominently known. From a Kantian perspective, Google could have tried to follow the categorical imperative of doing the right things that are morally good. By following Floridi and Grimmelmann’s privacy concepts, they could have implemented their Street View service to prevent the potential backlash. I believe, however, that this situation could only happen in an ideal world. I believe that an ideal world where everyone could enjoy their privacy while companies like Google can adhere to these restrictions would not happen. I do not think such an ideal situation would ever happen in reality. There are always give-and-take situations between people and companies regarding privacy that are constantly changing. Companies say they do things from a moral standpoint for their customers, yet they are not always choosing the morally right option. Companies like Google could never follow a Kantian philosophy since the people who run them are human, and humans do not always make the morally correct choice.
References
Floridi, L. (n.d.). Privacy. doi:https://odu.voicethread.com/myvoice/assignment/693623/submit?hideFooterAndNav=true
Grimmelmann, J. (2010). “Privacy as Product Safety. Widener Law Journal, 793-827. doi:https://odu.voicethread.com/myvoice/assignment/693625/submit?hideFooterAndNav=true
Murray, S. (2021, June 11). Meet the internet sleuths tracking down the January 6 insurrectionists. CNN. Retrieved January 30, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/11/politics/internet-sleuths-january-6-insurrectionists/index.html
Vaidhyanathan, S. (n.d.). “STREET VIEW” AND THE UNIVERSALIZATION OF SURVEILLANCE. In Googlization of Everything (and why we should worry) (pp. 98-107). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.