[HN Gopher] Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants
___________________________________________________________________
Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants
Author : achristmascarl
Score : 84 points
Date : 2026-02-03 15:28 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| > information about public employees is uniquely available
|
| It really isn't unique. This report is clearly part of an agenda
| to establish a two-tier surveillance state.
|
| > The report advocates for legislation that would specifically
| address privacy concerns for all public servants,
|
| Instead of taking the obvious stance that legislation should
| ensure the privacy of all people equally, they are only
| interested in protecting government employees. Sadly, this seems
| to be a global trend taking root in many countries and it brings
| me great despair for the future.
| HardCodedBias wrote:
| Government employees have power and they are flexing the power.
|
| C'est la vie!
| riedel wrote:
| I cannot speak for the US but in Germany there is certainly
| some amount of violence towards local politicians but also
| other parts of administration (job centers, etc) Traditionally
| there was maximum transparency (names of every single
| reponsible person for each minor municipal job) with little
| choice for employees to opt out. This is changing not under
| special rules but mostly under GDPR adoption. However,
| particularly elected officials (even for very minor local
| roles) even have to expose their street address to get elected
| (such legal requirements can provide GDPR exception). This
| generates real risk. If less and less or the "wrong" people go
| into administration we are in trouble, IMHO. I know there is a
| lot of governments vs the people sentiment popping up. But we
| need to just make sure that we treat our administration also as
| people in certain situations. (Disclaimer: as a university
| lecturer I am officially a public servant, but I do not think
| any of this would apply to me: I hardly have to fear the wrath
| of the students)
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| The report linked in the article doesn't mention existing
| laws mandating disclosure of public servant details or
| anything of that nature. It primarily focuses on private data
| brokers collecting and selling data, a threat model which
| applies to all people equally. Rather than addressing the
| problem at its root, which is the data brokers blatantly
| violating the privacy of everyone, by all appearances they
| are perfectly fine with what data brokers do as long as they
| are able to exempt themselves from it.
|
| I think that posting street addresses for "maximum
| transparency" is a bit silly, and it would probably make
| sense to repeal legislation that makes government employee's
| sensitive private information public. That principle should
| also apply equally to all citizens, though. If I'm not
| mistaken, I believe anyone who hosts a website in Germany is
| mandated by law to post their address on the website, which
| is completely unfathomable to me.
|
| We do also see the two-tier surveillance hierarchy attempting
| to be established across the EU, in general. Chat Control in
| all its forms is always proposed with an exemption for
| government employees.
| pc86 wrote:
| Perhaps a uniquely American opinion, but employees can opt
| out quickly and easily by not getting paid by public funds.
| Most public sector jobs have private sector equivalents. If
| you want to help people find jobs and your privacy is
| important enough to make public sector work untenable, get a
| job with one of the private sector organizations that does
| that.
|
| > _elected officials...have to expose their street address to
| get elected. This generates real risk._
|
| Is there an epidemic of local German politicians being
| harassed and assaulted at their homes?
|
| I can think of no reason why constituents should not know
| where the people in power over them live. Elected officials
| should not be able to hide from their constituents.
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| > I can think of no reason why constituents should not know
| where the people in power over them live.
|
| I can think of plenty of reasons. Political violence in
| democracies is on the rise globally, and not the sort of
| organized political violence that people might use to
| liberate themselves from the chains of oppressors, but
| rather the kind of lunatic political violence that is
| committed by irrational lone actors who are fundamentally
| mentally unwell.
|
| I believe you can have political transparency without
| involving people's homes and families.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| When an overworked air traffic controller in Germany gave
| a plane an instruction that happened to be the opposite
| of TCAS automatic collision avoidance system, and one
| pilot followed TCAS to avoid a collision and one followed
| the controller, the planes crashed and everybody died. A
| family member of one of the passengers looked up, hunted
| down, and murdered in cold blood the air traffic
| controller.
| krisoft wrote:
| > an overworked air traffic controller in Germany
|
| Actually the air traffic controller in question was Swiss
| not German.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-
| air_c...
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| You left out - was a foreigner, managed to escape, faced
| zero consequences at home (AFAIK).
| phainopepla2 wrote:
| He didn't escape, he sentence was reduced from 8 to 3 1/2
| by a Swiss judge. The reasoning was that his mental state
| was properly accounted for. Who knows if lobbying from
| Russia played a part in that. Also, not only did he face
| no consequences at home, he was celebrated and given a
| high-level job.
|
| Maybe it's my American-ness showing, but it's pretty
| shocking to me that 8 years was considered too harsh for
| someone who stabbed a man to death in front of his
| family.
|
| On the other hand, I suppose one could argue that the
| perpetrator was highly unlikely to commit a similar act
| in the future, if only because his motivation was the
| death of his own family, who would no longer be around to
| inspire him to violence a second time.
| pc86 wrote:
| Until some other nefarious air traffic controller waits
| for him to remarry and have another family.
| pc86 wrote:
| Government employees, including and especially elected
| officials, are employees of the people and the people
| have a right to the same information any employer has
| about their employees.
|
| > _Political violence in democracies is on the rise
| globally_
|
| Citation needed, but even if we say for the sake of
| argument this is accurate, that doesn't naturally lead to
| this outcome.
|
| What makes violence political?
|
| Is political violence inherently worse? I think it is,
| but there's at least an argument to be made that it
| isn't.
|
| Is stopping that political violence worth the worst case
| scenario where we make it harder for the public to get
| this type of information?
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| > Government employees, including and especially elected
| officials, are employees of the people and the people
| have a right to the same information any employer has
| about their employees.
|
| I don't think any employer has any right to know their
| employee's home address, to be honest.
|
| > Is political violence inherently worse? I think it is,
| but there's at least an argument to be made that it
| isn't.
|
| I think this question is rather besides the point. Random
| acts of violence are bad, so let's not make _anybody 's_
| home address public information. In the age of the
| internet, we routinely observe millions of people
| fixating on one person for some perceived grievance or
| another, wherein it only takes one lunatic among those
| millions having access to private information to result
| in a tragedy. We don't have to make it so easy for these
| tragedies to happen.
| pc86 wrote:
| > _I don 't think any employer has any right to know
| their employee's home address, to be honest._
|
| Regardless of whether this _should_ be the case or not,
| it _is_ the case is every country I can think of.
|
| I agree I think we're straying from the point a bit. When
| is the last time you can point to an act of political
| violence that would not have occurred had some public
| servant or elected official's address not been on a
| website or spreadsheet somewhere?
|
| These things simply don't happen enough to warrant
| further limiting government officials' accountability to
| the public.
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| > Regardless of whether this should be the case or not,
| it is the case is every country I can think of.
|
| And we are specifically talking about advocacy for
| legislation to change that. The report advocates for
| changing legislation to benefit government employees as a
| privileged class, while I think the common-sense position
| is to ensure the privacy of every citizen.
|
| > When is the last time you can point to an act of
| political violence that would not have occurred had some
| public servant or elected official's address not been on
| a website or spreadsheet somewhere?
|
| These attacks happen often, but a particularly notable
| case was that in the US, June 2025, where a mentally
| unhinged terrorist assassinated two public servants in
| their home, shot two others in another home (although
| they survived), and had a hitlist of other legislators'
| homes to target, although he was stopped before he could
| continue his spree. In fact he had stopped by four homes
| in total, but by chance the occupants were gone from one
| and the police were already checking in on another and he
| left without acting there. This was a tragedy that could
| only have happened in the way it did because of home
| addresses being so freely available, and it was pure luck
| that the tragedy was not even worse than it happened to
| be.
|
| > These things simply don't happen enough to warrant
| further limiting government officials' accountability to
| the public.
|
| What accountability to the public is meaningfully gained
| by letting people attack your home? "Random people going
| to legislators' doorsteps" is not a legitimate part of
| the democratic process of any country I'm familiar with.
| 16bitvoid wrote:
| I'd argue that employers shouldn't have access to
| employee's home addresses either, outside of situations
| where it's needed (e.g., employee chooses to get paycheck
| by mail instead of direct deposit). Most employers keep
| access to personal employee information (PII) restricted
| to HR/timekeeping/payroll departments anyway.
|
| Why would my direct supervisor need my home address?
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| To match more closely the question about politicians, why
| would you need the home address of your direct
| supervisor? Seems quite suspect to me.
| whattheheckheck wrote:
| Its literally the last check of power... rich people will
| find out exactly where the power people live. The masses
| also need to know
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| The last check on power is murdering politicians in their
| homes? I beg to differ. If the situation is so bad that
| violence is truly necessary, the last check is an
| organized revolution, not an assassination. If the figure
| is a genuine dictator and important enough to have real
| power, they would have extensive security surrounding
| their home anyways. This fantasy of assassinating a
| would-be Putin or whatever does not justify exposing the
| addresses of city councilmen or judges or whatever random
| public servant somebody wants to kill over their
| grievances.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Making it slightly more involved for randos to show up at
| your literal doorstep hardly seems like hiding from one's
| constituency.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I really think the entire concept of privacy has really
| changed in my lifetime, especially around what needs to be
| kept private and what we don't mind sharing.
|
| When I was a youth in the 80s and 90s, it seems like our
| desire for privacy was focused on what we were doing and
| talking about; we didn't want people to know our activities
| or what our conversations were about. Someone listening in
| while you talked to someone else was considered an invasion
| of privacy. However, we freely shared identifying information
| and didn't think that was something that needed to be
| protected. In my town, our phone book white pages had
| everyone in town's name, phone number, and address. Those
| details weren't things we thought needed to be kept hidden
| from the public. Every now and then you would hear about
| someone who was "unlisted", but that was considered odd.
|
| Now, people will freely post pictures about their activities
| in public places, have public conversations, and share all
| sorts of details about how they live their lives that we
| would never have shared with strangers 40 years ago. At the
| same time, the idea of publishing our name, address, and
| phone number for everyone to see is horrifying. We even have
| a term for it, "doxing", which many people want to make a
| crime, and we would never have even thought about it 40 years
| ago.
|
| I think there are a ton of valid reasons for this shift, but
| it does make me think. A major part of why we want to keep
| those details private is because we have created so many
| systems that allow you to commit fraud or take advantage of
| people with only those details. While I think we should
| maintain and extend our ability to keep those details about
| us secret, I also think we need to do something about the
| systems we have in place that allow you to do so much damage
| to a person with only knowing these basic details about them.
| codingdave wrote:
| Yes, the public nature of government payrolls is unique. Many
| of the other concerns mentioned in the article are more broadly
| problematic, but private payrolls are not published. Government
| payrolls are. You can seek out the names, titles, and salaries
| of most public employees.
| jdasdf wrote:
| Private payrolls are published though.
| phil21 wrote:
| Not to the general public. Your neighbor very likely cannot
| just go to a website and look up your title and current
| salary, like I can for the guy who lives down the block who
| currently works for the city I live in.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| https://theworknumber.com/login-help
| phil21 wrote:
| Yes, not available to the general public.
| pc86 wrote:
| Where?
| anonymous908213 wrote:
| You phrased this as "many of the other concerns mentioned in
| the article", but this concern is _not_ mentioned in the
| article, nor in the linked report. It falls on the article
| /report to make the case for its claims, not for charitable
| HN comments, and it fails to do so. The article highlights
| three specific concerns: that there is no ability for public
| servants to compel the redaction of personal data from public
| records, that there is no broad law preventing data brokers
| from selling information obtained from property records and
| court filings, and that there is no recourse to sue data
| brokers for violating local laws that do exist. All of those
| apply equally to private citizens, and therefore the claim
| that these problems are "unique" to public servants is not
| supported. Furthermore, these claims are the basis for which
| the report goes on to suggest making a carve-out in
| legislation specifically covering public servants rather than
| the general public for the problems it identified, when all
| of those problems should very much be addressed on a general
| basis.
| amelius wrote:
| What would happen if we just banned data brokers?
| shimman wrote:
| A bunch of leeches would come out from the crevices acting like
| something that has only been around for a few decades is
| paramount to American democracy and capitalism where any
| regulations are akin to a struggle session against liberty,
| freedom, and justice.
| zbentley wrote:
| See also: DHS/TSA/ICE, credit scores, stock buybacks and
| self-dividends.
|
| All very, very recent systems in the grander scheme.
| pc86 wrote:
| For the life of me I can't figure out what point your
| trying to make. These things are new so we should ban them?
| Some people will say these are good even though they're
| new?
|
| "In the grander scheme" interstate highways and air travel
| and scuba diving are new too, what about them?
| zbentley wrote:
| Only that they are all quite new, but are frequently
| defended as if they are integral components of the
| country since time immemorial.
|
| As you say, on balance some of them are good/should be
| preserved, and some should be reconsidered.
| pc86 wrote:
| Fair point; but to take one of the less divisive ones in
| your list, I don't think I've ever heard someone say that
| stock buybacks are integral components of the country. I
| have, however, heard pretty convincing arguments that the
| government should not in general prevent a company from
| spending its money the way it sees fit. It's not a
| straight line from "stock buybacks are generally bad" to
| "the government should ban them," and it seems to me a
| pretty consistent opinion to think both that stock
| buybacks are bad and that the government should not have
| anywhere near enough power to prevent companies from
| doing them if that's what they want to do.
| bigfishrunning wrote:
| What I've never understood is: how is stock buyback not
| the same thing as paying down outstanding debt? You sell
| stock to raise money, and doesn't it make sense to return
| that money when there's a surplus?
| gowld wrote:
| Then many complex commercial activities would be eliminated or
| have far higher transaction/insurance costs.
|
| For example, loans. They would be priced against average risk,
| and low-risk individuals with privacy would pay the same risk
| premium as high-risk individuals.
|
| This may be fine for individuals who voluntary give up privacy
| at chosen moments for chosen partners. It would be more complex
| and expensive to operate that general open brokerages.
| amelius wrote:
| Would that then involve private investigators?
| ashleyn wrote:
| Better question: What if we actually punished perpetrators of
| threats and doxing with the existing laws we have against
| terroristic threats? Why do we treat this as some unstoppable
| force of nature when the vast majority of them come through
| traceable methods like mail or phone?
| iamnothere wrote:
| Why not both?
| rbbydotdev wrote:
| I think EVERYONE is worthy of privacy. The ad cartel has millions
| (billions?) of lobby money in their war chest. Any real reform
| would be moving a mountain. Funny how it's framed this way; shows
| just how impossible it is to concede to privacy for all. Instead
| we have as another commenter said: "a two-tier surveillance
| state."
| gowld wrote:
| Everyone is worthy of privacy in their private activty, not in
| how they impose their will on the public (through official
| acts, removing real estate from the commons, and publish or
| finance mass media).
| kgwxd wrote:
| Anyone who says anything, anywhere, gets threats. Is there any
| data showing the follow-through percent is any higher for public
| servants?
| pc86 wrote:
| Asking the wrong question IMO. Even if the "follow-through"
| happens at a higher rate that doesn't necessarily influence
| whether this data should be hidden or not. You have to look at
| why the data is public in the first place - "I pay this
| person's salary, so I am entitled to know how much their salary
| is (among other things you typically know about an employee)."
|
| Whether or not violence committed against public servants
| happens at a higher rate than the private citizenry doesn't
| impact the truthfulness of that statement. So if the article
| wants to make a coherent argument for hiding this type of
| information about public servants from the public, it needs to
| attack that point.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Why should paying you entitle me to know your home address?
| Paying you entitles me to some amount of your labor. I don't
| see why there should be anything else to it.
|
| In practical terms businesses are required to collect
| employee PII in order to comply with various regulations. But
| that's not "entitled" that's "government imposed for
| unrelated reasons". (Those unrelated reasons being illegal
| aliens and tax compliance.)
|
| There's also an element of risk management with the employer
| wanting to run a background check. But there's no particular
| reason that can't be done via a mutually trusted third party,
| similar to escrow. In fact it often is done that way in the
| residential rental business - the applicant authorizes the
| check and pays the third party who then furnishes the report
| to the landlord.
| motbus3 wrote:
| This "there is a threat" talk is going too far, unrelated to that
| i find curious how the electoral processes are being attack
| recently.
| Ms-J wrote:
| Why would we care more about public servants than regular people?
| Regular citizens need their info protected, not government
| servants.
|
| If you are working in the public sector, your info will be
| completely out there. That is how a functioning government works
| with accountability.
| mannanj wrote:
| Unaccountable elite want to remain unaccountable.
|
| Public is bad, must make them more accountable and more
| surveilled.
|
| Do not watch the public servants, do not notice that they act
| more like "private" servants.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-03 23:01 UTC)