
SXSW: Privacy isn't dead, despite what Eric Schmidt or Mark Zuckerberg might say - abennett
http://www.itworld.com/tech-amp-society/100685/privileged-straight-while-male-technology-executives-are-dead-wrong-again
======
billybob
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.

~~~
billybob
...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...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html)

~~~
sriramk
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>

------
dfield
Direct Link: <http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html>

------
morbidkk
not having privacy is synonymous to denial of freedom

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

