When do you throw a CEO’s privacy under the bus?

It’s interesting that lots of people who really don’t like Facebook’s privacy don’t get mad when journalists and bloggers put into public view Steve Jobs’ emails to them.

Today I got an email from Mark Zuckerberg, CEO/founder of Facebook. I am not going to be the one to put that into public view until he gives me permission to.

Why not?

1. Mark is a friend. Someone I want to have a long-term relationship with and I can guarantee you that if someone took MY emails and put them into public view they wouldn’t be trusted as a real-life friend.
2. If I start doing that, other people will trust me less. Even if I didn’t care about what Mark thought of me, I do care what other people in the industry think of me and I want them to be free to send me emails without having them show up on my blog without their prior permission.
3. If he wanted it in public he could have answered me in public, there’s lots of ways to do that, including at http://facebook.com/scobleizer

That said, I asked for permission to put the email into public view because I think you all should have access to the information in it. I’ll let you know later.

What would you have done with an email if Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg emailed you?

It’s amazing to me that people who are speaking up about privacy and Facebook, like Jason Calacanis, Leo Laporte, Jeff Jarvis haven’t spoken out against having Steve Jobs’ emails taken out of a private context and printed in a public one.

If you don’t speak up for Steve Jobs’ privacy, what right do you have to speak up for your own privacy? Why isn’t that hypocritical? Just because CEOs are public figures and their emails contain information that would be of interest to the public?


UPDATE: Zuckerberg gave me permission to print this email while I was typing this post:


We’ve been listening to all the feedback and have been trying to distill it down to the key things we need to improve. I’d like to show an improved product rather than just talk about things we might do.

We’re going to be ready to start talking about some of the new things we’ve built this week. I want to make sure we get this stuff right this time.

I know we’ve made a bunch of mistakes, but my hope at the end of this is that the service ends up in a better place and that people understand that our intentions are in the right place and we respond to the feedback from the people we serve.

I hope we’ll get a chance to catch up in person sometime this week. Let me know if you have any thoughts for me before then.


Here’s a screen shot of the email string:

Email with Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook

About Robert Scoble

As Startup Liaison for Rackspace, the Open Cloud Computing Company, I travel the world with Rocky Barbanica looking for what's happening on the bleeding edge of technology and report that here.

170 thoughts on “When do you throw a CEO’s privacy under the bus?

  1. Any email from a CEO of a company talking about that company that a journalist covers sent to the journalist should be considered public unless there is a prior arrangement that it is off the record (and even then I think it is somewhat suspect).

    I don't see how as a journalist you can be Mark's “friend” and also cover his company without bias.

    Do you count yourself as a journalist?

  2. No, I think he's right, Robert. Your email exchange with Zuckerberg came as a result of your personal and professional relationship with him, and you were right to hold off and clarify, explicitly because by not doing so could damage your relationship.

    The random emailer to Steve Jobs, having no relationship, and indeed an expectation that any response from such a public figure would be a prize worthy of sharing, isn't tied to any other relationship with Jobs, and in is a different classification. If Jobs wanted to establish a private relationship with the emailer, he could (or could try), but it's the relationship, and not the email per se, that establishes the provision of trust.

  3. I hope Facebook's “mistakes” are inclusive of at least some of these points:

    1. Privacy. Really, what else must be said?
    2. The stupidity of Community Pages (see this for an example of how creepy it is; until last week, that page had two fans and even some status updates).
    3. The pathetic approach Facebook takes toward businesses; my open letter addresses this to an extent. This predates f8 and the new changes, but some of the comments feature extremely valid concerns that arose from Community Pages.

    Whatever the case may be, if Facebook has made mistakes and wants to get things right, sitting on their asses and simply saying they're reading all the feedback isn't the way to do it. Responding is. In the meantime, we're 8 days away from May 31 and I'm hoping Facebook do the right thing before it's too late. Until recently, I was on Team Facebook. Now, I am hoping May 31 brings some serious change to the way Facebook runs things.

  4. probably you treated Facebook like your personal e-mail (to breakup) & crying foul. Facebook cannot convince each & everyone of the billions of users they have. There will always be criticism & people like you quitting. Like I said, privacy issue is blown out of proportion & mistakes can happen. There is always scope for improvement & Facebook is on it. So, if you wan't to quit or make 5000 friends to quit…it doesn't really affect them to be frank. Their user base is only growing. No body can stop them.

    Regarding mistakes, everyone makes mistakes. don't you? Just watch, Facebook will shine one day & the critics will suddenly change their words…only the anti-facebook stay alone.

  5. I didn't compare the two issues as much as the how the two CEO's are super careful with their words…and don't say much or tend to take too much responsibility. C'mon now…

  6. Was the mail sent to a journalist or to a friend?
    It's hard for me to believe that these two celebrities wouldn't expect that the emails they sent to journalists would be published. Call me jaded, but I'd say they wrote them (emails to journalists, not to friends) counting on their being published.

  7. In repsonse to our twitter convo, here is a more elaborate view that I have on this discussion.

    Let's take your points:

    1. Facebook is a great idea, one that I think Mark as well as all the users are hoping to have a long-term relationship with.
    2. Exactly what happened here. Facebook decided to make personal information public with an opt-out, not an opt in! So your personal information was suddenly made available to third parties through several ways. And you have to turn it off by going through quite some checkbox pages. And this one-sided decision to change what is public and what is private information is exactly why users are losing (more) trust in Facebook. If they don't cancel their account, they will start to think about how much real information about themselves they want to put on there. Which is always a negative for facebook in the long run.
    3. If the users wanted to make the information public, they would have chosen so through the settings. It should be opt-in, not opt-out!

    I completely understand that there has to be a way for facebook to make money, but give the users a choice and do not break their trust.

  8. I think it depends on whether you define your role as being Mark's friend or of being a journalist. If you are both (as could be true of anyone with a blog or Twiiter account) then you need to consider the context.

    If I get an email from a friend (even a “Facebook friend”) I will always ask permission before I publish it anywhere. If in my role as a corporate executive I get an inquiry from a journalist I will assume that everything I say is fair game for publication. I would assume that an email from a customer, a random member of the public, or a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer would fall into the latter category.

    Robert, you are a gentleman to be asking Mark for his permission, but if you didn't know him already and he didn't respond to your permission request I don't think anyone could fault you for publishing his letter.

  9. Good for you on showing respect for Mark Zuckerburg's privacy. Too bad the email he allowed you to share says nothing, is about as meaningful & takes as much responsibility as the CEO of BP expressing his sorrow for the “tiny oil spill in a really huge ocean”.

  10. Agree Robert, it is hypocritical when they don't decry on a CEO's email being made public. Emails are strictly meant for intended recipients, Facebook does not exactly work the same way. Anyway, I think this post is not about Facebook's privacy but about everyone, including Steve Job's right to privacy. Agree absolutely.

    Btw, you are baring your gtalk contact list too ?

  11. Robert…I like the way you are handling this.

    And yes, it is about trust. And honestly, I'm trusting you more by following this story ;)

  12. You're right Robert, and if nothing else it's usually polite to ask someone if you can republish their email in a public forum.

  13. I disagree. If we go down that rathole then we don't end up with a good privacy discussion. If something should be discussed in public, then let's take it into public view and discuss it there. This is the same kind of bad thinking that leads companies to make bad privacy decisions. You MUST treat EVERYONE's privacy the same.

    1. When information is intentionally “leaked” to the press (ie Journalist) it is a *tactic* used in the marketing world (not to mention government)… Jobs *Knew* that this information would make it to the press, which is why it was written that particular way.

      SCO, where do you classify the “intentional leak” in your spectrum of email privacy? I guess journalists taking comments on “background” (without attribution) intented for distribution are guilty of PRIVACY VIOLATION? Jobs was “leaking” for his own promotional benefit and gain…

      Jeeez, do you WORK for Jobs and Zuckerberg, or are you just in such awe of their fame (and your ‘friend status’) that your journalistic eye has been splattered to a pulp? Journalists have a JOB to not cow-tow to power… it’s embarrassing that this is practically a paid advertisement.

  14. Of course Mark knew I could publish it and I'm sure he knew it would be treated like a press release but it still was written to me privately and not in public view.

    If we don't treat the privacy of everyone the same, why should we expect Zuckerberg or team to care about OUR privacy concerns?

  15. i disagree about the Jobs emails. when a celebrity sends an email to a journalist who regularly covers him/her in the press, there is a reasonable expectation that it will be published…these days its PR

  16. A phone call is one thing. It's against the law to record a call without the permission of both parties. So, if you repeat something to someone else there's plausible deniability “oh, he must have heard wrong.”

    With an email it's recording without both parties prior approval. It's a direct breaking of the privacy contract that email has.

  17. Personally think Gmail which is a personal e-mail provider is more to be worried about than Facebook. Buzz inside Gmail is such a wrong thing to do. One password sync to entire Google services sounds scary too.

    1. Are we being picky according to the company? That makes sense. :P I can’t say I like Buzz OR Facebook. In fact, Good Ol’ fashioned face-to-face talk works for me if I want something private (assuming they don’t work for the CIA/FBI/have any personal recorders on them/have their all-too-smart phone out), otherwise I assume that there is the potential for someone somewhere to misuse it online. Also, there is a crucial difference between a Facebook and a mail account; one of them is practically necessary if you plan on doing anything today (yes, snail mail still exists, but you aren’t going to get very far with that today), the other still is (thankfully) not a necessity.

      I also don’t think you can dismiss everyone who doesn’t like Facebook by saying they had a bad experience, I just find that an extreme presumption that dismissed the possibility of someone actually having a problem in general with the way some things operate.

      Instead of making the logical fallacy of bashing another person, I suggest looking at a service, like, say Twitter, which is 100% clear about its role in privacy; once its sent, its out there for everyone to view. Similarly, Mr. Scobleizer, an e-mail, whether or not its supposed to be private, has been sent and is NOT in your control once it has been sent (before that it is theoretically up to you). Whether or not it is supposed to be private becomes a matter of social etiquette then, for the two parties to quibble over (as you are all doing a wonderful job at in this comment thread). The issue with Facebook I don’t think is a matter of social etiquette, its a matter of technological and legal confusion and distortion. A confusion over a series of technological privacy settings, and use of the information that you use, more importantly by a technological system, not a human being, does not equate to a problem of etiquette with a human on the other end.

      I agree that there is a certain correlation between the etiquette and social standards that go into designing the system and the social standards that apply to e-mail, however I believe the difference is that most people are upset about misrepresentation of the privacy of their information, and their complaints are about the physical system itself and its operation, not as much the fact that yes, someone could go do bad things with the stuff they put there. As I said before, I think you should always take a certain level of caution when communicating, especially online.

  18. On what are you basing your claim that email has an inherent expectation of privacy? If you talk to someone on the phone, do you assume that every conversation is private and that the other person will not share the contents of the call, because it is a direct connection between two people. It is private in that a third party cannot tap into the phone call without permission, but in most cases the information in the phone call can be disclosed with the permission of one of the parties involved. The two parties rely on their relationship (or agreement) as to how the information will be handled.

  19. And you just proved you can't be trusted with privacy of anyone. But I already knew that, that's why I don't care so much about my privacy and I live my life in open public view. Less confusion that way.

    1. Are you KIDDING? Did I miss something? How did “Swift2″ just prove that HE can’t be trusted?!! That sounded really nasty and I can’t see what Swift2 did “wrong” for you to be so spiteful…

      I am new to your content, but if you TRULY DO “live my life in open public view. Less confusion that way” then can I have your bank account number and the names/IDs of all your friends on Facebook? It’s “less confusing” for me that way.


      Sorry, but this whole thread comes off as you trying to pretend to be a “Big Man” by name-dropping Zuckerberg and bragging you are “personal friends” with him. Other than the name-dropping and the providing cover for what clearly are sleazy attempts to game peoples’ personal info against the initial agreements people signed… then what IS this article about *really*?

  20. Absolutely wrong.

    An email is implicitly TO YOU and NOT to “the public.” It isn't to your wife. It isn't to your boss. It isn't to your friend down the street. It is explicitly to you. The fact that you take it out of that context and break the implicit privacy contract tells me you really can't be trusted with, well, anything.

    Our expectations are that email is private. At least most people's are.

    Me? I have no such expectations which is why I always try to get people to come into the public view anyway, like here. That way people don't get confused. It's also why I set Facebook's privacy settings to “as public as possible.”

    1. Jeff Jarvis makes a perfectly valid point that the idea of public to you, is different to my idea of public, as a private individual. You exist on a different stage, a very public one where everything you say on a professional level, be it in an email or on a blog – is public or potentially public. To put it another way, there is general public interest in what you have to say – so anything you write professionally will at some stage get out. There is no public interest in what i have to say and i, as an anonymous member of the general public, am not prepared for public access to what i have to say unless i explicitly & knowingly state it.

      You just said it – you have no expectations [of privacy], nor does Steve Jobs. But I and the rest of the anon public do. Furthermore, Steve, you and anyone communicating on this level, do so in the knowledge that your emails may end up public. The rest of us (read; 99.999% of us) are not used to, equipped, prepared – put it how you will – to deal with such public-ness.

      When we talk about public – we mean our friends and people they know. that’s all. We (the 99.99% of us) have a relatively poor concept of what it really means to be public.

    2. Robert – I do think you are correct in checking with Zuck before posting his email. That is the honorable thing to do. I do have to agree with Laporte and others regarding Facebook’s business tactics. To begin a site stating that there is an expectation of privacy and then changing the business process later so you can benefit from that relationship is wrong. Plain, simple wrong. THAT is what Laporte and others are objecting to and why we can’t trust Facebook. Sorry – you may be friends with Zuck but he blew it here. you can’t say one thing, build up people’s expectations and then sell their information behind their back for your own purpose. This is why there is such a backlash and why I canceled my Facebook account (only after an hour of trying to figure out how to do it!!!),
      I don’t have any expectation of privacy on Facebook or anywhere else on the web, including in my own emails that I send to people, but Facebook has crossed a line that should NEVER be crossed with customers. Zuck is now finding out what happens when you do this.

    3. This is about the failure to disclose inappropriate use of someones personal information for your economic profit.

      This is an issue of the privacy and security of our information on social networks and the need for the general public to have easy ways to control their content.

      Without forced sharing to broader networks of people facebook ceases to be fruitful. Changed settings that force more sharing do not benefit the user. They benefit third parties that have an economic interest in human behavior so they can more effectively market products they don’t need and probably can’t afford.

    4. Robert – here is the thing that’s different, though. At least in my opinion.

      You are a person. Facebook is a website. There’s a video that makes this sound really funny. But it’s actually quite true. I can choose not to trust you and still talk to all my OTHER friends. Right now, there is no alternative when it comes to facebook. It has its users by the proverbial balls. “If you don’t like it, don’t use it” is hard to do when most of your friends are sharing their private pictures on facebook. It’s just like other mass human phenomena … everyone has peer pressure from everyone else not to leave. So when facebook uses that position to FORCE its users to make information public that was previously private, as a condition of using the service, then that has wider implications for EVERYONE than just you taking one person’s email and publishing it. It is underscoring the fact that, right now, we have very little alternative but to use facebook.

      See http://freemeet.com/blog :)


    5. I agree completely. When I send an email via FB to my girlfriends, it’s because I don’t care to share it with EVERYONE on my FB including my own mother. I think if you are willing to throw ANYONE’S privacy under the bus, you are not someone I would want to send an email to. I do business on a frequent basis with businesses that supply MY business, and even when I want to post what a great job they have done, I ask PERMISSION to show any information they have shared, PRIOR to showing it.
      Overall, I think the belief that one person deserves privacy, but another does not is hypocrisy, especiallly since the attitude seems to overwhelming be “I deserve it, but (Said celebrity/business owner/CEO) does not.”
      Grow up, and learn you are responsible for YOUR behavior… and that just because someone you consider to be a big enough name that their response is a ‘prize’ has responded, does NOT mean you have the right to exploit their willingness to be open and responsive. It’s the jerks that do that, that ruin it for the rest of us.

  21. If I was a good buddy of sjobs, I'd certainly know not to divulge his information in public, or I'd expect to stop being a friend. If I'm a fan, and I write an email saying, “Why don't you make the next iPhone x,” and he answers me, I'd post it on the rumor sites because I'm certain that's why he wrote and said, “Yup.” If I'm Eric Schmidt, and Jobs just wrote me with an offer to buy Google, if I publish it, the deal would definitely be off. You know, Scoble, it's public v. private. It has a lot of levels, most of them instinctual. We definitely need privacy, or we can never learn to concentrate. And this is from a former commune inmate. What I learned was, some privacy, some ego, is necessary for sanity.

  22. I look forward to seeing what is changed, and would like to see Facebook make moves in the right direction (whatever that is). For me it's too late, the moves they have made in the past month have shown that their ambition is bigger than their integrity as a business. I don't think technical changes can fix that imbalance.

  23. Robert, if you think Zuckerberg didn't send that email to you without knowing you'd publish it, you're either naive or your letting his friendship with you get in the way or your news judgment. That's little more than a press release and your “I have this private email from Zuckerberg” tease only gives it more weight than it deserves.

    That said, you're right to request permission. I wonder how many of the folks who've released Jobs emails have asked. He, along with Zuck, know just what will happen when they email someone. Still, it would be interesting to see if Jobs would even reply to such a request.

  24. We all tend to trust that there is more privacy than a connected world can offer. Anything you post or send out can be sniffed, shared or misplaced.

    Corporations making a misstep can do a lot of damage to a lot of people, but one person taking action that breaks the trust is worse. It's not multiplied like actions that affect millions, but that one acts is a total break of trust.

    I applaud you for your decision to keep trust with those in power to affect many (and I assume you'd do the same for anyone).

    Zuck's excuse that they are waiting for something positive is flimsy. You don't have to make vapor feature announcements or even a promise to publicly admit there is a problem and say “we hear you”

  25. Robert, I agree with Andy that these are two completely different things. You may have a “privacy contract” in theory with people who you communicate through a medium like email that they will keep something private. However, this is not something inherent to email, it is part of the personal or professional relationship that you have with that person. Most of the emails that have come out from people like Steve Jobs, were with people that he did not have a personal and/or professional relationship with (at least that I know of) so no expectation of privacy. There was not a tacit agreement of any kind. E-mail does not have any type of inherent privacy policy between the two individuals who are communicating with, it is part of the relationshiip you have with the person you are sending the email to..
    Facebook is changing the rules after the start of the game and doing a horrible job of explaining the rule changes to people who agreed to a different set of rules.

    Completely different!

  26. I totally disagree. If that CEO wants his words in public he should make them in public, or, at least, post at the top of the email something like “please feel free to use this on your blog.”

    If it's in email there is an expectation of privacy FOR EVERYONE. If you think there is not then you have absolutely no right to speak up against Facebook's privacy changes.

  27. The difference is that it does not serve the public interest to publish my private conversations with close friends on Facebook. Journalists are supposed to enlighten the populace, and you can do that by publishing email conversations with CEOs on the subject of current events.

    It all comes down to the issue of what you can expect based on the format in which you have a conversation. I don't buy the argument that it's a privacy violation to publish a CEO's words when he emails you *without asking for confidentiality* and on the subject of a hot issue.

    To me, it's a judgment issue. If Mark tells you that he's about to leave Facebook and that he wants to keep this quiet, you obviously do not publish that. But if you don't get that vibe from the email (and I didn't get that from what Mark wrote to you), you should publish it.

    Ethically speaking, print and TV journalists can publish anything they want (including sources' names) unless the source asks for confidentiality or requests that the conversation take place “off the record.” How are those ethical guidelines different from the ones that bloggers should follow?

  28. I'm sure he assumes them, but why not just have the conversations in the public sphere then? Say “I'd like to talk with you over on this blog, or over on Facebook or somewhere else?”

    1. Here’s what I tell my end users. Don’t put in email what aren’t will to stand up yell across the building. Unless the email is encrypted or you have control over all the resources that have access to that data, there should be no expectation of privacy.

      1. Of course there is and should be an expectation of privacy! That’s why there are authentication methods designed to protect you from outside prying eyes. Because a government can subpoena your emails, financial, health or personal records it doesn’t mean you can’t expect them to be private. By stating something as dumb as that you are actually validating what Facebook is doing. E-mail isn’t 100% bulletproof but neither is anything in your life. Your car and house can be broken into. You can have your things stolen from a place you expect is protecting your things. Saying you can’t expect privacy when you using an e-mail is like saying you can’t expect someone to respect a gold watch you left on top of your drawer in your house.

    2. Let Zuck and JOBS worry about their own privacy… why I should I worry about it? I have a hard enough time guarding my own. I don’t care what your POINT was, it is disingenuous of you to argue it this way

  29. I just read the Mark's e-mail & it's perfectly fine. It shows Facebook's concern for each & every user and so the response to you. If I was Mark, I wouldn't have cared for the x,y,z posts & critics and would have given stiff answers directly to public for once showing up my swagger. I would definitely have not e-mailed anyone (even if it was my friend). I liked the way they are patient listeners & are keen to reply personally.

    This privacy issue is really blown out of proportion & the critics taking the full advantage of it. Page deletion issue might be error or like someone was saying too many complaints might have caused the page to shut down. In either case, it can be fixed when its reached to their support instead of trying for a 'publicity' stunt.

    Facebook anyway should have had enough with this privacy cry. They will answer it. Stiff answers coming shortly!!

    1. i think Mark Z wishes everybody was a tool like you..comon FB..just post everybody’s email addresses…nobody cares..and if they do..just apologize..these fools won’t know..easy does it.

      Privacy is not a big deal..don’t worry about it!

      why don’t we just send Mark Z. some paypal donations for all the troubles privacy advocates caused him….poor guy.

      viva quitfacebookday.com!

  30. I have the same concern when I see email threads posted, but felt that CEOs know the risk when they send those emails. It's good to see you take the trouble to check with Mark. Kudos!

  31. Of course he does. But I think it breaks the privacy contract we all have with each other when you take something out of email and post it on your blog. If you say “no it doesn't” then you CAN NOT DECRY FACEBOOK'S PRIVACY MOVES!!! It's hypocritical. Even Facebook doesn't do that.

    1. This page was pretty hard to load. Something called touch arcade. The page kept jumping down and it took awhile to get any mouse control over the verticalscroll bar. The rest of the internet works ok.

  32. Not much in that email Robert… Certainly not enough that is worth upsetting your relationship with Mr Z :)

    Although I agree with you you should ask permission, if Steve Jobs knows that he is communicating with a journalist then he probably expects that his comments will be made public. Similarly, communicating with a member of the public, he knows that person might make his comments public because there is no relationship to upset, therefore he probably assumes his comments *are* public…

  33. One thing has nothing to do with the other …. WHAT? You really think Steve Jobs does not realize with 100% certainty that his email exchanges WILL be made public? You do not think Fbook's ZUCK does not also realize that his email will be made public (and put him in a good light)…. guess what…your being used as a tool IMO


    1. Two men stroking each other in public — a truly modern work, Robert. Is there any other content here?

      I wish you’d go back to your micro-whoring on FriendFeed. This is beyond embarrassing.


    2. Here’s an idea! Praise Facebook for it’s lack of privacy, then throw a fit about privacy, and then throw all your gmail friend’s privacy under the busy by not censoring out your chat window. Good god scoble…..

    3. Its like the code of the streets Andy if you are talking to someone and then you go and tell someone else what you were just talkinhg about in private it would ruin your relationship with that person and also ruin your reputation. A conversation isnt explicitly supposed to be private however if you go and tell someone else about what you and him were just talking about you know what is private and what isnt, same goes for all communication.

    4. Well when you talk to your buddies on facebook and I mean that nicely why not ask them why someone can hack into my account and then I report it and they disable my account, but I keep getting emails for the account that is supposely disabled. So tell them I want my friggin account back my name appears below. So through a nobody a hand

  34. When the CEO is stupid enough to send a “personal” email. The CEO, and indeed most of the upper management,at my company have canned confidentiality statements attached to their emails. You are convinced the email from Zucktard is direct to you – funny how it opens with just “Hey” and not even “Hey Robert”; I wonder how many other people were on the BCC list.

  35. Jeff Vilimek is absolutely right.

    Pulling the rug out on millions of users is not the same as you respecting your friends privacy and not publishing his email. You know each other and you are being smart, however, email like any other medium where a conversation occurs, is open to sharing. The two parties may hope it’s not shared but you should be aware it may be.

    And comparing it to Steve Jobs new email PR strategy is completely disingenuous.

    Steve Jobs sends press ready pithy emails to total strangers and has been doing it for months and virtually every single one of them gets “leaked.”

    He knows that creates buzz and encourages more people to email him.

    And most importantly that response from Marc Zuck is absolutely inauthentic. He’s been doing this for years and they only react when the uproar gets big enough.

    FB is like a little kid that tries to get away with whatever they can and only apologizes when they are completely busted. He has done nothing that shows he cares about privacy.

    I call these Tiger Woods apologies.
    He has called having a public side and a private side a sign of bad character.

    His stance is clear.

  36. So, you’re concerned about revealing information about someone who has said that they don’t believe in personal privacy?
    It makes a difference when it’s business related?

  37. You’re right about the sjobs emails, you could consider them to be private, but that’s where the comparison ends.
    Yes they’re private but at the same time they’re not. Apple’s a public company, Mr Jobs knows how it goes, he knows his fans love it and he’s not holding back.

    M.Z. wrote you a typical corporate email.
    It’s good he’s getting out there but all he needed to do was make everything private by default.
    And he didn’t.
    People think their data is private, that’s why they connected on Facebook and now their data is out there and they haven’t got a clue.
    I forgot the name of the site that exposes what’s going on, but it’s bad, I’m sure some people are already in ‘damage control’ – mode.

    Robert, I’ve been reading your blog, you don’t care about your own privacy, you’re an open book, privacy is dead to you, but all that being said : I don’t believe for one second you would have done what M.Z. did.

  38. Robert, it seems you are suggesting that the issue of an email conversation made public by one of the two parties involved is somehow of the same importance as the issue of the changing privacy policies of Facebook and how they affect the millions of users of that service.

    You also seem to suggest that Jason, Leo and Jeff have some responsibility to spend time discussing the possible privacy violation of a single CEO (whom as far as I know hasn’t asked for consideration in this) in order to have the credibility to discuss the possible privacy violation (or at least the possible violation of expectations) of millions of people.

    That seems disproportionate and inappropriate.

  39. Why are you assuming that Jobs assumes his email responses are private? or for that matter, any email correspondence is truly private? Jobs knows his responses help clear up that issue.

    And how can Zuckerberg improve his company, if he doesn’t change his reasons, intentions as to why they did such things? They want the data to make money from. The more open, the better for them.
    Beacon? url links with personally identifying details – that they got told about months ago? Changing defaults from private to public?…

    The public may not want reactive corrections, so much as a company more in line with their views on privacy, and how far Facebook can push to get the data they seem to crave to make money.

    If it’s not about money, then what is it? Control? The user? Doesn’t seem to be pro-user changes at the moment.

    There’s a difference between an unwritten social rule, and a companie’s Terms & Conditions.

Comments are closed.