Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants • Hacker News Board

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#31

Post by krisoft » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 6:08 PM UTC

direwolf20 wrote: post #20

anonymous908213 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ar…

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.

> 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...

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#32

Post by forgetfreeman » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 6:09 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #15

riedel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, particula…

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…

Making it slightly more involved for randos to show up at your literal doorstep hardly seems like hiding from one's constituency.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#33

Post by pc86 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

anonymous908213 wrote: post #23

pc86 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 violen…

> 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…

> 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.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#34

Post by anonymous908213 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #33

anonymous908213 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 webs…

> 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.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#35

Post by bigfishrunning » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 6:59 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #30

zbentley wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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?

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#36

Post by fc417fc802 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

direwolf20 wrote: post #20

anonymous908213 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ar…

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.

You left out - was a foreigner, managed to escape, faced zero consequences at home (AFAIK).

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#37

Post by fc417fc802 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 7:24 PM UTC

16bitvoid wrote: post #25

pc86 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 violen…

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?

To match more closely the question about politicians, why would you need the home address of your direct supervisor? Seems quite suspect to me.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#38

Post by ashleyn » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 7:28 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #4

What would happen if we just banned data brokers?

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?

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#39

Post by fc417fc802 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 7:32 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #19

kgwxd wrote: post #10

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

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 serva…

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.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#40

Post by cortesoft » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 7:44 PM UTC

riedel wrote: post #7

anonymous908213 wrote: post #2

> 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 protecti…

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, particula…

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.