Privacy is a part of all living beings across the world in this century and the future. It can be what gives us humans stress relief from the harsh reality we all deal with in our everyday lives. In this case analysis, I will be going through all the privacy ethics that should have been used to implement a better web application of Google Street Views. Google “Street views” are known to look up any street onto the satellite database and give users the ability to view different street addresses. This form of implementation can be giver users the high-tech surveillance that was introduced to the forever-changing world. This would allow people to stalk individuals and invade other people’s privacy which in turn can make Google Maps unethical. This will also be unmoral to individuals’, other individuals’ financial information, and their schedules. In this case analysis, I will be using the Deontology tool that shows that Google developers could have implemented more to protect people’s privacy.

In Luciano Floridi’s the 4th Revolution book, it is shown that he suggests different practices for privacy. He explains the four different privacy or freedom forms that people should practice when in relationships with others. The first freedom form is physical privacy, in this case, would be Google Maps it has no method of interfering with other people’s physical privacy. Unless the users use Google Maps to go to other people’s houses and stalk or harass them. Another form would be the mental privacy form which deals with people mentally. This is important to privacy because if individuals are not having enough space for themselves then they could feel mentally unstable and could lose their minds. I have gone through many of these experiences because I had never had time for myself and could not properly function without it. The next privacy form is decisional privacy. This is where the form creates interferences or daydreams to help individuals escape from the harass reality that is work, family drama, and other stress problems that a person could face. Finally, the last privacy form is the or information privacy. This privacy is to help individuals to set apart information distractions about the individual. For example, a student hears a rumor about themselves, and they believe it is not true. These four forms of privacy can use to fix the implementations of Google Maps and make people feel safe about the view of their home on Google Maps. With deontology, it can be said that the developers of Google Maps didn’t think about the viewpoints of the people’s homes. This action could easily be justified as wrong that these are people’s private homes should not have easily accessible precision on the location is. It is a possibility that some of the developers of the application can feel this implementation is wrong in many ways due to invading people’s privacy. Many unmoral people or even the developers themselves can use this technology to stalk or harass others. With deontology, we can easily say that it is wrong for regular individuals to stalk or harass someone even if the other one deserves it.

The James Grimmelmann reading shows how selling products should be demonstrated to be safe for consumers to use and not to be used to diminish people’s privacy. This story shows that some Facebook users don’t care about privacy at all. They feel they should have the ability to express themselves but also have privacy options if they choose to have them. It shows users making rational choices that In Google Maps it has shown a possibility that it does take away people’s privacy as a whole. Users can look up other individuals’ homes and can find out where they live and the structure of their homes with a click of a button. This could also be an example of deontology due to users choosing to stalk or harass another user no matter for good or wrong. With Facebook users not caring about the privacies of other users, it is put in the hands of the law to give and demand Facebook to have privacy options for their consumer users. In the story, Grimmelmann gives examples that are used to produce the product disturbed to consumers. The first example is to make the product sellers liable even though the consumer may be at fault for the accident. This may help consumers with their financial situations or medical bills if the accident results in it. The second example is to make the product safe to disclaimer are not a substitute for a safe product. This is so that consumers don’t use disclaimers and stick with the safety protocol of the product. It is designed to keep the consumer safe from harm’s way while using the product by getting users to sign an agreement & condition form when first signing up for the product. For example, when playing on video game platforms or signing up on any social media platform, each user id demanded to agree to the conditions to protect all consumers of the product. This could be a method designed for Google Maps whenever users use its satellite street views so they could use it without invading other people’s privacy. The final example is that the company or seller is liable for defects of the product whenever sold to the hands of the consumer. This will protect consumers from not being scammed out of a nonworking product when completing the purchase. But people will still misuse or scam people out of money due to many circumstances. Often sellers have trouble providing for themselves or even worse their families. Even so, individuals who believe in deontology will argue that it is still wrong and further consequences will be made for not just the company, but to that individual as well.

In Conclusion, I believe that privacy is important in all individuals’ lives. But many individuals can use their privacies in ways that can work to their advantage. These actions no matter for good intents or bad intents, it is still wrong for people to use them to harm others. Deontology can argue that these morals no matter the intentions are still wrong. For example, even if the person using Google Maps to get revenge on someone who has done them wrong, their action is still wrong and causes harm. This can cause serious consequences later down the road for the individual. I believe that this ideal is believable because I believe in when someone does well, they will get good karma and if the person did something bad then they will get bad karma. This idea should be used so that people will not use products that involve other people, but they should be used in everyday life. This will allow fewer people to face fewer consequences in life and possibly give them better luck throughout life and to not worry about the future.