AKOSSIWA AGBENOU

PHILL355E

January 28, 2024

Case Analysis on Privacy

With the advent of Google Street View, we can now virtually travel the world, do

business remotely, and see faraway places from a bird's-eye perspective. Its convincing portrayal

of distant locations—including neighborhoods, residences, businesses, street architecture, and

the ease of transportation between them—is a major selling point. Despite Google's assurances

that they have responded to most customer complaints, the service has nevertheless sparked

heated discussion and criticism. A few key points of contention include: the following: the

collection and use of personally identifiable information; the inaccessibility of features that users

have paid to have featured; the length of time it requires for information to be removed after a

user contacts Google; the cultural considerations of property privacy; the possibility that

members of underrepresented groups are unaware of privacy violations; and lastly, the paucity of

information provided by Google regarding how to protect users' privacy. This case study will use

the contractarianism tool to argue that Google should have surveyed city and town residents to

get their informed consent before adding their areas to Google Street View.

Luciano Floridi's work introduces the idea of "informational ethics," which is applicable

to the analysis of Google Street View. Floridi's informational ethics centers on comprehending

the ethical ramifications of the information society, highlighting the ethical concerns associated

with the creation, manipulation, and distribution of information. The concept entails

acknowledging the inherent worth of knowledge and the moral obligations linked to its
management. Within the realm of Google Street View, the concept of informational ethics

compels us to contemplate the ethical aspects of gathering, retaining, and disseminating visual

information pertaining to private areas without obtaining explicit consent. Floridi's theory

prompts us to evaluate the influence of technology progress on the informational privacy of

people and the wider societal consequences of such actions.

When analyzing the Google Street View case through the lens of Floridi's informational

ethics, it becomes clear that the unlawful collection and presentation of visual information give

rise to ethical issues. The device unintentionally records intimate moments, violating individuals'

right to privacy. Floridi's paradigm prompts us to assess whether Google's actions conform to the

norms of informational ethics, which encompass upholding people' liberty and ensuring that

information processes have a positive impact on the collective welfare. When examining Google

Street View from Floridi's perspective, it becomes evident that the absence of explicit consent

from residents represents an ethical transgression. Floridi's focus on valuing individuals as

independent actors highlights the necessity for Google to have undertaken a more open and

inclusive procedure. The analysis provides a basis for comprehending the ethical consequences

of Google's conduct in the wider framework of informational ethics, preparing the ground for the

following utilization of contractarianism in assessing the issue.

Contractarianism provides a framework for assessing the acts of Google in adopting

Street View from an ethical perspective. Contractarianism, based on the social contract tradition,

asserts moral principles are grounded in the hypothetical agreement that rational individuals

would make under fair and impartial conditions. Within the scope of Google Street View,

evaluating the technology's implementation via a contractarian perspective entail examining

whether its deployment adheres to standards that users would consent to if they had the option.
Contractarianism prioritizes the significance of voluntary consensus and mutual assent in the

process of ethical decision-making. The ethical difficulties arise due to the lack of specific

consent from city and town citizens in the context of Google Street View. According to the

contractarian perspective, individuals own the entitlement to regulate entry to their personal

areas, and the absence of consultation or informed consent infringes upon the norms of equitable

and voluntary involvement. Contractarianism raises the inquiry of whether people would have

consented to the inclusion of their houses and streets on Google Street View if they had been

provided with the option.

The contractarian analysis of Google Street View suggests that a better ethical strategy

would have entailed conducting surveys among city and town people to get their informed

consent prior to integrating their regions into the platform. Contractarianism asserts that ethical

behaviors are those that persons would mutually agree upon under equitable circumstances.

under the case of Google Street View, this means seeking explicit consent from those who are

directly impacted.

Contractarianism concurs with the concept that individuals own the right to regulate access to

their personal places, based on the perspective of individual autonomy. Google's inability to get

informed consent violates this right, therefore undercutting the ideals of voluntary participation.

Furthermore, when examining the wider social consequences, adopting a contractarian

perspective would give precedence to the collective welfare by valuing the concerns and choices

of individuals living in the examined regions.

The contractarian argument posits that Google had an ethical obligation to participate in a

process of mutual agreement with locals, upholding their autonomy and ensuring that the

implementation of Street View was a result of equitable and voluntary involvement. Google's
actions might be considered morally dubious within the contractarian framework if they do not

follow these criteria. This supports the argument for a more conscious and participative approach

to implementing technology such as Google Street View.

Privacy self-management is a key concept in James Grimmelmann's work that has

relevance to the examination of Google Street View. Grimmelmann underscores the significance

of individuals exerting authority over their personal information and exercising agency in

determining its disclosure. Privacy self-management is based on the principle that individuals

should have the freedom to control the collection, utilization, and sharing of their personal

information, enabling them to protect their privacy in an ever more digitalized society. The issue

of privacy self-management becomes crucial in the context of Google Street View. It is desirable

for residents of cities and towns that have been recorded by Street View to have the capability to

control how their personal areas and information are depicted on a publicly accessible platform.

Grimmelmann's concept proposes that individuals should have the authority to determine

whether their residences and communities are included in a publicly available digital map,

enabling them to have influence over the distribution of their personal data.

Utilizing Grimmelmann's framework of privacy self-management in the context of the

Google Street View case exposes possible ethical deficiencies in Google's methodology. The

technology, through the acquisition of intricate visuals of personal residences and public areas

without explicit consent, encroaches upon individuals' capacity to successfully regulate their

privacy. Grimmelmann contends that individuals should have been given the chance to govern

the portrayal of their personal areas on Street View, and the absence of a privacy self-

management system gives rise to ethical apprehensions. In addition, Grimmelmann's framework

encourages an analysis of the transparency and user control elements of Google Street View. Did

Google furnish residents with the requisite tools and knowledge to proficiently regulate their

privacy? Grimmelmann's analysis indicates that a morally sound implementation of Street View

would require strong privacy self-management systems, which would guarantee that people are

adequately informed and empowered to make choices about the exposure of their homes.

From a contractarian perspective, the absence of explicit consent from people in cities

and towns gives rise to ethical difficulties. The fundamental concept of contractarianism posits

that people possess the entitlement to establish the terms and circumstances under which they

would consent to participate in a collective communal structure. The absence of obtaining

informed consent from residents in the context of Google Street View violates their autonomy

and prompts concerns over the fairness of the arrangement. The contractarian examination

examines whether the implementation of Google Street View upholds the autonomy of people

and if, given fair circumstances, citizens would have consented to being included in the mapping

service. Contractarianism emphasizes the significance of voluntary engagement and mutual

consensus, asserting that the ethical path entails obtaining the express consent of those directly

impacted.

The contractarian analysis of Google Street View suggests that a better ethical strategy

would involve conducting surveys among city and town people to get their informed consent

before putting their locations on the platform. Contractarianism places great importance on free

agreement and mutual consent when making ethical decisions, and the absence of express

consent in this situation creates ethical concerns. Contractarianism is in accordance with the

concept of individual autonomy since it recognizes the right of people to regulate access to their
own places. Google's inability to get informed consent violates this right, weakening the ideals of

voluntary participation. Furthermore, when examining the wider social consequences, adopting a

contractarian perspective would give precedence to the collective welfare by upholding the

concerns and desires of the individuals living in the examined regions. The contractarian

argument posits that Google had an ethical obligation to enter into a consensual arrangement

with locals, valuing their independence and guaranteeing that the implementation of Street View

was a result of equitable and voluntary involvement. Google's conduct might be considered

morally dubious under the contractarian framework due to their failure to adhere to these norms.

This analysis advocates for a more diligent and collaborative approach to the introduction of

technology such as Google Street View, which takes into consideration the independence and

preferences of the persons impacted.

In conclusion, this paper argues that employing the contractarianism ethical tool offers a

basis for evaluating the ethical aspects of Google Street View's deployment, with a particular

focus on the importance of obtaining informed consent by conducting a poll of citizens in cities

and towns. During the analysis, it became clear that Google's actions, which were carried out

without express consent, presented ethical difficulties from both contractarian and privacy self-

management viewpoints. It is possible to argue that the implicit consent offered by Google's

terms of service suffices in terms of complaints. However, these objections fail to consider the

intricate need for informed consent that is essential for the public display of private areas. In

addressing these issues, it is vital to make a clear distinction between the overall use of the

platform and the consequences of Street View's obtrusive visual content. Considering the larger

consequences, this argument emphasizes the overall significance of responsibly utilizing

developing technologies that involve public areas and personal data. Nevertheless, it is crucial to
recognize certain disadvantages, such as the difficulties of acquiring public consent and the

potential constraints of contractarianism in tackling intricate societal problems. To ensure ethical

technology implementation, it is essential to acknowledge these problems and actively

participate in open discussions. This is necessary to effectively navigate the changing terrain of

privacy and consent in the digital era.