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.
> 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.
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.
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.
C'est la vie!
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.
For example, loans. They would be priced against average risk, and low-risk individuals with privacy would pay the same risk premium as high-risk individuals.
This may be fine for individuals who voluntary give up privacy at chosen moments for chosen partners. It would be more complex and expensive to operate that general open brokerages.
All very, very recent systems in the grander scheme.
If you are working in the public sector, your info will be completely out there. That is how a functioning government works with accountability.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 regarding residency is suspected it can be investigated via official channels.
> An open/transparent government means no secret employees allowed.
Can't say I agree. Can't say I see "private home address" as equivalent to "secret employee".
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 received, but all the numbers blacked out. A bunch of emails with all the email and IP addresses scrubbed.
We've already got armed government employees wearing masks to hide their identity as they murder people in the streets, we don't need more laws limiting the ability of the public to know who government workers are or preventing them from being investigated. If someone doesn't want people to easily be able to look up basic information about them like their name, address, salary, position, hire date, etc. the solution is to stop accepting taxpayer money and work for the private sector. Civil servants should expect members of the public will have the ability to see those types of things.
"In the grander scheme" interstate highways and air travel and scuba diving are new too, what about them?
As you say, on balance some of them are good/should be preserved, and some should be reconsidered.
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
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.
Actually the air traffic controller in question was Swiss not German.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_c...
It's not like there's a control earth to compare to.
> 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 violence inherently worse? I think it is, but there's at least an argument to be made that it isn't.
Is stopping that political violence worth the worst case scenario where we make it harder for the public to get this type of information?
Why would my direct supervisor need my home address?
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 is rather besides the point. Random acts of violence are bad, so let's not make anybody's home address public information. In the age of the internet, we routinely observe millions of people fixating on one person for some perceived grievance or another, wherein it only takes one lunatic among those millions having access to private information to result in a tragedy. We don't have to make it so easy for these tragedies to happen.
Maybe it's my American-ness showing, but it's pretty shocking to me that 8 years was considered too harsh for someone who stabbed a man to death in front of his family.
On the other hand, I suppose one could argue that the perpetrator was highly unlikely to commit a similar act in the future, if only because his motivation was the death of his own family, who would no longer be around to inspire him to violence a second time.
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.
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.
You said murder, but there are plenty of valid reasons that the public should know who holds positions of power and where they live that don't involve violence of any kind.
Protest is an essential freedom we have and it's perfectly valid to do it outside of the homes of those we have put in power. It's also useful to have that information when investigating fraud and corruption.
> It's also useful to have that information when investigating fraud and corruption.
This is the purview of journalists, police, and independent investigative boards. We do not need random unqualified people stalking politicians to uncover fraud. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a case where that a random nobody ended up uncovering fraud or corruption by stalking, but I have heard of dozens of cases of public servants being targeted and murdered in their homes.
All protest is aimed at intimidating someone. Free-speech zones aren't going to make anything better. I'd absolutely support anyone protesting something I agree with (or protesting for something I don't) and can't imagine that limiting people's right to protest or increasing the ability of government to hide from the public would be good for anyone except corrupt or incompetent government officials.
> This is the purview of journalists, police, and independent investigative boards.
There are no special rights given to "journalists" that aren't already given to all people. Journalists are just regular people and everyone has the freedom of the press. This matters more than ever today considering that our mass media is captured by political interests and controlled by an increasingly small number of rich people. We need independent journalists to be free to do their work. We absolutely need random "unqualified" people "stalking" politicians to uncover fraud. (where "unqualified" means independent, and "stalking" just means evidence gathering through recording or public records requests). There are countless of examples of "random nobodies" uncovering fraud or corruption. Some of them are doing it by carrying out long drawn out investigations over many months where they gather and review documents and conduct interviews, while others are doing it in a matter of seconds with nothing more than a cell phone recording posted to the internet. Some of those people uncovering and reporting corruption are people I'd generally disagree with politically, but I'll still support what they're doing because it's a critical function of a free nation.
As for police, there's a lot of problems with government investigating themselves and their friends. Independent investigative boards can be helpful but they too are best when they're just regular people.
There are extremely few public servants being assassinated in their homes. There are far more cases of public servants killing innocent people.
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 absolutely support anyone protesting something I agree with
Even in a mob with 500 torches and pitchforks outside your family's house?
> There are no special rights given to "journalists" that aren't already given to all people. Journalists are just regular people and everyone has the freedom of the press.
This is correct in a technical sense but not really correct in a reality sense. Journalists are not privileged with legal rights, but they absolutely have many special social rights. Journalists are given access to places regular people would not be given access to all the time, and people are willing to talk to and divulge information to journalists that they would not be willing to give to random individuals. For an established journalist, it would be trivial to obtain a politician's address even if it were not public record. This social trust is earned by a record of professionalism.
> There are extremely few public servants being assassinated in their homes. There are far more cases of public servants killing innocent people.
The latter statement seems like a non-sequitur. It is true, but not really connected to the topic at hand. Knowing a politician's address doesn't stop them from killing people. It simply results in more total killing in the world, not less. We should strive to reduce all sources of senseless violence, and giving out politician's addresses is absolutely one of those sources.
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 with 500 torches and pitchforks outside your family's house?
Yes, provided there was a member of my family here who worked for the government who those people were peacefully protesting.
> For an established journalist, it would be trivial to obtain a politician's address even if it were not public record.
How exactly? Stalking? There are other ways, true, but those are available to anyone right? What way exists that is trivial for a journalist, but not trivial for anyone else?
If a government worker's address are already easy for anyone to find even if they aren't public record than what's the harm in them being public record anyway? (you could equally argue that if every government worker's address was trivial to find elsewhere there'd be no need to make them available in public records, but there are advantages to having a standardized process that works everywhere for everyone vs trying to find various other means until one works)
> Knowing a politician's address doesn't stop them from killing people.
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. Not every protest at someone's home turns into a murder.
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.
You know the answer in your gut