Only if you consider observing "the event" (a government-sponsored security conference, albeit a "private" one) a violation of someone's privacy, I guess. If there's any irony at foot, surely it's your attempt to invoke "privacy" as a defense against exposure of the governments' invasions of privacy.
I wasn't really "defending" anything, but whatever. You're the one saying that someone (the privacy advocate in this case) should be able to unilaterally violate someone's privacy, not me.
No, I said that a privacy advocate should be able to "unilaterally" sneak into a privacy conference for the purpose of exposing government invasions of privacy.
If someone sneaks into the private homes of Verizon executives to spy on them, that's rather different. But that's clearly not what happened here.
You're the one claiming releasing a quote by Sprint's "manager of electronic surveillance" about how the _company_ Sprint releases private personal information, a statement which the company also confirmed publically on the record, constitutes a unilateral violation of the personal privacy of said "manager of electronic surveillance". Absurd.