I would have thought it obvious that friction is very much a part of the equation that has historically gone into deciding what information should be public, what should be formally sealed, and what should be actively expunged from the public record to the degree possible.
Suppose I hire an investigator to conduct a (legitimate) investigation into a political opponent, high-level hire, etc. including past addresses, any arrests, mentions in newspapers or online, anything they've written, etc. They'll dig up a lot of information, some of which are public records and some of which is simply publicly available information.
Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons?
Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it. But there is a significant practical different between information that there's some friction to access and information that's indexed and freely available to everyone with a computer.
Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons?
This would be pretty close to it however
Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it
on the opposite side, no, this is absolutely not what I'm arguing.
If querying a public record online gives rise to a sufficient argument that public harm is being caused, legislatures are not ignorant of this, and they are certainly not deaf to it. At the Federal level, SCOTUS recently reversed a decision of how to answer that very question with regards to Food Stamp data and how it can be queried, and even if it should be queryable at all: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-marketing-i...
All of my comments here I am trying to make as objectively as possible without passing judgement on any concern or aspect of it, but simply remark on how open records laws are implemented and how laws affect those records and the ones who query them.
Any assertion that I am making an assessment or judgement about the people involved runs contrary to my motives in even bothering to comment here.
Suppose I hire an investigator to conduct a (legitimate) investigation into a political opponent, high-level hire, etc. including past addresses, any arrests, mentions in newspapers or online, anything they've written, etc. They'll dig up a lot of information, some of which are public records and some of which is simply publicly available information.
Are you seriously trying to argue that there is no difference between an in-depth targeted investigation of an individual and that same information being available about everyone to anyone on the planet with a press of a few buttons?
Sure, you can argue that there is no privacy and people should just get over it. But there is a significant practical different between information that there's some friction to access and information that's indexed and freely available to everyone with a computer.