Privacy Laws in the United States: A Patchwork of Inadequacy
A System of Exemptions and Exceptions
Privacy laws in the United States are a patchwork at best. More often than not, they miss the mark, leaving most people with little actual privacy. When such laws are enacted, they can seem tailored to protect those in positions of power.
Protecting the Powerful, Ignoring the Rest
Even laws designed to protect crime victims might end up protecting the names of abusive officers by labeling them as victims of crime in cases like resisting arrest or assaulting an officer. Such accusations are often used in cases of excessive force, keeping cops’ names out of the spotlight.
The Problem with Daniel’s Law
For example, a recent New Jersey law emerged from a tragic event in which a government employee faced violence, sparking a legislative response. Known as "Daniel’s Law," it was created after the personal information of a federal judge’s family was used by a murderer to track them down. Instead of a broader privacy law that could protect all residents of New Jersey, it focused exclusively on safeguarding certain public employees.
A Narrow Approach
Under the law, judges, prosecutors, and police officers can request that their personal information (addresses and phone numbers, for example) be scrubbed from public databases. Popular services that people use to look up information, such as Whitepages or Spokeo, must comply. While this sounds like a win for privacy, the protections stop there. The average citizen is still left exposed, with no legal recourse if their personal data is misused or sold.
Conflicts of Interest
At the centre of the debate is a lawyer who’s taken up the cause of protecting cops’ personal data. He’s suing numerous companies for making this type of information accessible. While noble at first glance, a deeper look raises questions. It transpires that the lawyer’s company has previously collected and monetized personal data. And when a data service responded to his demands by freezing access to some of the firm’s databases, he and his clients cried foul — despite specifically requesting restrictions on how their information could be used.
Uneven Application
It’s also worth noting how unevenly data protection measures are applied. Cops, for instance, frequently rely on the same tools and databases they’re now asking to be restricted. These services have long been used by law enforcement for investigations and running background checks. Yet, when law enforcement data appears in such systems, special treatment is required.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding Daniel’s Law and the lawyer’s efforts to protect cops’ personal data point to a need for the type of improvements to the way data is treated for all, not just one group of society. Instead of expanding privacy rights to all New Jersey residents, the law carves out exceptions for the powerful — leaving the rest of the population as vulnerable as ever.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the purpose of Daniel’s Law?
A: Daniel’s Law was created to protect the personal information of certain public employees, such as judges, prosecutors, and police officers.
Q: Who benefits from Daniel’s Law?
A: The law primarily benefits judges, prosecutors, and police officers, while leaving the average citizen without adequate privacy protection.
Q: Are there any conflicts of interest surrounding Daniel’s Law?
A: Yes, the lawyer leading the charge to protect cops’ personal data has a history of collecting and monetizing personal data, which raises concerns about his motivations and potential biases.
Q: How does Daniel’s Law fit into the broader context of privacy laws in the United States?
A: Daniel’s Law is just one example of the patchwork of privacy laws in the United States, which often prioritize the interests of those in power over the privacy and security of the general public.
