We Need to Reimagine Digital Maps as Public Infrastructure. Here’s Why. – Tech Policy Press

Report on the Alignment of Private Digital Infrastructure with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Assessing Google Maps as Public Interest Technology

Digital navigation platforms, exemplified by Google Maps, function as essential global infrastructure, yet their operation by private corporations raises significant questions regarding their alignment with the public good and international development objectives. This report analyzes the conflict between the private, profit-driven nature of such technologies and their role as de facto public utilities. The analysis is framed through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

The Privatization of Public Infrastructure and its Impact on Sustainable Development

H3: Public Investment as the Foundation for Private Enterprise

The core technology enabling Google Maps is a direct result of decades of publicly funded research and development. Key components include:

• Global Positioning System (GPS): Developed through extensive government and military research initiated by agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
• Internet Infrastructure: The foundational network on which Google operates was also a product of public sector investment.
• Initial Technology Investment: The precursor to Google Maps, Keyhole Inc., received strategic investment from In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), on behalf of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).

This history demonstrates a significant privatization of public investment. While private innovation is crucial, the control of essential infrastructure by a single corporate entity, answerable primarily to shareholders, challenges the principles of SDG 9, which calls for the development of resilient, sustainable, and inclusive infrastructure for all.

H3: Data Models and Community Impact

Google Maps utilizes a model that relies heavily on public and user-generated data, including crowdsourcing and real-time user data harvesting. While this approach is presented as a democratization of cartography, it effectively centralizes vast amounts of information for corporate benefit. This model fails to prioritize the goals of SDG 11, which seeks to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Instead of empowering communities, the data is leveraged to serve market interests, potentially marginalizing local needs and priorities.

Geopolitical Implications and Challenges to SDG 16

H3: The Disputed Territories Dilemma

A critical issue is Google’s policy of displaying different versions of international borders and place names based on the user’s location. This practice of creating multiple geopolitical realities directly undermines the objectives of SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Examples of this policy include:

• Kashmir: Displayed differently to users in India versus Pakistan.
• Crimea: Shown as part of Russia to Russian users while marked as disputed territory for others.
• Gulf of Mexico: Renamed “Gulf of America” for U.S. users following a political push, creating conflict with Mexico.

This approach, while framed as neutral, is a political act that can create informational echo chambers, reinforce nationalist narratives, and exacerbate international tensions. It bypasses transparent, democratic processes for conflict resolution, placing a private corporation in the role of an unaccountable geopolitical arbiter.

H3: Real-World Consequences and Institutional Integrity

The cartographic decisions made by Google have led to significant international friction, challenging the stability and justice sought by SDG 16. India’s proposed Geospatial Information Regulation Bill (GIRB), Iran’s threat of legal action over the naming of the Persian Gulf, and Mexico’s consideration of a lawsuit over the Gulf of Mexico demonstrate that these corporate policies have tangible diplomatic and sovereign consequences. By making these decisions unilaterally, the corporation undermines the role of established international and state-level institutions responsible for mediating such disputes.

Recommendations for Realigning Digital Navigation with the Public Interest

H3: A Framework for Equitable and Sustainable Digital Cartography

To better align essential navigation services like Google Maps with public interest and the Sustainable Development Goals, the following actions should be considered:

1. Promote Participatory Governance in Disputed Regions: In line with SDG 16, corporate entities must engage directly with local communities and leaders in conflicted territories to ensure mapping decisions are informed and inclusive. For regions in active and dire conflict, a policy of non-mapping sensitive areas—similar to the current practice for secure government facilities—should be implemented to protect vulnerable populations and support the principles of SDG 11 for safe human settlements.
2. Establish a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee: To ensure cartographic representations are equitable and historically sound, an advisory body comprising historians, community leaders, geographers, and youth representatives should be established. This fosters the multi-stakeholder partnerships championed by SDG 17 and ensures that mapping serves community needs, reflecting the goals of SDG 11.
3. Expand Community-Led Mapping Initiatives: Grant programs should be expanded beyond non-profits and startups to empower local neighborhood and community leaders to map their own areas. This approach would ensure that maps reflect authentic local character, assets, and priorities, directly advancing Target 11.3 of the SDGs, which calls for enhancing inclusive and sustainable urbanization through participatory planning.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

The article extensively discusses Google Maps as a critical piece of digital infrastructure, highlighting its development from publicly funded research (GPS, ARPANET) and its current status as a privately controlled service. The core argument revolves around whether such essential infrastructure should serve corporate profit or the public good, which directly relates to the goal of building resilient, inclusive, and sustainable infrastructure.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The article connects to SDG 11 by proposing methods to make digital mapping more inclusive and representative of local communities. It suggests engaging local residents through participatory mapping, establishing advisory committees to capture unmapped historical and cultural information, and expanding community mapping grants to neighborhood leaders. These actions aim to ensure that mapping reflects community priorities and safeguards cultural heritage, contributing to more inclusive and sustainable human settlements.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

This goal is central to the article’s discussion of the “disputed territory problem.” The practice of showing different maps to users in different countries (e.g., Kashmir, Crimea) is presented as a source of misinformation and division that undermines peace. The article critiques Google, a private corporation, for making political decisions without accountability or a democratic process. It highlights the need for transparent and accountable institutions to govern essential information infrastructure, referencing legal actions like India’s proposed Geospatial Information Regulation Bill and the Ohio Attorney General’s lawsuit to declare Google a public utility.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The article touches on SDG 10 by critiquing a system where essential technology is controlled by a private entity for profit, potentially exacerbating inequalities. The proposed solutions, such as participatory mapping and engaging diverse community leaders, are aimed at empowering local communities and ensuring more equitable representation in the digital sphere, promoting social and political inclusion in how territories are defined and understood.

Specific Targets Identified

1. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.
     
     Explanation: The article identifies Google Maps as essential “cartographic and knowledge infrastructure” that over a billion people depend on. It questions whether this infrastructure is truly equitable or serves the public’s well-being when it is “controlled entirely by a private corporation, answerable only to its shareholders.”

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
     
     Explanation: The article directly advocates for this target by recommending that Google Maps “engage with local residents to make an informed decision” through “participatory mapping practices and civic engagement, led in partnership with community leaders.”
   • Target 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.
     
     Explanation: The article proposes establishing an “advisory committee of historians, community leaders, and young adults to capture unmapped historical information” and “document significant stories.” This directly aligns with safeguarding cultural heritage that might otherwise be ignored by a purely commercial mapping service.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article critiques Google’s lack of accountability, stating that “in making no decisions, Google Maps as a private corporation makes political decisions for us, rather than relying on the democratic process.” The Ohio lawsuit to declare Google a “public utility” is cited as an attempt to create such accountability.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article’s core argument is a call for more participatory decision-making. It suggests that instead of Google’s top-down, profit-driven approach, there should be engagement with communities, especially in disputed regions, and the creation of diverse advisory committees to ensure decisions are representative of the public interest.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Implied Indicators for SDG 9

   • Indicator: Number of users of digital navigation services.
     
     Explanation: The article mentions that Google Maps “serves over one billion users monthly” and that “over 60% of users” rely on it for navigation, indicating the scale and reliance on this infrastructure.

2. Implied Indicators for SDG 11

   • Indicator: Existence of mechanisms for community participation in mapping.
     
     Explanation: The article proposes the implementation of “participatory mapping practices and civic engagement” and expanding “community mapping grants to include neighborhood and community leaders.” The number and scope of such programs would be a direct indicator of progress.
   • Indicator: Number of cultural and historical sites documented through community engagement.
     
     Explanation: Progress towards safeguarding heritage could be measured by the amount of “unmapped historical information” and “cultural landmarks” that are added to maps as a result of the proposed advisory committee and community grants.

3. Implied Indicators for SDG 16

   • Indicator: Number of disputed territories with multiple map versions based on user location.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly states that Google creates “multiple realities,” showing “Kashmir differently to Indian versus Pakistani users” and “Crimea as part of Russia to Russian users.” A reduction in this number would indicate a move away from creating “echo chambers” and towards a more transparent approach.
   • Indicator: Establishment of public oversight or regulatory frameworks for digital mapping platforms.
     
     Explanation: The article mentions two examples of attempts to create accountability: India’s proposed “Geospatial Information Regulation Bill” and the “Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare Google a public utility.” The successful implementation of such measures would be a key indicator.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: techpolicy.press