Privacy represents a term that proves very hard to define as a single entity. In today’s interconnected world, there exist many forms of privacy with an equally large amount of ways in which society attempts to protect them. Google Earth has mapped the entire world with satellite images, with a special feature called Street View that provides even closer views of specific places from public streets. In the case of Google Earth and its Street View feature, perhaps society would find it better to define privacy in terms of when plaintiffs feel their privacy has been breached; in this case, there exists a difference between the legal and perceptual right to privacy.
With regard to legal protection of privacy, Google Earth critics claim Street View violates the four main privacy torts. The most basic tort deals with intrusion into an individual’s private space, with no publication necessary to have broken it. The second involves the public disclosure of private facts about such an individual. Third refers to the publication of false and highly offensive information about the individual. Finally, the last tort prohibits the appropriation of any part of an individual’s identity for commercial gain (Kelley, 2008). While these torts remain fairly broad in an attempt to cover different cases of breaches of privacy, they cannot be necessarily applied to Google Earth’s Street View, given the images show public places. At first, users of Street View may be surprised to learn that Google has mapped a great majority of the United States and part of the world’s streets utilizing a high resolution, 360-degree camera, including anybody outside while such pictures were taken (Spring, 2007). These photographs have been overlaid with Google Earth, providing close-up views of personal residences and public places, many times with people going about routine, daily actions. These seamlessly integrated images have also captured many people doing things they would rather keep off the Internet.
People caught in compromising positions by Street View argue that their privacy has been violated. Furthermore, they believe that the fear of being photographed in similar ways by the omniscient Street View camera may hinder the public in living their everyday lives, saying that this fear keeps individuals from acting “spontaneously.” They feel that Street View keeps people from controlling information about themselves, which many consider a right of privacy (Lavoie, 2009).
Yet Street View does not intrude on the privacy of the public in comparison to many accepted forms of technology, considering Street View documents public places. For example, many countries, such as the United Kingdom, have cameras positioned in various public places to monitor the public live, highly unlike the static, dated images Google started taking back in 2007. Being caught on camera in a public place does not give one the same rights as being unlawfully pictured inside a private building. Street View merely serves as a tool to those interested in learning more about their own environment. Those people caught on the Street View cameras do not represent the subject of the photos; the geography behind them does. In response to claims to the contrary, Google has blurred faces and license plates to ensure that the geographic information remains the main focus of its images (Segall, 2010).
Given the complication one finds when trying to define privacy, it seems to be easier to pinpoint its intrinsic value once one believes it has been violated, specifically the difference between an individual’s legal and perceptual right to privacy. However, Street View represents a tool comprised of public images, not meant to portray people, but geography. Until Google attempts to monitor the world in real-time, Street View will continue to provide a free, harmless public service.
References
Kelley, J. D. (2008). A computer with a View Progress, Privacy, and Google. Brooklyn Law Review, 74(187), 208-211.
Lavoie, A. (2009). The Online Zoom Lens: Why Internet Street-level Mapping Technologies Demand Reconsideration of he Modern-day Tort Notion of “Public Privacy.” Georgia Law Review 43(2), 604-613.
Segall, J. (2010). Google Street View: Walking the line of privacy—Intrusion upon seclusion and publicity given to private facts in the digital age. University of Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy, 10(1), 23-32.
Spring, T. (2007). How the Web Works: google’s Street-Scene Machine. PC World 25(12), 131.
Jill,
This is a thoughtful article and it kept my interest as I read it. Many of your sentences made sense and developed your thoughts appropriately in the progression of paragraphs.
One area I would have liked to see more developed is the first sentence of the last paragraph “Given the complication one finds when trying to define privacy, it seems to be easier to pinpoint its intrinsic value once one believes it has been violated.” That is a new idea you’ve introduced and deserves some more depth or even using a simile for texture. In my opinion those folowing two sentences do not relate to that first, but make a fine paragraph together without the introductory “However”.
Good work overall and I especially liked how you used amusing pictures and the “not so fast…” in your title.
In this blog, Jill gives the claim that although Google’s Street View does invade people’s privacy, it does not do it as much as governments and other entities around the world do it. However, since privacy is difficult to define, according to Jill, it would “be easier to pinpoint its intrinsic value once one believes it has been violated” (Prier, paragraph 5). Jill does a good job explaining the different types of torts and in bring up the point that most governments around the world do more to invade their citizen’s privacy than Street View. However, it would be difficult to argue that Street View is ‘harmless’. There are probably hundreds of direct and indirect ways that street view may negatively interfere with people’s lives. Jill uses a counterargument well at the beginning of the fourth paragraph, signaling a transition in thought. She also gives a good conclusion that summaries the blog but should perhaps provide more examples of how different groups in the world may interfere with privacy.
Jill does a great job of incorporating all the evidence sources we had read and discussed in class. She does a great job in referencing these legal documents and strengthening her own arguments. The title is also a great way to begin the blog post, especially because it definitively reveals what the article will be about, while not stating too much of her argument. Her bright line,
“Until Google attempts to monitor the world in real-time, Street View will continue to provide a free, harmless public service,” really sets a true standard and makes an argument that goes beyond what her referenced sources have stated. The only problem I have seen with the post may be its inclusion of the four torts of privacy. Because it is not well incorporated or explained, I believe it could be removed or further fleshed out. I thought it interrupted the flow of the article.
The claim of the article is very clear (geography>people), the sources used are quite appropriate. I like the fact that you are trying to incorporate the legal aspect of the issue, by mentioning the four torts.
However, some statements seem fallacious to me:
Critics do not accuse Google of all the four torts – after all, it is impossible to accuse their imagery of representing false information (tort 3). And they [Google] do not really make money by taking pictures of Barbara Streisand’s house and then selling them to her [only] fan (tort 4).
Also, Google definitely has not mapped “a great majority of the world streets” yet (unless by world you mean the USA).
I like the last sentence, which assumes that Google Earth will eventually attempt to “go live” and become “harmful”. This sentence opens your paper to debate, which is the ultimate goal of any non-scientific writing.
This essay did a great job of stating its argument (paragraph 2) and couterargument, where she provides the opposing view in the 3rd paragraph and rufutes it in paragraph 4. Her points are clear and consise, which made the essay easy to follow. However, the introduction seemed to lack clarity – privacy is referred to as a term that is difficult to define as a term. Also, the first paragraph ends with the reader being unsure about whether the post supports or discourages the use of Street View. Perhaps another sentence or two would help the reader determine the thesis of the post earlier on in the essay. The ending is nice, and I really like Jill’s point that in order for Street View to become a threat, it would need to provide some sort of updated surveillance system. Strong points, good conclusion, and overall a good post.
Jill has a clear position in this article that Google can’t be solely blamed for privacy intrusion, and he effectively adressed the topic by starting with talking about legal term. The thesis is quite clear (in the middle of the second paragraph) and the counterargument (third paragraph) is given precisely. One thing readers might feel confused is that the lower half part of second paragraph, which introduces the technique background of street view, doesn’t seem relate to the thesis stated before quite well. It might be better if you put this part at the end of first paragraph, which won’t hurt the connection between the first two paragraphs but will make the thesis look strong and make its transition into the third paragraph more fluently.
The writer does an excellent job of establishing her claim and reinforcing it with evidence. It is clear that this post is in support of Google Street View, which is described in the concluding sentence as a free, harmless public service. The writer argues that Google Street View should not be blamed for intrusions of privacy. Her use of various legal documents adds strong support to her claim. The analysis of the four privacy torts is a particularly strong argument on behalf of Google Street View. Furthermore, the writer addresses a possible counterargument in Paragraph 3, and effectively rebuts it in the following paragraph. One point that could be expanded upon is the how the four privacy torts “cannot be necessarily applied to Google Earth’s Street View.” The writer addresses this briefly and offers no additional explanation.
Jill, I like your separation of an individual’s legal and perceptual rights to privacy. You do a good job of analyzing the impact of Google Street View from these two perspectives. You have done a good job of arguing for the necessity of separating these two aspects of privacy when evaluating the impact of Street View.
I want to caution you about characterizing the coverage of Street View as being more complete than it actually is at present. You say that “Google has mapped a great majority of the United States and part of the world’s streets utilizing a high resolution, 360-degree camera.” Yes, Google has mapped a majority of the US with satellite images, but please try to pin down the accuracy of your statement that the mapping with a high resolution, 360-degree camera also covers a majority of the US. I couldn’t find Street Views of Ithaca, NY (where I live), for example, but I could find them for larger cities. I also could not find them for vast areas of sparsely populated areas of the US. Not surprisingly, Google seems to have concentrated on places where the population density is highest.
Your have some very insightful information here. I am glad I stumbled upon this.