The case Vaidhyanathan puts forth is how everything is being ‘Googlized.’ David Peña comments how before the advent of Google Maps, their job required them to use aerial footage and taking photographs on site. Now, however,  David is able to just go online and search for a specific location from the comfort of their own home. However, Vaidhyanathan has brought multiple instances of how this is potentially invading the privacy of millions of people around the world. In this Case Analysis it will be argued that Google continuously attempts to follow the principles of Confucianism, by attempting to fulfill its role despite from roadblocks- whether those be Google or another individual’s doing. There are multiple instances in the selection which would indicate such. Such as multiple instances where Google has attempted to blur a plethora of things at the request of users, organizations, and governments. Google has also showed that, following their mission, they attempt to ‘organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.’ Whether Google has stuck to this path will be discussed in this Case Analysis.

            Using Luciano Floridi, it will be attempted to tie Google to Confucianism. Luciano Floridi made a case that there were four types of privacy: physical, mental, decisional, and informational. It can be argued that Google, intentionally or not, invaded millions of people privacy with the advent of Google Street View. The focus will be on physical and decisional privacy. One could argue that Google is intruding on people’s physical privacy in that Google Street cars are constantly on roads and within range of the public. People who see these vehicles will actively know that they may end up on Google Maps at some point in the future and begin to worry. The fact that these cars are in such proximity to the public can make people uncomfortable. There was an instance on pages 104-105 of Vaidhyanathan’s selection that stated how it was simple for someone to simply walk up to a Google car and simply block its path. People had come to despise these street cars in Japan and its people had formed a chain around the car to prevent it from continuing its routes. These street cars had cameras mounted high and would likely peer into the yards of the Japanese citizens which bothered a lot of citizens as this type of behavior would be seen as extremely antisocial as described on page 103. However, earlier in the selection it is revealed that Google stated that it would attempt to blue faces and license plates to conform with Canadian law on page 101. It is revealed later that Google would mount the cameras lower on the Japanese Google cars to appease the citizens and address the privacy concerns. As per the article, Google has committed to its original stance of attempting to make changes to protect the privacy of people which would give Google credit to sticking to the path they previously set out on in accordance with Confucianism.

            Decisional privacy is another instance that relates to Google Street cars, as these cars have been thought to roam the street at least once every three years to update the maps. It would only become a matter of time before a person is captured in a more secluded area like a neighborhood or small city. In neighborhoods and small cities it is more likely that many people would know each other as their social circles would likely be more tight knit. For example, Vaidhyanathan mentioned how they walk their dog every day, drove their black car, and relayed their physical profile on page 101 to show that anyone who knows Vaidhyanathan either personally or not would know the general locations that they frequent or may even live in. People can be very thorough when it comes to searching for people based on vague hints. A major example of this can be seen by looking at the events of the ‘He Will Not Divide Us’ campaign with Shia Lebeouf in which users of 4chan would spend countless days trying to find a flag. People who harbor enough hatred or who generally have nothing better to do with their lives are quite the force to be reckoned with. With the internet and the freedom and aggregation of information by Google, someone is very easily to find if another is motivated enough to find them. In relation to the previous case, Google, again, has said that it would automatically blur out faces to the best of its ability. Countries where this may not be an automatic option, usually people are able to send reports to Google to request blurring of faces, licenses plates, property markings, etc. As argued earlier, it is shown that Google follows through with this request, which arguably shows how Google exhibits traits of Confucianism as they have promised to ‘stick to the path’ of valuing the privacy of individuals by blurring their faces.

            James Grimmelmann has explained in their article ‘Privacy as product safety,’ has likened privacy to a product in which people should expect companies to be able to safely manage users data and keep it safe, even at the fault of the consumer. It is evident that Google has not diligently kept the data of its users safe and has even violated the privacy of individuals throughout the year. According to Firewall Times, between 2009 and 2018 there were 6 major data breaches that had occurred. In multiple instances the data of its users had been exposed in bugs related to the now defunct Google+. On two occasions, malicious applications that had snuck their way into the Google Play store had compromised upwards of 2 million devices in both attacks combined. To give Google credit, all major companies experience breaches like these- it is only a matter of time.

            Firewall Times also reported that there have been multiple occasions in which Google has been ‘accused of violating users’ privacy.’ They report that, in 2018, there was a high-profile case in which Google was accused of sometimes tracking the location of over 2 billion users without their permission. Not only that, but users had to jump through numerous hoops just to fully turn off these services. They also report a case in which Google had continued to track the activity of people who opted to use private or ‘incognito’ browsing modes. While Google alleges that it informs users about data that may still be tracked, people argued that targeted their activity data specifically. As seen, while Google has committed to omit data from Google Maps upon request or automatically to conform to a country’s laws, they are prone to having data being compromised or even mishandling and collecting data of users without explicit consent. The two previous sections is one way in which Google may not be seen following the path of Confucianism, as it has failed to commit to its promise of keeping its users and their data safe.

            James Grimmelmann’s opinion on Google would likely be a negative one as the company has shown that it, like many other companies, cannot guarantee the safety of the data of its consumers, but that it also may mishandle it themselves. He goes on to mention how the ‘seller’ in this case, ‘Google’ is liable for ‘defects’ or in this case ‘data breaches’ and ‘mishandling of data.’ While the blame would go to Google according to Grimmelmann, users should always be careful where they use and input their data, however. He also goes on to mention how disclaimers are not a valid substitute. This goes along with his sentiment that the company should always be the one at fault as a disclaimer is a denial of responsibility. While Google may not outright make disclaimers, they will tend to argue their way through the fallout that comes when data breaches happen, or when privacy violations see the light of day. While not explicitly stated, it can be argued that Google is simply trying to deny responsibility. Google would violate Confucianism by straying from the path of a consumer business in which Grimmelman states the company should be the one to bear all responsibility.

            In conclusion, Google does not follow the Confucianism. Google has stuck to the path they set out on in only certain ways. Google has stuck to its path in that it claims that its mission is to make information accessible, which it very much is unless a country’s government is inherently blocking the spread of information. Google has also committed to blurring faces, licenses plates, and other requested data when handling Google Maps. However, it has strayed from its path of ensuring the privacy and safety of its users. As seen, Google has been involved in many data breaches or the compromising of millions of users’ data. It has also denied blame for any mishandling and non-consensual collection of data it may have committed. While it may follow the path of committing to remaining available with its information and committing to privacy on Google Maps, users should be more wary when it comes to using Google to host data or even search using Google’s search engine as it has shown that it may not always follow the ‘path’ (rules), they themselves decided on.

Works Cited

Heiligenstein, Michael X. “Google Data Breaches: Full Timeline through 2022.” Firewall Times, 21 Mar. 2022, https://firewalltimes.com/google-data-breach-timeline/.