6 ms·

Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

93 points by achristmascarl 8mo ago

anonymous908213 8mo ago
> 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 8mo ago
  Government employees have power and they are flexing the power. C'est la vie!
- riedel 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
      > 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.
- codingdave 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    Private payrolls are published though.
    - phil21 8mo ago
      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 8mo ago
        https://theworknumber.com/login-help https://theworknumber.com/login-help
        phil21 8mo ago
        Yes, not available to the general public.
    - pc86 8mo ago
      Where?
  - anonymous908213 8mo ago
    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.
- 1-800-throwaway 8mo ago
  To start with: everyone deserves privacy, yes. The rest of my reply reflects my understanding based on listening to my partner every day, who works in public records for the county where we live. From what I've learned, public employees do seem uniquely vulnerable. Two employees (that we know about) have committed suicide in the past year or two; it was strongly suggested the pressure and harassment endured on the job was a factor. - At any public-facing job (say, a restaurant server or customer support), are you legally required to respond to every single person? And in doing so, reveal your full, real name? Not required like "your employer wants you to" required, but LEGALLY required, like you can be sued if you don't? - If someone is making threats or clearly abusing the system intentionally, can you politely ask them to leave, trespass them, or just refuse to help them further? Or are you still required to help them anyway by law? - Are you obligated to help someone even if they're anonymous? - Are your own communications and employment details public records? - Are you legally obligated to allow anyone to come to your place of work, and be physically present, while you help them? - Are millions of people as angry at your employer as people generally are at "the government"? Here are just a few of the things I've heard about the public records situation where we live: - There are a handful of people who are infamous throughout the departments for abusing the system with dozens or hundreds of broad requests (and no, these aren't reporters or being doing interesting studies of anything). Some of these people are even disgruntled former employees or relatives of former employees, who are doing so purely for retaliation, because they know it will overload the system. But, the public records law is strong, so there is no provision for denying them access. The estimated time to fully complete some of these individuals' public records request is decades. As in, "we expect your final delivery of records to be complete in the year 2050." - Even after people receive their records, some pretend not to know how to read them purely to waste more time (like not knowing how to open a zip file - which every operating system does automatically - or a PDF). When an alternative is sent, they move on to the next excuse for not being able to read them. The law requires assisting these people, even if they're faking it. - Requestors frequently think they know the law better than the public employees serving them (and they're almost always wrong), and will heap all kinds of abuse on the records officers for perceived violations and incompetence. This abuse ranges from simple name calling, to threatening lawsuits, to sending employees their home address (in an "I know where you live" way as a veiled threat), to sending them the addresses of their parents, even to calling and harassing their parents. Can you imagine your parents being harassed because someone was unhappy with how you were doing your job? All while you were doing your job efficiently and correctly? - The law allows for the public to review physical records at the department in person, not just accept email/portal delivery. So, the enraged person threatening you and your family has a legal right to come hang out in your office with you. - The legal teams for said departments are extremely cautious about running afoul of the public records entitlement laws, or being perceived as retaliating, even if it means their employees are receiving threats and feel unsafe. So, what to do? To me, it makes more sense for the solution to be on the job & "citizens' rights" side rather than the "protect employees from data brokers" side. Everyone should be more protected from data brokers. But public employees also deserve additional protection from malicious actors in the course of carrying out their duties - that is to say, yes, you have the right to request public records, but the government should have a lower tolerance for people abusing and system and acting maliciously.
amelius 8mo ago
What would happen if we just banned data brokers?
- shimman 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    See also: DHS/TSA/ICE, credit scores, stock buybacks and self-dividends. All very, very recent systems in the grander scheme.
    - pc86 8mo ago
      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 8mo ago
        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 8mo ago
        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.
rbbydotdev 8mo ago
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 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
Anyone who says anything, anywhere, gets threats. Is there any data showing the follow-through percent is any higher for public servants?
- pc86 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    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.
    - autoexec 8mo ago
      Maybe you can argue that a private employer shouldn't be allowed to know their employee's addresses but it's mostly irrelevant because things like tax laws require them to. It also has nothing to do with public employees which are completely different because we have the right to know that data about government employees. It allows us to protest outside of their homes. It allows us to investigate them for corruption and fraud. It allows us to enforce laws that require residency in order to hold certain positions. An open/transparent government means no secret employees allowed.
motbus3 8mo ago
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 8mo ago
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 8mo ago
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.

> 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 8mo ago
Government employees have power and they are flexing the power. C'est la vie!
riedel 8mo ago
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 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago
    > 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.
codingdave 8mo ago
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 8mo ago
  Private payrolls are published though.
  - phil21 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
      https://theworknumber.com/login-help https://theworknumber.com/login-help
      - phil21 8mo ago
        Yes, not available to the general public.
  - pc86 8mo ago
    Where?
- anonymous908213 8mo ago
  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.
1-800-throwaway 8mo ago
To start with: everyone deserves privacy, yes. The rest of my reply reflects my understanding based on listening to my partner every day, who works in public records for the county where we live. From what I've learned, public employees do seem uniquely vulnerable. Two employees (that we know about) have committed suicide in the past year or two; it was strongly suggested the pressure and harassment endured on the job was a factor. - At any public-facing job (say, a restaurant server or customer support), are you legally required to respond to every single person? And in doing so, reveal your full, real name? Not required like "your employer wants you to" required, but LEGALLY required, like you can be sued if you don't? - If someone is making threats or clearly abusing the system intentionally, can you politely ask them to leave, trespass them, or just refuse to help them further? Or are you still required to help them anyway by law? - Are you obligated to help someone even if they're anonymous? - Are your own communications and employment details public records? - Are you legally obligated to allow anyone to come to your place of work, and be physically present, while you help them? - Are millions of people as angry at your employer as people generally are at "the government"? Here are just a few of the things I've heard about the public records situation where we live: - There are a handful of people who are infamous throughout the departments for abusing the system with dozens or hundreds of broad requests (and no, these aren't reporters or being doing interesting studies of anything). Some of these people are even disgruntled former employees or relatives of former employees, who are doing so purely for retaliation, because they know it will overload the system. But, the public records law is strong, so there is no provision for denying them access. The estimated time to fully complete some of these individuals' public records request is decades. As in, "we expect your final delivery of records to be complete in the year 2050." - Even after people receive their records, some pretend not to know how to read them purely to waste more time (like not knowing how to open a zip file - which every operating system does automatically - or a PDF). When an alternative is sent, they move on to the next excuse for not being able to read them. The law requires assisting these people, even if they're faking it. - Requestors frequently think they know the law better than the public employees serving them (and they're almost always wrong), and will heap all kinds of abuse on the records officers for perceived violations and incompetence. This abuse ranges from simple name calling, to threatening lawsuits, to sending employees their home address (in an "I know where you live" way as a veiled threat), to sending them the addresses of their parents, even to calling and harassing their parents. Can you imagine your parents being harassed because someone was unhappy with how you were doing your job? All while you were doing your job efficiently and correctly? - The law allows for the public to review physical records at the department in person, not just accept email/portal delivery. So, the enraged person threatening you and your family has a legal right to come hang out in your office with you. - The legal teams for said departments are extremely cautious about running afoul of the public records entitlement laws, or being perceived as retaliating, even if it means their employees are receiving threats and feel unsafe. So, what to do? To me, it makes more sense for the solution to be on the job & "citizens' rights" side rather than the "protect employees from data brokers" side. Everyone should be more protected from data brokers. But public employees also deserve additional protection from malicious actors in the course of carrying out their duties - that is to say, yes, you have the right to request public records, but the government should have a lower tolerance for people abusing and system and acting maliciously.

amelius 8mo ago

What would happen if we just banned data brokers?

shimman 8mo ago
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 8mo ago
  See also: DHS/TSA/ICE, credit scores, stock buybacks and self-dividends. All very, very recent systems in the grander scheme.
  - pc86 8mo ago
    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 8mo ago
      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 8mo ago
        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.

rbbydotdev 8mo ago

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 8mo ago
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 8mo ago

Anyone who says anything, anywhere, gets threats. Is there any data showing the follow-through percent is any higher for public servants?

pc86 8mo ago
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 8mo ago
  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.
  - autoexec 8mo ago
    Maybe you can argue that a private employer shouldn't be allowed to know their employee's addresses but it's mostly irrelevant because things like tax laws require them to. It also has nothing to do with public employees which are completely different because we have the right to know that data about government employees. It allows us to protest outside of their homes. It allows us to investigate them for corruption and fraud. It allows us to enforce laws that require residency in order to hold certain positions. An open/transparent government means no secret employees allowed.

motbus3 8mo ago

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 8mo ago

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 8mo ago

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.