Hacker News Reader

Comment by marricks | Hacker News Reader

I could empathize with your viewpoint more if not for the fact the lack of privacy wouldn’t be symmetrical. The middle and lower class will lose all semblance of privacy while the elite will be able to buy it. Case in point Mark Zuckerberg buying up that Hawaiian island.

Not only is it unfair but when the rich are just getting richer them having privacy while no one else does just allows for so many more ways for the poor to get screwed.

View on HN

I don't think I quite understand your argument, could you please elaborate a bit? I have always been under the assumption that fame grows linearly with wealth and the more famous someone is the less privacy they hold. Is that inaccurate? I could tell you that Warren Buffet is 1.78 m tall and that I know where he was born but I honestly know nothing about the minimum-wage-working Bob Smith.

If you were to find the most personal details of this Mr. Smith it would be far easier to do that. You could sit outside his house whole day long and observe his every move, dumpster dive into his trash and get documents, even bribe a certain official and get more info out of him/ her. I don't think any of that will be possible in the case of Warren Buffet.

That will be very difficult to do with Warren Buffet because he assumes that people will already be trying to do that. Mr. Smith, on the other hand, knows that he is low profile enough to be ignored among the masses. I fail to see why anyone would spend the time stalking someone who is not wealthy; the return value of finding information on Mr. Smith is not worth the trouble.

If anything, Ad companies would more aggressively target the wealthy because they have more money to spend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com