3 ms·

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.

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.