Google street view is a technology within Google Maps and Google Earth, that allows users to view and navigate through panoramic street images of cities around the world. With this technology, it is possible to be able to catch people doing everyday activities. However, it also has the potential to catch people doing activities that they did not expect to end up online. Many things have been caught using the google street view, things such as: nudity, dead bodies, accidents, and many other things. People do not know when the Google street car is going to drive by their neighborhoods or anywhere in general. In Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Googleization of Everything, he goes on to state that when American users went to use this technology, they were horrified to find out that there were certain things on there that were embarrassing and revealing. Google then responded by saying that they would remove any embarrassing, troubling, or revealing information, if the person reached out to them. To go through all that trouble is unnecessary. Google has the networks and financial stability, to inform people when they will be driving by taking pictures. In this case analysis I will argue that consequentialism/utilitarianism shows that Google should have informed individuals beforehand when the google street cameras were going to show up.

Google fails to inform individuals correctly about the Google street cars. Google does inform, however they fail to give specific information about when the cars will be driving by. In order to get people’s attention more, a letter and an email with a tracking device set up, should be sent out prior to the car’s arrival. Google is a multi-trillion company, certainly they can afford to set up a tracking system and be able to mail out letters to everyone that will be affected by the Google Street car. Their failure to inform individuals correctly and with a sufficient amount of information, has caused individuals to be affected by it. Most of the time, many people are unaware of the Google street car’s presence. If they were to be aware of the car driving by, it would stop many people from doing things they would not want to be posted online. Google offers individuals the opportunity to inform them if there is something on the panoramic street view that is not wanted there. They offer to either delete the revealing photo capture or they offer to blur it out. However, what is the possibility that an individual will realize that there is a revealing photo of them online? The chances of seeing the revealing photo within the first few days of being posted is slim, especially if the person originally did not know the car drove by in the first place

For most people, having a private life is important. It is essential to us as human beings, as it gives people the ability to act how they want and say what they want without judgement. In Luciano Floridi’s, “Privacy”, he speaks on the issue of privacy. People hold onto their privacy as if it was one of their dearest possessions. This is what Floridi said, “We, (…) have a private life [and] hold it infinitely the dearest of our possessions’ ‘. This basically means that people cherish their privacy and find it to be one of the most important possessions they have. Going back to the Google street car, most of the time these cars show up unannounced. If they were to give a forewarning to individuals, it is not as specific as it should be. With the world now being technologically advanced, it is harder to have that privacy. Floridi states this by saying, “today, we find protecting that dearest possession ever more difficult, in a social environment increasingly dependent on Peggy’s futuristic technology.” The “dearest possession” being our privacy, is being constantly interfered with when it comes to our newly technologically advanced world. Privacy is something that should not be taken lightly even if it comes to having new technology. When Floridi is saying that protecting our privacy is becoming more and more difficult, this applies to the Google street car and how it is invading individuals’ privacy. Google fails to realize that promoting privacy and the greater good is more important than getting panoramic street pictures. In the ethical tool, “consequentialism/utilitarianism”, it goes to say that promoting the greater good for the greatest number is highly important. It also states that no one is less important than another person, and everyone’s happiness and suffering counts equally. Google street car has captured many embarrassing and revealing moments of many individual’s lives. Everyone’s suffering is equally as important, especially when it comes to their privacy being invaded.

The ethical problem of privacy has always been an issue. Floridi states, “it is common to distinguish four types of privacy”. According to Floridi there are four types of privacy, the first being Alice’s physical privacy. This type of privacy is the freedom from sensory interference or intrusion. This type of privacy was achieved by placing a restriction on having bodily interactions or invading personal space. The second type of privacy is Alice’s mental privacy, this is the freedom from psychological interference or intrusion. This was achieved by placing a restriction on others’ ability to access and manipulate her mental life. The third type of privacy is Alice’s decisional privacy, which is the freedom from procedural interference or intrusion. This was achieved by the exclusion of others from decisions. The last freedom is Alice’s informational privacy. With this, it is the freedom from informational interference or intrusion, and this was achieved through a restriction on facts that are unknown or unknowable. With all these different types of privacy, it goes to show how there are different extents that people have to value privacy. Meaning, there are many ways to invade someone’s privacy. Again, according to the ethical tool on consequentialism/utilitarianism, everyone’s suffering counts equally. In regards to the Google street car, they invade Alice’s physical privacy and Alice’s mental privacy. Physically, when the Google street car drives down an individual’s neighborhood, and captures something revealing, that is invading a person’s personal space. Mentally, having something online that might be embarrassing or revealing, could interfere with a person mentally. Interfering with someone’s personal privacy could be avoided if Google would give out warnings beforehand of when they will be driving by.

Anything that is posted online, has the possibility of spreading throughout all the social networks quickly. Especially if it is a piece of information or a photo, that people could laugh at. The amount of embarrassing and revealing information/photos on the internet is unbelievable. In James Grimmelmann’s, “Privacy as Product Safety”, he stated an example of how quickly information on social media spreads. A woman named, Andrea, had posted a post to her private facebook account. She posted photos of herself with another person to her account. What she did not realize was that her account was not as private as she had originally thought. Due to this, one of her networks online was “New York City”, which meant that anyone living in New York City and that had a facebook, could see her account and posts. This was over 1,000,000 users. This is a complete invasion of privacy, considering Andrea only meant for her own personal Facebook friends to see her posts. It goes to show that any post online has the potential to be seen by many unknown people. Going back to the Google Street car, if someone was caught doing something embarrassing, and it was captured, it now has the ability to be seen by millions of people. Continuing, if another person was scrolling through the panoramic street view, and came across this embarrassing photo, and they share it on social media, millions of other people will now see it. The person in that photo is now facing a severe amount of humiliation. People do not realize that the amount of suffering a person can go through when a revealing photo of them is shared, is severe. In the ethical tool “consequentialism/utilitarianism” it again states that everyone’s suffering is equal. It all originates back to the photo being taken without a person’s knowledge.

Many people have certain photos or information that they try to keep offline. However, there is always a way for that information to be posted online, even if that person does not want it online. In James Grimmelmann’s, “Privacy as Product Safety”, he states that, “the social-network aspects of social media mean that even information that people deliberately try to keep offline can find its way online.” An example of this is the Google street car, taking photos of unsuspecting people, and it finding its way online. This isn’t to say that Google sends these cars out to capture revealing moments, but it is to say that it has captured people doing things that should not be online. For example, let’s say a couple sharing an intimate moment was caught while the car was driving by, which they are unaware of. Another person is scrolling through the panoramic street view, and stumbles across this photo. They share it on their social media, and however is on their social media then shares it as well. In a matter of minutes, that intimate moment has been shared through social media as quick as wildfire. Most people do not realize that acting for the greater good is better than trying to make your friends laugh. In the ethical tool consequentialism/utilitarianism, it states, “we should promote the greater good for the greatest number”. The best thing to do in this situation, would have been to scroll past it and not share the chances of it being seen more.

The Google street car captures photographs as they drive down public streets. The possibility of it capturing revealing and embarrassing information is quite high. The way that Google informs individuals beforehand is not as efficient as it should be. Fixing the way Google informs individuals of when the car will be driving by can lessen the chance of revealing moments being caught on camera. I argued that consequentialism/utilitarianism shows that Google should have informed individuals beforehand when the google street cameras were going to show up. In order to make the public more aware of the cars driving by, a tracking device and a letter in the mail should be sent out prior to the car driving by. In the ethical tool consequentialism/utilitarianism, it states that everyone’s happiness and suffering counts equally and that acting for the greater good is for the greatest number. This is important because if Google would understand that people could potentially suffer from something being caught on these cameras, more would be done to inform individuals.