PHIL 355E Case Analysis on Privacy
Siva Vaidhyanathan wrote “The Googlization of Everything” which is an article that explores Google (The world’s largest search engine), and its growing influence on society. Siva raises several concerns about the consequences of the phenomenon that is Google. Some of the concerns brought up included Google’s dominance, the cultural and economic impact of google, but one specific concern stood out to me, and that was Google and its collection of data, and how it can threaten privacy. The Stories “Understand” by Ted Chiang and “The Googlization of Everything” by Siva Vaidhyanathan on the surface are two very different works, both having different themes and messages. However, it is possible to compare the two works, primarily concerning the impact of data collection. In this case analysis, I will argue that “Understand” by Ted Chiang can show us that Google should have done a better job to protect the privacy of individuals when implementing Google Street View.
First, I would like to explore an article written by James Grimmelmann, “Privacy as Product Safety”; specifically pages 793-827. He argues that privacy needs to be considered as a critical component of product safety in the digital age. He makes the claim that since physical products are subject to safety regulations, safety regulations that protect consumers, digital products and services also need to be held accountable to the same standards, to ensure that personal information of consumers is safe and secure.
The first concept he introduces is “privacy as a product safety issue”. This concept emphasizes that the mishandling of personal information leads to significant harm to individuals, like identity theft or emotional distress. He says that both regulators and policymakers need to establish clear standards and regulation for data collection, data usage, and data protection, and that companies/corporations need to be held accountable for breaches or misuse of personal information, which he discusses in the section titled “Basics of Privacy Safety Law”.
Another concept he introduces is the importance of aligning privacy protections with consumer expectations. Users of different platforms, like Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, Google, etc., have certain expectations of privacy while using digital products and/or services, and these expectations of consumers need to be codified into industry regulations and practices. The alignment of consumer expectations and privacy, he argues, is essential for maintaining trust between consumers and companies/corporations and ensuring the continued success of the digital economy.
Siva Vaidhyanathan discusses ideas that relate to the article written by James Grimmelmann, specifically, they both are discussing data collection and privacy. Google is known for conducting extensive data collection practices across all of its services. They collect data on users’ searches, location, browsing history, email content, etc. They then use this data to personalize user experiences. This is why sometimes when you google something, like “Lay’s potato chips” you’ll start getting advertisements for the next few days that are related to Lay’s potato chips. Many users, however, are not aware that Google is collecting data on them, which raises privacy concerns. In my opinion, this isn’t right and Google should be held accountable for collecting data without the masses being aware of what they’re doing. Grimmelmann provides the solution, as mentioned above. I understand that not 100% of people will be aware, but, if there were clear standards and regulation of data collection, significantly more consumers would be aware that their data was being collected. Additionally, aligning privacy protections and consumer expectations is extremely vital, in my opinion. Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about where their data is going, and it is important that these corporations are clear and transparent with their consumers.
Google, specifically, with its “Google Street View” seems harmless at first glance. But without proper regulations or industry standards as mentioned by Grimmelmann, it allows Google to launch street view without regard to people’s privacy. While Google says they’re happy to remove images that are private or otherwise embarrassing, it is still able to launch on full exposure, and there have been several instances where people were concerned about the technology. One case being a Pennsylvania couple, who sued Google after they took clear images of their house and driveway, even though it was situated far back from the road. This is an example of how Google was invasively monitoring people with the technology, and showed no regard for privacy or private property laws. If there were industry standards and guidelines, as mentioned by Grimmelmann, Google likely wouldn’t have been as invasive as they were when implementing this new technology.
The short story “Understand” by Ted Chiang has an indirect theme of privacy throughout the story, and can be used to explain how Google could have done better when implementing street view. In “Understand”, one of the main characters, Leon, undergoes a medical procedure that gives him cognitive powers. This procedure, however, makes him lose his humanity. His new cognitive powers allow him to access a world of thoughts and understanding that regular humans would never be able to access. Because of his new powers, he doesn’t have any empathy for humanity and the problems of normal people seem meaningless to him. As his intelligence grows, he becomes more aware of the world around him, which includes the thoughts and actions of others.
This could be seen as invasive monitoring, similar to how Google, in some cases such as the Pennsylvania couple mentioned above, was being invasive while using street view. “Understand” shows us how having unlimited access to information and knowledge can be bad, specifically in the case of people’s privacy, and concepts introduced by Grimmelmann can help stop Google from being so invasive of people and their privacy.
I would like to consider another article that focuses on privacy. It is written by Luciano Floridi, titled “Privacy, Informational Friction”, and I’ll be using pages 101-128. This article focuses on the concept of privacy in an information-rich digital society. He argues that privacy is not only about secrecy, but privacy is also about an individual’s ability to control the accessibility and use of their personal information.
Privacy is a fundamental concept in the digital age, and Floridi dives into the idea of controlling one’s personal information in an information rich society. In today’s interconnected world, our personal information, like our address or credit card information, is constantly being collected, stored, and shared, oftentimes without our consent or knowledge. He suggests that privacy is crucial for individuals to maintain their autonomy, as well as protecting their dignity. This allows individuals to make choices about what information they show others and to control how that information is used.
Floridi introduces a concept known as “Informational Friction”. It is defined as the resistance or barriers that impede the flow of information. Specifically when referring to privacy, it refers to the mechanisms and/or strategies individuals can employ to control the spread of their personal information. It allows individuals to navigate the tension between sharing information for social and economic benefits, as well as protecting their privacy. He argues that as our lives become increasingly digitized, there is a need to introduce controlled friction into information flows. To put it simply, individuals should have access to the tools, as well as having the awareness, to apply brakes to the spread of their data. One example of informational friction could be using encryption to protect sensitive messages, or setting privacy settings on social media platforms in order to limit who is allowed to access someone’s personal information.
Floridi’s idea of “Informational Friction” is genius to me. Individuals who had their property or themselves appear on street view would be able to control whether or not they wanted to appear on street view in the first place. The addition of informational friction would make google street view less transparent, in the sense that street view wouldn’t be able to recklessly put pictures of people and their property online. If people were able to control Google putting pictures of themselves or their property it could have saved Google a lot of trouble. In Siva’s article “The Googlization of Everything”, it explains multiple instances of how informational friction could have prevented potential lawsuits. One such being in March 2009, a few days after the launch of Google Street View in the United Kingdom. Google mistakenly put an image of a naked toddler on Street View for the entire world to see. Google did remove the image, but they still did not give the parents of the toddler notice or consent that they had taken a picture of their naked toddler. If individuals were aware that personal pictures were being posted on the internet for everyone to see, and if individuals had the proper tools to remove such images, people would be able to maintain their privacy much more easily. Now admittedly, I’m not sure how Google would implement something like this, but it should have been their top priority to protect people’s privacy when implementing Street View, and informational friction could have potentially solved that.
Going back to Ted Chaing’s “Understand”, it can show us how complete transparency is not good. As Leon’s intelligence grows, he gains the ability of radical transparency, which is when there are no barriers to concealing one’s thoughts or intentions from Leon’s mind. With Leon having the ability to read one’s thoughts or intentions, it teaches us that personal privacy is important and must be respected. Not asking people for consent when taking pictures of them is an example of how Google was negligent when initially implementing their service, Street View. Something such as Floridi’s idea of “Informational Friction” could have been implemented initially to ensure that Google protects the privacy of individuals.
“Understand” by Ted Chiang is a short story that on the surface doesn’t seem like it can help in solving how Google could have better implemented Street View. However, when you look deeper into it, we can use lessons learned from the short story in order to provide a solution to the problem that is “What would have been a more ethical way to implement Google Street View?” “Understand” can be used to show Google how invasive monitoring isn’t right, as it violates an individual’s personal privacy. Ideas brought up by Grimmelmann, specifically “privacy as a product safety issue” and aligning privacy protections with consumer expectations, can be used as guidelines for Google so that they don’t violate the privacy of others. “Understand” also shows us how complete transparency violates someone’s personal privacy, and Floridi’s concept of “Informational Friction” can act as a barrier, protecting individuals from Google. While I can’t come up with a solution as to how Google would meet these demands, I still believe that their top priority, from day one, should have been to protect the right of personal privacy.