3 ms·

I might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

by cissou 10y ago

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy? Well not in the strawman form of 'give up on privacy' - but yes, if the information may be of public interest (I definitely don't think that sex-tapes are fyi) - than the legal standards are different.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
c3534l 10y ago
Doing a little googling, it looks like Palantir is a somewhat suspicious cyber-spying company implicated in a number of dragnet espionage programs. For instance, China's espionage program used, in part, for political oppression in Tibet. It also looks like he distanced himself from an effort to use his software to try to take down Wikileaks. I'm not entirely sure what sorts of things Palantir really does and if I'd consider them ethical or anti-privacy, but it does seem like a point of concern and probably what the person above you was referencing.
danso 10y ago
I can't speak for the other commenter or for other countries, but in the U.S., being "extremely wealthy", to the point where you've become a public figure, changes the standard of privacy and slander in the eyes of the court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan > New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a "public figure", prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases—but only when they involve public figures—rarely prevail. As it's taught in journalism schools, this precedent is seen as the major driver of American press freedom.
EdiX 10y ago
Can't speak for nefitty (because I disagree with the parent comment) however wealth imho does imply a lower expectation of privacy since with wealth more of your private activities become a matter of public interest. That said, I don't see why Thiel's homosexuality would be newsworthy nor why Hulk Hogan's sex tape is newsworthy (the racist rant was, but they didn't publish that)

I might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

by cissou 10y ago

I might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy? Well not in the strawman form of 'give up on privacy' - but yes, if the information may be of public interest (I definitely don't think that sex-tapes are fyi) - than the legal standards are different.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

c3534l 10y ago

Doing a little googling, it looks like Palantir is a somewhat suspicious cyber-spying company implicated in a number of dragnet espionage programs. For instance, China's espionage program used, in part, for political oppression in Tibet. It also looks like he distanced himself from an effort to use his software to try to take down Wikileaks. I'm not entirely sure what sorts of things Palantir really does and if I'd consider them ethical or anti-privacy, but it does seem like a point of concern and probably what the person above you was referencing.

danso 10y ago

I can't speak for the other commenter or for other countries, but in the U.S., being "extremely wealthy", to the point where you've become a public figure, changes the standard of privacy and slander in the eyes of the court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan > New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a "public figure", prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases—but only when they involve public figures—rarely prevail. As it's taught in journalism schools, this precedent is seen as the major driver of American press freedom.

EdiX 10y ago

Can't speak for nefitty (because I disagree with the parent comment) however wealth imho does imply a lower expectation of privacy since with wealth more of your private activities become a matter of public interest. That said, I don't see why Thiel's homosexuality would be newsworthy nor why Hulk Hogan's sex tape is newsworthy (the racist rant was, but they didn't publish that)