> I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.

Agreed.

> As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect?

So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.

As a public figure you cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s different from saying what should be done with his private medical records.

That makes no sense, he is not a publicly elected official where disclosing health issues is expected. He is a private citizen running a company, the fact that the company is popular and successful should have no bearing at all. Should everyone who starts a company expect to lose all privacy especially health related, or only those that are successful above a set threshold?

People must have their privacy, that is for sure.

If I invest something in your company, and you are sick, should I know it?

Probably not, as if you are a normal everyday investor like me you should not be investing in companies where its success hinges on a single person. I love Tesla but I have not invested in it because Musk could get hit by an electric semi tomorrow and the stock would tank.

It should definitely be on your list of considerations. It's the sad reality.

The only reason public figures don't reasonably have that expectation is because so many people are willing to break the law to leak their personal data. That this happens so often is not a valid justification for it happening.

This seems to fly in the face of the prevailing opinions on this site about Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex having his full name printed in the NYT.

He’s not an officer of a publicly traded corporation, and has no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a completely different case from being doxxed.

That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year.

Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

The real answer is that it depends. If a public figure is abusing their position, then yes, it is in the public interest to know about this abuse of power.

Imagine for a second if every politician’s financial history for all of their financial accounts were on an immutable ledger. That is something that is desirable, though it violates those individuals’ privacy. In this case we would say the public interest supersedes their right to privacy.

It seems to be a very fluid standard, for sure, but there are other variables that are brought up in these discussions beyond whether or not a public figure is abusing their position. Who is publishing? How well-liked the public figure is and by who?

If the standard boils down to there being a journalistic interest in publishing relevant information about a public figure in relation to their abuse of power then I'm not sure how possibly-faked medical records pass that test.

> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

Don't put words in the other person's mouth.

Instead, what people are saying is that if someone has a huge amount of power, then we don't really care about their privacy.

Someone running a blog does not have a huge amount of power.

Someone running a trillion dollar company, or running or president, or whatever, does have a huge amount of power.

Thats the difference.

Not sure how I was "putting words in the other person's mouth" by making that statement.

I agree that Steve Jobs is more powerful than even an influential blogger, but they are both public figures. Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus about how much private information is appropriate to publish about someone according to their level of power? To me it seems to be a binary: are they a public figure or not.

When it's a breach of journalistic ethics to publish information about a blogger that's provided on or linked to from said blog (I think it is a breach, he made a specific request not to) it's much more egregious to publish an apparently forged health record of a CEO.

At no point do I think that not caring about someone's privacy means it's acceptable to publish false information about them.

> To me it seems to be a binary

It doesn't have to be binary. Instead, we can say that the more power someone has, the more it is ok to reveal info about them.

You can pick public figure, but I wouldn't do that.

> Who exactly is allowed to do the calculus

Anyone at all times. That's how society works. Everyone has their own opinions.

I don't agree with your binary opinion though.

> Of a CEO

CEOs have lots of power. They don't need to be protected as much as everyone else in the world.