CASE ANALYSIS ON PRIVACY
Posted by santw001 on Apr 20, 2022 in Uncategorized | 0 comments
Case Analysis on Privacy
In the case “The Googlization of Everything,” Siva Vaidhyanathan examined the resistance against the expansion of Google Street View. He also explored how Google Street View has benefitted users. Vaidhyanathan (2012) noted that the Google Street View service enabled users to perform surveillance of other people (p.98). In addition, the service allowed individuals to have a 360-degree outlook of intersections and streets in several cities. However, initially, this service attracted negative criticism from people who felt that it violated their privacy. According to Vaidhyanathan (2012), the service generated wide interest, some utility, and much anxiety but did not cause demonstrable harm (p.98). Vaidhyanathan pointed out that normally Google introduced its services in a standard manner in all places. However, it can tailor some of its policies if the service elicits complaints. In the case of Google Street View, Google claimed that it could smudge or remove any image that anyone reported being embarrassing, troubling, or revealing their personal information like faces (Vaidhyanathan, 2012, p.99). Despite the complaints against the Google Street View service, some people reported that the service was beneficial. For example, Vaidhyanathan (2012) delineated that some of his respondents noted that they were using Google Street View service to survey potential homes, parking spaces, and locate restaurants (p.99). Also, Google experienced strong criticism for rolling out the Google Street View in many countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. Nevertheless, the strong objection did not deter Google from expanding Google Street View. In this case analysis, I will argue that utilitarianism shows us that Google should have continued with the rollout of Google Street View since it resulted in the greater good than the harm.
In chapter 5, “Privacy: Informational Friction” in the book The 4th Revolution. How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality Luciano Floridi, an Italian philosopher explored different concepts of privacy. One of the central concepts Floridi examined is the four types of privacy: physical, mental, decisional, and informational. However, Floridi focused more on informational privacy. He defined informational privacy as “freedom from informational interference or intrusion” (Floridi, 2014, p.103). This freedom, according to Floridi, is realized through the limitation on facts of a person that are unknowable (p.103). The concept of informational privacy applies to “The Googlization of Everything” case in that the people who opposed the Google Street View service were concerned about the privacy of their information. For example, Christine and Aaron Boring, a couple staying in Pittsburgh, were concerned that Google Street View included clear pictures of their house and driveway (Vaidhyanathan, 2012, p.101). Vaidhyanathan opined that the couple sued Google for invading their privacy since they felt that Google had used its lenses to intrude on their property (p.101). Nonetheless, drawing from the utilitarianism theory, Google’s implementation plan was ethical since its outcomes resulted in the greater good than the harm.
Another concept Floridi covered was informational friction. As per Floridi (2014), informational friction alludes to the forces which oppose the flow of information in a part of an infosphere (p.103). Furthermore, Floridi opined that increasing the level of accessibility reduces the informational gap, thereby making it cumbersome to protect privacy (p.103). The implementation of Google Street View was meant to increase the accessibility of information. It reduced the informational gap since the users could view streets, buildings, and other property from the comfort of their homes. Vaidhyanathan highlighted that his respondents pinpointed some of the benefits they realized from Google Street View. For instance, David de la Pena informed Vaidhyanathan that he uses Google Street View every day to accomplish his work (Vaidhyanathan, 2012, p.99). Pena noted that the Street View saved him the toil of taking many site photographs. Another respondent – Cory Doctorow – told Vaidhyanathan that he used Street View to obtain information to describe a scene in his novel in detail (Vaidhyanathan, 2012, p.100). These revelations demonstrate that the rollout of Google Street View enhanced the accessibility of information. Nevertheless, the increase in accessibility of information lowered people’s privacy since “privacy is a function of the informational friction in the infosphere” (Floridi, 2014, p.105). Although Google’s project lowered people’s privacy, Google assured the affected people that it could smudge or remove the images that were embarrassing, distressing, or revealing their information (Vaidhyanathan, 2012, p.99). This shows that Google was ready to protect the privacy of individuals while increasing the accessibility of information. Therefore, it can be claimed that the implementation of Google Street View was ethical since Google aimed at maximizing the benefits of the service while minimizing its adverse effects.
The other pivotal concept Floridi examined is the significance of privacy. In this vein, Floridi identified two theories dealing with the importance of privacy. The first theory that Floridi discussed was the reductionist interpretation theory. According to Floridi (2014), this theory holds that the significance of privacy rests on several undesirable consequences that may result from the contravention of privacy (p.116). The second theory that Floridi discussed was the ownership-based interpretation. This theory presents that informational privacy should be respected since each individual has rights to their property and security (Floridi, 2014, p.116). The reductionist interpretation analyzes privacy in terms of the costs and benefits of protecting or violating it. In contrast, the ownership-based interpretation looks at the natural rights of comprehending the importance of privacy. However, Floridi posited that the two theories view privacy breaches as intrusion or trespass (p.116-117). Moreover, Floridi pinpointed that the accessibility of the symbolic sphere or space should be controlled by the owner (p.117). This is possibly why some people vehemently opposed the implementation of Google Street View in their cities and neighborhoods. For example, in Hamburg, Germany, a data-privacy official wanted to fine Google if the Street View failed to adhere to German privacy policies (Vaidhyanathan, 2012, p.102). The German laws require one to obtain explicit consent before publishing images of individuals or their property. Regardless of this, Google continued with the expansion of Street View since the benefits of the service outweighed the cost of privacy. So, Google pursued the most ethical choice since it produced the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
In the article “Privacy as Product Safety,” James Grimmelmann pinpointed some pertinent concepts about privacy. One of the concepts Grimmelmann discussed was the Facebook myths of privacy. The myths that Grimmelmann discussed are Facebook users do not care about their privacy, they make rational privacy choices, and their desire for privacy is unrealistic (Grimmelmann, 2010, p.796). He noted that these myths about privacy were false since Facebook users care about their privacy. However, they experience great challenges in realizing it. Grimmelmann asserted that the trouble stems from the difficulty Facebook users experience in comprehending what will occur to their information after posting it (Grimmelmann, 2010, p.796). Grimmelmann added another myth about privacy and argued that regulating Facebook as the database will solve the users` privacy problems (p.796). However, Grimmelmann contended that regulation of databases of social sites was not adequate to achieve privacy. In addition, Grimmelmann observed that young adults and teens act in a way that suggests they care less about their privacy. In contrast, the actual Facebook users` actions show that they care more about their privacy (Grimmelmann, 2010, p.798). To bolster this assertion, Grimmelmann cited the example of the introduction of News Feed by Facebook. He delineated that the introduction of News Feed resulted in huge protests that compelled Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to apologize (p.798).
Besides, Facebook has experienced protests from users following its introduction of the Beacon advertising system and the data-retention policy changes. Moreover, Grimmelmann highlighted that when Facebook users discover that the police, their employers, or relatives are viewing their profiles, they will protest about their privacy (p.799). Like the Facebook users, the people who protested the implementation of Google Street View were concerned about their privacy. They opposed Street View since they felt it could expose their personal information. For example, Vaidhyanathan (2012) posited that Osamu Higuchi, a search-engine professional, claimed that in Japan, any person who peeps at other people’s residents could be arrested (p.103). Nonetheless, Google Street View made it difficult for individuals to know who was peeping or seeing their residential properties. Google responded to Osamu’s concerns by agreeing to reshoot the images of the Japanese cities with cameras that were mounted lower. This move could prevent peering over fences and hedges. From the utilitarian perspective, Google’s decision to reshoot the images was ethical since it knew the benefits of the Street View service were far greater than the cost.
The second central concept Grimmelmann discussed is how database regulation has the potential to enhance the safety of Facebook. He emphasized that Facebook users should define what privacy means to them. Also, Grimmelmann (2010) argued that the user is better placed to protect their privacy since a “user is generally the cheapest cost-avoider” (p.808). In the United States, the focus is limiting the misuse of databases. Despite the Fair Information Practices not binding, they are used in the United States to set standards of good behavior, but in Europe, they are enforceable (Grimmelmann, 2010, p.810). Grimmelmann also discussed Facebook users’ fear concerning Facebook turning their data to third parties like advertisers. Because Facebook is social in nature, it implies there is nothing personal that other people cannot access.
Grimmelmann further argued that the typical Facebook profile has answers to many of the questions the employers are not permitted to ask during recruitment. Therefore, Facebook exposes the users` information to third parties. Regrettably, it is not easy to control this since requiring the users to give consent before their information is shared would make it impossible for users to view other users’ News Feed or Walls (Grimmelmann, 2010, p.812). Similarly, if Google had limited the view of the images of the streets and surrounding properties, Google Street View would have been less helpful. Therefore, the 360-degree view of Google Street View was purposefully made available to allow the users to view better the streets or places they were looking for. In other words, Google chose to offer the 360-degree view to increasing the accessibility of information. Even though some users opposed the project because they felt it interfered with their privacy. Outside the United States, several people protested Google’s project, but their governments gave Google the green light. The decision by most governments to permit Google to expand the Street View was probably informed by the utilitarian view. Both Google and various governments knew that the benefits of Google Street View were more than the harms. Consequently, Google continued its project to cause a greater good in society. I believe Google did the right thing since it aimed at benefitting society, as exemplified by the many respondents who observed that the service was helpful.
Google’s decision to continue with the expansion of the Google Street View project was ethical, and how it was implemented was ethical. Drawing from the utilitarianism theory, it is apparent that Google Street View was an ethical undertaking because it brought many benefits to the users. In “The Googlization of Everything,” Vaidhyanathan highlighted many benefits of using Google Street View. He also pointed out the criticism of Street View. The majority of the people who opposed Street View were concerned about their privacy. However, Google’s decision to remove or smudge the images that these people felt contravened their privacy was ethical. It portrayed Google as a company that cared about the privacy of its users. As noted by Grimmelmann, Facebook experienced similar protests to that of Google. Grimmelmann suggested that database regulation could help deal with the privacy problem but was insufficient. So, the people who opposed Street View should advocate for data regulation instead of calling for Google to stop the project. Accordingly, it can be argued that Google’s implementation of the Street View was ethical since its benefits were greater than the harm it caused.
References
Floridi, L. (2014). The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford UP.
Grimmelmann, J. (2010). Privacy as Product Safety. Widener Law Journal.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012). The Googlization of everything: (and why we should worry). University of California Press.