The Implementation of Google Street View could have been rolled out in a more ethical way. When we discuss privacy, there are many different ways that privacy impacts, not only us, but others as well. Google Street View is a tool that was created to essentially allow anyone to view anyone else. Whether or not this is ethical is up for debate.
In the article by Siva Vaidhyanathan, titled “The Googlization of Everything” they discuss how unethical Google was when it tried to implement Google Street View onto the public. However, as the paper evolves we see the public come to use it and use it like a tool. Vaidhyranathan discusses how this tool was unethical but the public still used it and incorporated it into their daily lives. At the beginning of the essay, Vaidhyranathan explains how Google just threw everyone into the deep end and waited for a horror story to emerge. Google even said that they would help, in the case of a horror story, with the least amount of effort possible.While the public eventually softened up it does not mean that Google should have introduced its new feature this way. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that deontology and consequentialism can be used to explain how Google could have implemented their street view in a more ethical and thoughtful way. Information friction, as explained by Fiodi, revolves around how easy it is to find knowledge. Deontology is the idea that the reasoning behind an issue can justify the actions of the issue. When Google created the street view, they were essentially lessening the information friction around different people and places. People all around the world could now see any place on earth without that much effort. It shifted the perspectives on human connection and how the internet plays a role in that. Google had good intentions behind this service. A deontologist would argue that since the good outweighed the bad, then it was okay to implement the street view. Google, of course, knew the bad repercussions but for the sake of the argument they probably created it to help.. Due to this, Google was using deontological ideals to help aid their case.They believed this new tool was there to help anyone and let anyone have certain information if they needed it. This goes back to the lessening of information friction. Google was trying to decrease the amount of friction one needed in order to view something else. One example of this is “The Googlization of Everything,” by Siva Vaidhyanathan where the author states that people started using the street view for good reasons. Some people would use it to find business and restaurants. Overall, this feature started to create some good in the world. By deontological standards, this means that Google made a good decision. However, that does not mean the way Google implemented it was in an ethical way. It was a huge privacy concern at the time of its release. A way to introduce the street view in a more ethical view while also aligning with deontology, is to tell the public all of the good that can come from this feature before they release it. Giving the public an announcement that specifically highlights all of the good could help people get on board with it in a timely manner. Even while the software was being soft launched in the major cities, Google could have given infographics on how helpful the street view was going to be before it was given to the rest of the world. This would have allowed everyone to slowly see the good side of the service without that much pushback. Based on the concept of deontology, Google should have allowed the general public to view the software and all of the benefits right before they launched it. If they had done that then the public would have already understood what Google was trying to do. There would have been pushback but it would not have been as bad as it was. In the article by Vaidhyanathan, they state how when the service was launched initially the public had a negative reaction. If Google had gone a more ethical way by treating the public with respect, Google could have had a more successful launch. If the company explained all of the uses of the tool, then everyone would have been more accepting. Using Fiodi’s perspective with deontology, it is concluded that Google was unethical in its way that it presented its street view. Google could have changed its approach and reasoning and would have been more aligned with an ethical point of view.
On the same note, Grimmelmann argued that privacy in and of itself is a safety concern. Throughout his paper, he argued that privacy was a right that every person should have. In his paper, he states “In product-safety terms, Google failed to supply Buzz with sufficient instructions and warnings.” While the author explains about privacy, they also explain how Google failed in the privacy department. Individuals deserve privacy but they also deserve to be treated like human beings who can think for themselves. During the article, the author goes on to explain how privacy is a safety concern. When Google started to implement their street view, it was inherently a safety concern that threatened everyone’s privacy. While everyone was okay with it in about a week, Google still violated their privacy without their knowledge. The author also speaks a lot about the idea of online privacy. When street view was announced, it shifted the way online privacy operated. People were now able to view any place in the world without the need to go there or to even research that much. They could even be transported right to that place without talking to another human. People could see other peoples homes with the click of a button. The online privacy wall that had been built was falling down. When looking at consequentialism, it fits nicely into this discussion. Consequentialism deals with the idea that an action is justified if it increases the good in the world. Despite Google violating privacy concerns, the street view brought a lot of good into the world. It helped people tremendously. By consequentialist standards, the software was indeed ethical. However, the way they implemented it could have been more ethical. A way that they could have implemented the service better would have been to change their reasoning behind the software to fit more with consequentialism. They could have come up with more ways that the software could be used to help people. Instead of letting the people do the work to make the street view helpful, Google could have used the software more to help increase the amount of good in the world. This would have shown the public that Google had no malicious intent and would have prepared the public to receive the street view service. Even though the way they implemented it could have used some work, the tool in and of itself can be seen as ethical. It was the starting point of much good in the world. People used it to find new restaurants and stores. People used it to remember the past places they have been to. The service sparked a lot of creativity in the world and helped to bring some good back into it. This is one of the main philosophies of consequentialism. It justifies our actions as long as the consequences helped more people than hurt them. When it comes to Google and privacy, they often do not do the job correctly. However, they do usually create tools that end up helping more people than hurting them. This is crucial when understanding how ethical a company like Google can truly be.
On the other hand, some may argue that a company like Google can never truly be ethical. They are assumed to be in it for the money so their intentions are not pure. While this is understandable, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Google wanted to also help people as well. Even if their reasoning was not pure, the outcome helped a lot of people. As for a way to help to ethically implement the street view, many different routes could have been taken. A lot of people believe Google did the right thing and that they do not owe the public anything. As a company that is invading people’s privacy, it makes sense as to why people want Google to stay ethical. Being ethical will help others and keep the good in the world. Keeping the public informed, having good morals, and finding out ways to help the most people are all fantastic ways Google can be more ethical and help keep the public out of harm’s way.
Works Cited