Hacker News Reader

Comment by SpicyLemonZest | Hacker News Reader

Would you be okay with Elon Musk publicly posting the real-time location of your favorite politicians, or journalists who are critical of him, or other tech executives he has a beef with? I've yet to meet anyone who says yes, and I really don't think it'd even be a question if not for Musk's hypocrisy on the issue. I'm not sure how I'd go about finding "data" for this - it's one of those things that's so niche and so widely understood to be bad behavior, nobody bothers to write opinion polls about it.

View on HN

Public figures have always had fewer privacy rights than regular citizens. See paparazzi. You can also often find out where politicians and journalists by calling their offices. It's not private data.

So, yes. I would be OK with it. So long as, like with the flight tracker bots, it's not included with an incitement to violence.

> On March 14, 2006, Gawker launched Gawker Stalker Maps, a mashup of the site's Gawker Stalker feature and Google Maps. After this, Gawker Stalker—originally a weekly roundup of celebrity sightings in New York City submitted by Gawker readers—was frequently updated, and the sightings are displayed on a map. The feature sparked criticism from celebrities and publicists for encouraging stalking. Actor and director George Clooney's representative Stan Rosenfeld described Gawker Stalker as "a dangerous thing". Jessica Coen said that the map is harmless, that Gawker readers are "for the most part, a very educated, well-meaning bunch", and that "if there is someone really intending to do a celebrity harm, there are much better ways to go about doing that than looking at the Gawker Stalker".

> On April 6, 2007, Emily Gould appeared on an edition of Larry King Live hosted by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel during a panel discussion titled "Paparazzi: Do They Go Too Far?" and was asked about the Gawker Stalker. Kimmel accused the site of potentially assisting real stalkers, adding that Gould and her website could ultimately be responsible for someone's death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker#Gawker_Stalker

What point are you trying to make, out of curiosity? This piece provides opinions for, opinions against, and a very IANAL take on the legality of public data for public figures existing.

It's a strange hypocrisy of society. They enjoy celeb sightings and tracking people, just so long as it doesn't happen to them.

If they're public figures, sure.

How about framing it as a personal opinion then? Don’t speak for everyone.

It’s publicly available information to begin with. What exactly is the issue?

It's not a personal opinion thing. It's one of those things that you really could ask everyone and they would agree. It's hard to even think of a reason why someone would oppose it for themselves.

> hard to even think of a reason why someone would oppose it for themselves.

One group who may be against such a measure on philosophical grounds would be so-called “free speech absolutists” who evangelize the value of unfettered speech. Censoring content of any kind should be reprehensible to anyone who claims to belong to such a group.

Like I said. You keep saying ‘everyone would.’ How about just saying ‘In my opinion I think* everyone would.’

Not hard to do. I’m part of everyone and don’t agree so your claim is initially false.

You are okay to have your live location tracked without your permission?

Your initial claim of ‘everyone’ is false. That is all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com