6 ms·

HIV can cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, so that could have caused his cancer. It’s actually not that far outside the realm of possibility. Condom use was not very commo

HIV can cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, so that could have caused his cancer. It’s actually not that far outside the realm of possibility. Condom use was not very common in the 70s and one can live with HIV dormant for many years.

shadowgovt 6y ago
But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.
  - arcticfox 6y ago
    > I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else. Agreed. > As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.
    - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
      As a public figure you cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s different from saying what should be done with his private medical records.
      - wonderwonder 6y ago
        That makes no sense, he is not a publicly elected official where disclosing health issues is expected. He is a private citizen running a company, the fact that the company is popular and successful should have no bearing at all. Should everyone who starts a company expect to lose all privacy especially health related, or only those that are successful above a set threshold?
        TomMarius 6y ago
        It should definitely be on your list of considerations. It's the sad reality.
        mcs_ 6y ago
        People must have their privacy, that is for sure. If I invest something in your company, and you are sick, should I know it?
        wonderwonder 6y ago
        Probably not, as if you are a normal everyday investor like me you should not be investing in companies where its success hinges on a single person. I love Tesla but I have not invested in it because Musk could get hit by an electric semi tomorrow and the stock would tank.
      - xvedejas 6y ago
        The only reason public figures don't reasonably have that expectation is because so many people are willing to break the law to leak their personal data. That this happens so often is not a valid justification for it happening.
      - mmcwilliams 6y ago
        This seems to fly in the face of the prevailing opinions on this site about Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex having his full name printed in the NYT.
        0x8BADF00D 6y ago
        He’s not an officer of a publicly traded corporation, and has no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a completely different case from being doxxed.
        mmcwilliams 6y ago
        That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. Don't put words in the other person's mouth. Instead, what people are saying is that if someone has a huge amount of power, then we don't really care about their privacy. Someone running a blog does not have a huge amount of power. Someone running a trillion dollar company, or running or president, or whatever, does have a huge amount of power. Thats the difference.
        mmcwilliams 6y ago
        Not sure how I was "putting words in the other person's mouth" by making that statement. I agree that Steve Jobs is more powerful than even an influential blogger, but they are both public figures. Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus about how much private information is appropriate to publish about someone according to their level of power? To me it seems to be a binary: are they a public figure or not. When it's a breach of journalistic ethics to publish information about a blogger that's provided on or linked to from said blog (I think it is a breach, he made a specific request not to) it's much more egregious to publish an apparently forged health record of a CEO. At no point do I think that not caring about someone's privacy means it's acceptable to publish false information about them.
- stale2002 6y ago
  "Why should a person's private medical history" Well, it depends on which public person we are talking about. A random nobody? Yeah, privacy is important for them. Someone running for president, or someone who is a CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world? I don't really care much about their privacy, in either circumstance.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    What grave scandal is uncovered by knowing that Jobs had AIDS? Who will get justice or recompense by knowing that? What future benefits or change of course will this bring for you, or me, or society? Don't get me wrong, I don't care about this guy's privacy either -- plus he's dead, so privacy is mostly moot -- but it's hard to see what anyone stands to gain from airing inconsequential medical history.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  I would argue that it became public knowledge the moment that the would-be leaker (along with any 3rd parties) learned about it, not the moment that it was leaked.
stormdennis 6y ago
HIV wasn't around in the 1970s (in Western countries at least) and also Jobs wasn't in the more at-risk demographics for the disease.
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  Right, but my point is that those who grew up in that era did not adopt condom use until much later. Old Steve was known to get around a lot.
- caymanjim 6y ago
  It very much was around in the 1970s, and you have no idea what his sex life was. But none of this is any of our business.
  - stormdennis 6y ago
    Given that the first recognised death from AIDS was in the 80s, I'd dispute your saying that it was very much around in the 70s. I don't know what his sex life was like but as far as we know he wasn't a prostitute, a I.V. drug user or gay, so yeah he wasn't in any of the demographics hardest hit.
    - tssva 6y ago
      The AIDS might have been identified by the CDC in 1981 but testing of remains shows that the virus was in the US and killing people well before then.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- 83uy2982983r80 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_HIV/AIDS_cases#Virus_origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_HIV/AIDS_cas... "(...) These specimens are significant not only because they are the oldest specimens of the virus known to cause AIDS, but because they show that the virus already had an extensive amount of genetic diversity in 1960.[10] This suggests the virus had either undergone recombination or been circulating for years or perhaps decades in the Kinshasa population. (...)" Additionally, Richard Edwin Graves Jr., a 28-year-old World War II veteran who had been stationed in the Solomon Islands, died on 26 July 1952 in Memphis, Tennessee with pneumocystis pneumonia, CMV and what some authors suggest are a sufficient number of opportunistic infections for a clinical course suggestive of an AIDS diagnosis.[8][9] Sadayo Fujisawa, a sixty-year-old Japanese-Canadian woman, died in Montreal on 28 June 1945 of pneumocystis pneumonia with Human cytomegalovirus (CMV), diarrhea, and wasting, a group of symptoms which some authors conclude would have led to an automatic diagnosis of AIDS in the early 1980s.[6][7] The virus was already circulating globally in the early 1900s.

shadowgovt 6y ago

But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"

0x8BADF00D 6y ago
As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.
- arcticfox 6y ago
  > I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else. Agreed. > As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.
  - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    As a public figure you cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s different from saying what should be done with his private medical records.
    - wonderwonder 6y ago
      That makes no sense, he is not a publicly elected official where disclosing health issues is expected. He is a private citizen running a company, the fact that the company is popular and successful should have no bearing at all. Should everyone who starts a company expect to lose all privacy especially health related, or only those that are successful above a set threshold?
      - TomMarius 6y ago
        It should definitely be on your list of considerations. It's the sad reality.
      - mcs_ 6y ago
        People must have their privacy, that is for sure. If I invest something in your company, and you are sick, should I know it?
        wonderwonder 6y ago
        Probably not, as if you are a normal everyday investor like me you should not be investing in companies where its success hinges on a single person. I love Tesla but I have not invested in it because Musk could get hit by an electric semi tomorrow and the stock would tank.
    - xvedejas 6y ago
      The only reason public figures don't reasonably have that expectation is because so many people are willing to break the law to leak their personal data. That this happens so often is not a valid justification for it happening.
    - mmcwilliams 6y ago
      This seems to fly in the face of the prevailing opinions on this site about Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex having his full name printed in the NYT.
      - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
        He’s not an officer of a publicly traded corporation, and has no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a completely different case from being doxxed.
        mmcwilliams 6y ago
        That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. Don't put words in the other person's mouth. Instead, what people are saying is that if someone has a huge amount of power, then we don't really care about their privacy. Someone running a blog does not have a huge amount of power. Someone running a trillion dollar company, or running or president, or whatever, does have a huge amount of power. Thats the difference.
        mmcwilliams 6y ago
        Not sure how I was "putting words in the other person's mouth" by making that statement. I agree that Steve Jobs is more powerful than even an influential blogger, but they are both public figures. Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus about how much private information is appropriate to publish about someone according to their level of power? To me it seems to be a binary: are they a public figure or not. When it's a breach of journalistic ethics to publish information about a blogger that's provided on or linked to from said blog (I think it is a breach, he made a specific request not to) it's much more egregious to publish an apparently forged health record of a CEO. At no point do I think that not caring about someone's privacy means it's acceptable to publish false information about them.
stale2002 6y ago
"Why should a person's private medical history" Well, it depends on which public person we are talking about. A random nobody? Yeah, privacy is important for them. Someone running for president, or someone who is a CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world? I don't really care much about their privacy, in either circumstance.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  What grave scandal is uncovered by knowing that Jobs had AIDS? Who will get justice or recompense by knowing that? What future benefits or change of course will this bring for you, or me, or society? Don't get me wrong, I don't care about this guy's privacy either -- plus he's dead, so privacy is mostly moot -- but it's hard to see what anyone stands to gain from airing inconsequential medical history.
dependenttypes 6y ago
I would argue that it became public knowledge the moment that the would-be leaker (along with any 3rd parties) learned about it, not the moment that it was leaked.

stormdennis 6y ago

HIV wasn't around in the 1970s (in Western countries at least) and also Jobs wasn't in the more at-risk demographics for the disease.

0x8BADF00D 6y ago
Right, but my point is that those who grew up in that era did not adopt condom use until much later. Old Steve was known to get around a lot.
caymanjim 6y ago
It very much was around in the 1970s, and you have no idea what his sex life was. But none of this is any of our business.
- stormdennis 6y ago
  Given that the first recognised death from AIDS was in the 80s, I'd dispute your saying that it was very much around in the 70s. I don't know what his sex life was like but as far as we know he wasn't a prostitute, a I.V. drug user or gay, so yeah he wasn't in any of the demographics hardest hit.
  - tssva 6y ago
    The AIDS might have been identified by the CDC in 1981 but testing of remains shows that the virus was in the US and killing people well before then.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
83uy2982983r80 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_HIV/AIDS_cases#Virus_origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_HIV/AIDS_cas... "(...) These specimens are significant not only because they are the oldest specimens of the virus known to cause AIDS, but because they show that the virus already had an extensive amount of genetic diversity in 1960.[10] This suggests the virus had either undergone recombination or been circulating for years or perhaps decades in the Kinshasa population. (...)" Additionally, Richard Edwin Graves Jr., a 28-year-old World War II veteran who had been stationed in the Solomon Islands, died on 26 July 1952 in Memphis, Tennessee with pneumocystis pneumonia, CMV and what some authors suggest are a sufficient number of opportunistic infections for a clinical course suggestive of an AIDS diagnosis.[8][9] Sadayo Fujisawa, a sixty-year-old Japanese-Canadian woman, died in Montreal on 28 June 1945 of pneumocystis pneumonia with Human cytomegalovirus (CMV), diarrhea, and wasting, a group of symptoms which some authors conclude would have led to an automatic diagnosis of AIDS in the early 1980s.[6][7] The virus was already circulating globally in the early 1900s.