Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Listing the officers by name is a kind of online vigilantism that ultimately might threaten their personal safety. As soon as: * The blue code of silence collapses. * Judges and politicians stop covering for cop brutality and protecting cop killers. * Police are more than half as likely to die on the job as a trash collectors. I'll maybe start to buy this line of reasoning. It's an insult to the memory of every unar…
> * Police are more than half as likely to die on the job as a trash collectors. How is this at all relevant to whether a police officer deserves privacy? Yes, their fatality rate is around half that of a trash collector. Since when was HN anti-privacy? You can use data like this to analyze and criticize the system , but I see no reason why the officers' identities would be helpful for any legitimate purpose, especia…
Who was debating whether police officers deserve privacy? That's a question for theologians. The debate was about whether the threat to police officers' safety was an important enough factor to the public to merit censoring their names from reports of their conduct.
If policework is currently less dangerous than trash collecting, that's an obvious argument against. I like the economic argument: if you prefer your violence anonymous, quit and find another job.