Data isn't knowledge. Records like these seldom, but not never, actually cast a useful light. The worst of the malfeasance can pay for the workarounds or don't

Data isn't knowledge. Records like these seldom, but not never, actually cast a useful light. The worst of the malfeasance can pay for the workarounds or don't care that the information they record is simply false. Without the power of a criminal investigation you can't do anything about the obfuscated or false information, and with a criminal investigation there is little need for the database-- because you can pull the records directly, subpoena the relevant parties, etc.. But an honest business person isn't setting up a maze of proxies. Their PII is published, exposing them to crazies, kidnappers, extortionists (including extortionists that use the courts), and suppressing their free expression because any harsh word uttered online can send off someone with a grudge to invade their lives, any unpopular view can unleash a total war on whatever they're connected to. [It's not even that uncommon for a poster to tick off a HN commenter only to have them come back with irrelevant personal information as means of intimidation, and HN is a lot nicer than much of the internet.] Where corrupt public figures have been a concern-- apply the transparency directly to the public figures: At least then it's just part of the tradeoff in assuming the responsibility and they can be compensated accordingly (private security is remarkably expensive...).