Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by seiji 5315 days ago
An article a few years ago talked about what privacy means to rich kids who have everything. Go to a $40k per year boarding school that mummy and daddy pay for? What do you have to hide? Not much.

Then the kids get older and decide "no secrets for anybody!" What's the harm in sharing your life? It's a net win. If you see James got a new turbo jet ski, won't you want to work harder to get one too? Sharing can save the world.

We can't seem to imagine a time when maybe you wanted to keep a secret. Maybe you're helping someone to not be found. Maybe you're helping someone through a bad time in their life. Then, with a profit-oriented privacy change, you end up in the parent's situation.

The world view of the people in charge aren't aligned with "normal." We'll see PR and lip service press releases, but steamrolling over normal people will continue.
1 comments
rdouble 5315 days ago
On the contrary, don't rich people have a lot more to hide?

Just knowing that your kid is enrolled at Le Rosey signals to a criminal that she is worth kidnapping... and the last status update shows her headed to Ibizia for spring break. In contrast, nobody cares if another poor kid "likes" Justin Bieber. Over-sharing seems a lot riskier for the rich (and famous.) It would be interesting to read the article you mentioned. It's hard to imagine an argument that the rich are not more concerned with privacy than regular people.

link
brlewis 5314 days ago
Kidnapping for ransom is rare in the United States. It's not good risk/reward. The family of the kid enrolled at Le Rosey is probably living beyond its means, and lacks sufficient credit to pay enough ransom to cover the costs of a kidnapping operation.

The only significant kidnapping in the US is drug-related (in Phoenix) or husbands kidnapping their own children from estranged wives: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/l...

link
rdouble 5314 days ago
The family of the kid enrolled at Le Rosey is probably living beyond its means

I doubt that.

http://members.forbes.com/global/1999/0705/0213126a.html

link
seiji 5315 days ago
The other important point: Nobody older than 25 exists (well nobody older than ~age-of-founder exists. Remember the entire "Never hire anybody over 27!" advice?). Kids don't have major privacy concerns, therefore everybody should have no privacy.
link