It's unfair to assign that much blame to assign to any one person. I think it's more fair to say that the Meshtastic community as a whole has a problem with people making overly-narrow assumptions about the goals and what use cases Meshtastic is intended for, suitable for, or usable for. As a result, the community was able to do a lot of development work seemingly without considering that there could even be privacy concerns. And then they had to scramble to retrofit a lot of privacy controls that would have been obvious requirements all along to people coming at the project with a different mindset.
Some people want Meshtastic to be rock-solid communication infrastructure for use in a doomsday or disaster scenario. Some people want to use it to undermine the importance of cellular communications networks. Some people want it to be used much like CB radio as a local public conversation channel. Some people envision it used mostly with stationary transmitters, while other people want to use it entirely with mobile nodes. I use it primarily for group location sharing (many to many), since the location sharing capabilities Apple and Google provide for their smartphone platforms only easily support one-to-one or one-to-several location sharing.
Some people want Meshtastic to be rock-solid communication infrastructure for use in a doomsday or disaster scenario. Some people want to use it to undermine the importance of cellular communications networks. Some people want it to be used much like CB radio as a local public conversation channel. Some people envision it used mostly with stationary transmitters, while other people want to use it entirely with mobile nodes. I use it primarily for group location sharing (many to many), since the location sharing capabilities Apple and Google provide for their smartphone platforms only easily support one-to-one or one-to-several location sharing.