I don't like the recording of Donal Sterling in private in a non business capacity. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with his statements. But I agree that Kareem Abdul Jabar had it right when he argued people should have been upset about his racism before it was verbalized this way. His treatment of minority tenants was already an issue and the accusations against him had already been brought up by employees. Nobody cared until it was verbalized.
Which is fine. People get upset the more explicit something is made.
My problem is that he was recorded in private in a non work capacity and this is something we're defending. It stinks of Big Brother. Remember that 1984 was written in a surveillance state, but that state was made possible by neighbors and family that spied on each other for unveiling.
There are of course differences. Sterling wasn't ratted out to government, but to the public. It's the same distinction that Fox news commentators are forgetting when they counter that the man's first amendment rights were violated. No, the government isn't censoring him.
But I don't want a world in which private conversations are perceived to be open to recording and documentation without my consent. I'd have a hard time believing the same people that argue against cookies on their browsers, NSA filtering of their phone calls and emails, or that generally have a high expectation of personal privacy, would be okay setting cultural precedents that it's okay to record one another without consent. The fact that he's wealthy is divorced from the fact that we're agreeing with the method in which his words were obtained.
I just don't want a future in which we've consented to the idea that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in personal conversations.