Home Address Exemptions are the Wrong Approach in Protecting Privacy

David Cuillier
{"title":"Home Address Exemptions are the Wrong Approach in Protecting Privacy","authors":"David Cuillier","doi":"10.32473/joci.4.4.132762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This commentary lays out six reasons why broad exemptions for home addresses in public records laws do little to protect people's privacy and hinder the ability for journalists, businesses and others to serve society. These exemptions are based on fear-inspiring anecdotes, provide the public a false sense of security, ignore the fact home addresses are available elsewhere to those with means and motivation, lead to a slippery slope toward crimininalization of publication, restrict legitimate use of home addresses, and do not pass intermediate scrutiny that one might apply to other restrictions on information gathering. Instead of restricting valuable information, policy makers should focus their efforts on the actual harmful acts intended to be addressed, such as identity theft, doxing, harassment and assault.","PeriodicalId":165927,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Civic Information","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Civic Information","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32473/joci.4.4.132762","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This commentary lays out six reasons why broad exemptions for home addresses in public records laws do little to protect people's privacy and hinder the ability for journalists, businesses and others to serve society. These exemptions are based on fear-inspiring anecdotes, provide the public a false sense of security, ignore the fact home addresses are available elsewhere to those with means and motivation, lead to a slippery slope toward crimininalization of publication, restrict legitimate use of home addresses, and do not pass intermediate scrutiny that one might apply to other restrictions on information gathering. Instead of restricting valuable information, policy makers should focus their efforts on the actual harmful acts intended to be addressed, such as identity theft, doxing, harassment and assault.
家庭住址豁免是保护隐私的错误方法
这篇评论列出了六个原因,为什么公共记录法中对家庭住址的广泛豁免对保护人们的隐私几乎没有作用,而且阻碍了记者、企业和其他人服务社会的能力。这些豁免是基于令人恐惧的轶事,为公众提供了一种虚假的安全感,忽视了家庭住址可以在其他地方为那些有手段和动机的人提供的事实,导致了对出版的犯罪化,限制了家庭住址的合法使用,并且没有通过可能适用于其他信息收集限制的中间审查。决策者不应限制有价值的信息,而应把精力集中在打算解决的实际有害行为上,如身份盗窃、诱奸、骚扰和攻击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信