Google has developed a new feature for their Google Maps application called Street View that puts cameras on rooftops using a small vehicle, which allows the public to have digital live recordings of many public areas. The goal of this technology is to have it adopted on streets and neighborhoods all around the world to give everyone the ability to have a firsthand views of their favorite areas around the world and an opportunity to discover and explore new sights. The development of this technology has caused many issues regarding privacy among the public and prominent individuals all over the world. They dislike the idea and feel that it is an invasion of their privacy. There are a wide range of opinions about Street View. The main issue with the technology is that not everyone feels comfortable having their personal life on film for the world to view. Although there are many people who are skeptical about this technology and do not want it, Google still argues the benefits that it has. After listening to Google’s argument and learning the ethical aspects of privacy regarding the utilitarianism ideology in relation to the teachings from the philosophers Luciano Floridi and James Grimmelmnn, I agree with Google on their reasoning to not discontinue the use of their work.
Luciano Floridi is an award-winning philosopher who has dedicated his life in researching the ethical areas of information and computers. In his 2014 Oxford University Press papers, he discusses the informational friction of technology regarding privacy. Floridi’s thoughts on privacy are mostly centered around the changes in physical living and generational differences in relation to technological acceptance. In his writings, he discussed how the world has been revolutionized by technology but as a result, privacy has become less important among the people causing generational friction. He believes that this friction is caused by the lack of understanding between the people and what he calls agents, the tech-savvy individuals and corporations. The people fear that these agents are forcibly taking away their beliefs and freedom leaving them feeling like rocks that can not do anything about it. Floridi also put in his writings, as it will relate to the Google controversy, that his beliefs on privacy derives from just privacy itself and not from any other external factors. When an individual is in a public environment their privacy is no longer private. This means that if you decide to indulge in an act that you usually commit behind closed doors in a public setting where you can be seen, then you should not feel guilt when people decide to place judgement on you.
Floridi’s ideals on privacy coincides very well with the dispute between Google and the public. There are those that already have a preconceived opinion on Google’s takeover. Whenever Google tries to progress their business in anyway, these people will decide they do not like it without hesitation. I believe that this quick thought process that people have about Google’s technology has to do with their comfortability with their current environment and way of life. Accepting something new when comfortable is very difficult for many individuals especially when that’s all you know. Many of the areas that Google are trying to put Street View in are small towns that are very foreign to technology and as a result, fear what they do not understand and see as an invasion of their culture. I believe that if they take time to understand the true reasoning behind this technology, they will rethink their decomposition. Google’s true nature of this technology is to connect the world. People from these small towns can have a chance to see the beauty of life in the big cities and vice versa. Street View is not meant to spy on people. Google is not hiding the existence of the technology to the people; they all have access to it. In terms of privacy, I do not believe that it is invading anyone’s privacy because the technology is public. The cameras are all in a public environment. I believe that the invasion of privacy statement that people use regarding the technology is just an excuse for something that they do not fully understand. They were told that Street View would be something that would be watching them, and they suddenly rejected the idea. Google could just ignore these complaints because they are coming from a small percentage of individuals, but they choose not to because they believe that every customer’s opinion of their technology is very important. There are a large majority of people that find Street View to be an ideal experience and very helpful and educating. This majority acceptance is the reason Google will never discontinue this feature. The invasion of privacy argument will only be of concern to Google only if it was a large percentage of people with that viewpoint but unfortunately there is not.
Another well renown philosopher that focuses on software and its effects on freedom is James Grimmelmann. Grimmelmann has a different view on privacy that is also widely regarded. In his Widener Law Journal, he stated that privacy is more of a paradox than anything else; meaning that the people say they care about privacy bit are not willing to go the full mile when it comes to protecting every aspect of their privacy. Because of this, Grimmelmann believes that people only find privacy meaningful only when it is affecting them in a major way but otherwise, they could care less. But when everyone is being affected in the same way then there are zero complaints. Grimmelmann uses the social media online platforms as an example to further prove his point. Most of the people that believe that the safety of their privacy is their number one priority, all have user accounts on all of these social media platforms that are constantly making their private information public. Grimmelmann also elaborated on privacy with an analogy stating that privacy is like a market. It is up to the consumer to be prepare of all the risks when purchasing. If they feel something is seriously wrong with the product, they have the ability to refrain from buying. And at the same time, it is up to the seller to be honest with the customer and provide consumer protection that the product is what it is supposed to be. This means that the protection of your privacy should be mainly up to you. When you indulge in a service such as social media for example, do not provide them with information that you deemed private and then act surprise when they decide to share that information.
Google’s Smart View technology falls directly in line with Grimmelmann’s beliefs. Google is using their technology in a reliable way, and they understand that they are liable for any harm or impact that it may have on their costumers, so they do the best they can to make Street View safe for everyone. The people who see Street View threatening to their privacy are usually the ones who were capture by its cameras doing something that they were not supposed to be doing. Google has given these individuals the ability to contact them in order to report any image that they want to be removed. But it is not guaranteed that Google is going to remove these images because their focus is their overall audience. If the audience finds nothing wrong with the image, then Google will not be in any hurry to remove it. The cameras that are being used by Smart View are all in a public setting so if they feel that the image that is being reported complies with their terms and conditions, they have the right to have it shown. At times Google have removed many images that were reported because of safety concerns but at the same it is up to those same people to figure out that they are doing something wrong when in public, because somebody could be watching.
Privacy is the greatest form of protection that I feel the people should have the right to and it should always be protected through common curtesy and legislation. Google Has provided both things by giving people who do not want to be seen an option to remove themselves from their cameras, blurring their faces and even blurring license plates. They even went as far as not showing the complete environment of locations that are sacred to most people as a means of catering and showing respect to their culture as best as they could. If they were breaking any privacy laws, it does not matter what amount of money they have, countries would have them banned without a moment’s hesitation, but they do not. There are cameras everywhere in big cities that are not related to Google. These cameras are meant for security and surveillance, so people in these cities are not clueless when it comes to things like that and are very accepting of it because they know the benefits that it provides. I believe that when people realized that it was Google’s cameras that is going to be watching them, they became on edge. But in all fairness If they can accept one, they should be able to accept the other. The people in the small towns and cities also have to understand that although not all of them accept this technology, it is the current way of life. If Google is not breaking any laws and a majority of the people are accepting of their ideas, they have the right to progress and innovate their business however they feel.