SXSW: Privacy isn't dead, despite what Eric Schmidt or Mark Zuckerberg might say

itworld.com

18 points·abennett··8 comments

Headline: "Privileged straight white male technology executives are dead wrong (again)"

Oh yes. Only working-class, black lesbians ever get anything right regarding technological social policy.

Seriously, what's with the prejudiced headline? Privacy is good. You don't have to diss entire categories of people to argue for that.

...and, I'd like to add, doing so makes you sound stupid. So I didn't read very far.

People like Bruce Schneier argue eloquently about why privacy is a good thing without this sort of childish name-calling. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...

Bruce and danah are arguing from completely different perspectives. I think danah's talk needs to be read in its entirety - it fits in also with some of her other work around the demographic and ethnographic issues around social networks http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html

Not to mention that our SXSW interlocutor in question is herself a member of the privileged, white group, and therefore presumably at least partly suspect.

People in that group are least likely to be discriminated against, and therefore have the least to hide online. Poor black lesbians have more reason to be defensive.

Direct Link: http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html

not having privacy is synonymous to denial of freedom

Don't click! It's ad bait!!!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com