This article is almost entirely about plausibly reasonable security measures in response to credible threats/risks. If members of SCOTUS are showing up to bill

This article is almost entirely about plausibly reasonable security measures in response to credible threats/risks. If members of SCOTUS are showing up to billionaire eyes-wide-shut parties in the forest, where bribes are paired with underage-goat kompromat, that's a problem, and you'd want transparency for that. But, sadly, due to our current cultural problems in public discourse and reasoning, much/most of the populace is being riled up by social media propaganda/shilling/mobs/habit, some people milk movements of public figures as fuel for that, and occasionally some mentally ill person acts on the noise and information. Some security is appropriate. But, so long as we're being understanding about the importance of privacy for some privileged few, in the interests of equality... > That bill passed into law the next year and outlawed the publication of personally identifying information about federal and supreme court justices online by data brokers and [...] How about also protect the rest of us from that surveillance/stalking industry?