The same billionaire who spends tens of millions of dollars bulldozing houses around his in order to increase his privacy,† then tells the commoners that wanting privacy isn't normal.††

† https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Zuckerberg-to-raze-4-hou...

†† https://www.huffpost.com/entry/facebooks-zuckerberg-the_n_41...

Physical privacy vs virtual privacy are two very different things, so it's disingenuous to pretend they are exactly the same.

He tapes over his camera on his laptop because he doesn't trust it. I do too and don't think this is odd behavior. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...

While I understand the rank hypocrisy here, tech billionaires have a slightly different risk calculation than your average Joe. For example, Jeff Bezos's iPhone was hacked by a nation state using zero day exploits of video playback, delivered via a person message from its head of state. People like Bezos and Zuckerberg are on the wrong end of James Mickens's "Mossad or not-Mossad" threat model and should be taking different precautions than the average person.

The people's whose weddings got bombed by drones, or who get thrown in jail for having the same skin color and being in the same city block as an alleged perpetrator, may see it differently from you.

There is indeed a lot wrong in this world.

What you describe is an additional problem. A normal person targeted by a blackmailer over their sexual history would be a closer model, although even then it would still not be close to the level of a state sponsored attack on you personally — that can include combining the drones with accurate information rather than whatever led to them hitting weddings, or it could be as mild as Van Eck phreaking to find what you’re looking/who you’re talking to at no matter how well you encrypt the connection.

Apparently being Zuck means you need to have an insane level of protection. But regular people also have things to lose when their privacy is thrown out the toilet. Thanks to z.

Yes, I absolutely agree. Worse, most people don’t grok what computers can do, so they are unaware of how much they have lost until this bites them.

Oh for the innocent bygone days of around 15 years ago.

That is physical privacy.. it's so someone can't SEE YOU. Not track your online activity.

Lack of privacy in online activities can be even more damaging today.

I don't understand your point, that they're "different?" Well no shit.

There is no difference.

The impact that virtual privacy can have on lives is quickly approaching the impact that physical privacy can have. Further, part of the attack surface on physical privacy is virtual privacy, anyways.

Nobody said they were exactly identical. If you're going to argue, please argue with what people actually say.

It's not a matter of being exactly the same thing or not. The double standard is glaring.

That's bad, but the worst part to me is the total confluence of both the legitimacy and wellbeing he makes with his own product.

'Using Facebook Is A Kind Of Wealth' is what he says basically.

'The whole world benefits so much when they use my product'

This is Trumpian level of delusion.

'It's important that every American gets a chance to stay at home of my resorts. They're so nice! So I'm going to offer a government-backed tax rebate so that everyone can come and stay. Studies have shown people who stay at resorts are in better health, more relaxed. These tax rebates are Good For America'.