Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#61

Post by 1-800-throwaway »

autoexec wrote: post #58
fc417fc802 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> protest outside of their homes. I don't think that should be permissible. > investigate them for corruption and fraud. Why does that involve a home address? That sounds like stalking to me. I'm fairly certain that's explicitly illegal in any reasonable justification. > enforce laws that require residency in order to hold certain positions. Again, stalking. What are you going to do, stake the address out? If fraud r…

> Why does that involve a home address? Although it could, home addresses were just one example of personal data that Justin Sherman seems to want to have redacted in public records. Good luck getting anything useful out of an investigation without them. Imagine submitting a public records request and having all the information about the government workers involved redacted. A list of phone calls being made and recei…

Honestly, this take sounds extremely naive. Most public employees have no authority and certainly aren't roaming the streets with guns roughing people up. They're doing office work. And you know who takes up an outsized share of their time? Completely unhinged members of the public, who can't be told to "go away" like they could at any other job, because the government must serve everyone, by law, no matter how kooky they are. You shouldn't be signing up to be easily harassed and threatened in your personal life just by taking a public sector job. See my other comment for some examples.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#62

Post by anonymous908213 »

autoexec wrote: post #60
anonymous908213 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All protest is aimed at intimidating someone. This isn't entirely true, but insofar as some protest is aimed at intimidation, protest should be aimed at intimidating the government as a whole, not a specific individual, unless perhaps that specific individual is the government as a whole, in which case they'll probably have tanks guarding their palace from unruly protestors and this discussion is moot. > I'd absolu…

> protest should be aimed at intimidating the government as a whole, not a specific individual If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption? > Even in a mob wit…

> If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption?

The government as a whole is responsible for dealing with the corruption of its subordinates. Here in Japan, we recently had a major corruption scandal that resulted in the resignation of PM Kishida in 2024. Kishida was not himself guilty, but nonetheless was made to take responsibility for overseeing the party which allowed this to happen. This is how it should be. For good governance to exist, the public must hold the government itself accountable such that the government is incentivized to root out corruption for its own survival.

> What way exists that is trivial for a journalist, but not trivial for anyone else?

Asking connections. They can make calls or send e-mails to people who would know, who will give them the information because they can trust the journalist, having an established professional career in journalism, will not use that information to attack the person at that address. It is much harder to trust a completely random person from the public with that information.

> It can pressure them to resign, or generate enough press and attention that they are removed from their position (voted out by the people for example), or just pressure them to do a better job so as not to outrage the people they're supposed to serve.

All of this can be accomplished without doing it at someone's home, and I don't believe doing it at their home increases the likelihood of it happening.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#63

Post by dTal »

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…

Setting aside "elected officials"... government employees are already undercompensated compared to the private sector, making it difficult to attract talent. Eroding their personal rights and exposing them to personal risk on top of that is a recipe for shrinking the government to nothing. Do that and you might as well cut to the chase and hand the whole kit and kaboodle over to the private sector and be done with it.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#64

Post by cucumber3732842 »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #18
pc86 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

Are there more lunatics or has the number of lunatics remained unchanged but the frequency of situations and events and availability of information and events that make them act increased?

It's not like there's a control earth to compare to.

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#65

Post by zbentley »

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…

Similarly fair point.

I think there's a wide regulatory spectrum available between "ban something outright" and "completely lassiez-faire noninterventionist approach". For stock buybacks, that spectrum includes (and I don't have a specific pitch or favorite in this non-exhaustive, non-mutually-exclusive list):

- Requiring federal approval before a buyback event in excess of a certain value or capitalization percentage, similar to the way that mergers can be curtailed by regulators.

- Restricting the volume of buyback activity per year/quarter.

- Imposing different taxation behavior triggered by buybacks or as a percentage of buyback value.

- Giving the government preferential purchase opportunities in the event of a buyback for large companies (I.e. "you can buy back 10% of your capitalization, but the government reserves the right to instead purchase half of that--5% of your capitalization--at the buyback rate"), under the rationalization that, if you're huge and doing well enough for a buyback event, then you're doing well enough that the public interest should have influence over your business's future.

Previous HN discussions of this topic, selected non-rigorously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22616197

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21762582

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20664553

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22606733

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#66

Post by [deleted] »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #44
whattheheckheck wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its literally the last check of power... rich people will find out exactly where the power people live. The masses also need to know

The last check on power is murdering politicians in their homes? I beg to differ. If the situation is so bad that violence is truly necessary, the last check is an organized revolution, not an assassination. If the figure is a genuine dictator and important enough to have real power, they would have extensive security surrounding their home anyways. This fantasy of assassinating a would-be Putin or whatever does not…

[deleted]

Re: Data Brokers Can Fuel Violence Against Public Servants

#67

Post by whattheheckheck »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #62
autoexec wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> protest should be aimed at intimidating the government as a whole, not a specific individual If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption? > Even in a mob wit…

> If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption? The government as a whole is responsible for dealing with the corruption of its subordinates. Here in Japan, we…

Just run the thought experiment of how an individual would rule the country if the people had no knowledge of their living situation and how they would rule the country if they did have knowledge of their living situation.

You know the answer in your gut

Post reply on HN