Hacker News Reader

Comment by subroutine | Hacker News Reader

I think op is saying there's a difference between, for example, the Chief of Police (a public person), and an undercover police detective. I think it's unreasonable to require all government employees, from DMV janitors to CalTrans technicians, to police detectives, to have a public profile. Is there any current law that stipulates otherwise (applies to all gov employees)?

View on HN

If they're taking public money of course they should be accountable to the public.

> If they're taking public money of course they should be accountable to the public.

Really? A public profile for all... military personnel. FBI, CIA, NSA employees, government contractors, employees of corporation that accepts government subsidies/grants.

> A public profile for all

Yes, unless there's some kind of security exemption then names can be anonymised. I don't think most police are doing that kind of work though?

Why do you think that's controversial? It's public money.

> government contractors, employees of corporation

The contract details should be in scope, but what the person with that contract chooses to do with that money (paying employees) is up to them and should be private.

I understand and respect your position, and think there are some merits to it, but I personally believe it's unnecessary. Typically the 'public persons' within public orgs are their senior / high-ranking officials (e.g. chief of police; director of engineering), and often are directly elected (e.g. county sheriff). If there are grievances to be had within some public sector, we as citizens can and should demand responses from the leaders of those organizations. I don't think making it easy to harass low ranking public employees is a good tradeoff for whatever is gained by requiring them to have a public profile. I think most public servants (mid/low-level employees) should be entitled to the same level of privacy as everyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com