[rdouble]

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.

[brlewis]

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...

[rdouble]

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

[seiji]

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.