• Daniel’s Law enhances privacy for officials but leaves citizens exposed to data misuse.
• The law highlights a troubling privacy divide.

Privacy in the United States is often described as fragile, and for good reason. Privacy laws in the country are inconsistent, protecting some while leaving others exposed. More often than not, laws appear to benefit those in positions of power, and leave ordinary citizens to fend for themselves.

Even laws designed to protect crime victims sometimes serve a different purpose — shielding the identities of, for example, law enforcement officers accused of misconduct. Charges like “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer” are often at the centre of cases, allowing officers to use victim protection rules to keep their names out of the public eye.

New Jersey’s “Daniel’s Law” exemplifies the perceived imbalance. Named after the late son of federal judge Esther Salas, Daniel was tragically killed in a targeted attack, and the ensuing statute was intended to address the dangers posed by the easy availability of personal information online. Salas herself publicly called for action, saying, “We can make it hard for those who target us to track us down … We can’t just sit back and wait for another tragedy to strike.”

However, instead of creating comprehensive privacy protections for all New Jersey residents, the law focuses narrowly on protecting judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and other select public employees. Under Daniel’s Law, those individuals can request that their personal information — such as addresses and phone numbers — be removed from public databases and private search tools, including Whitepages and Spokeo. Meanwhile, the average New Jersey resident remains just as exposed as ever.

The selective application of protective measures raises important questions about whom privacy laws are really designed to protect. Law enforcement officers, for instance, frequently access the same databases they now feel should be restricted. These types of tools have long been used for investigations and background checks. Yet, when officers’ own personal information is exposed, the systems they rely on suddenly become a problem — because the exposure affects them personally.

Consider a recent case involving a New Jersey police union president. Using a simple online property search, someone revealed detailed information about his home — its address, square footage, and even a street-view image. His reaction was one of surprise and frustration. He reportedly expressed deep concern that such information was so easily accessible.

His reaction underscored a troubling double standard: online tools are acceptable for use on others, but their existence becomes a problem when they apply to law enforcement officials and choice public servants.

A lawyer leading efforts to enforce Daniel’s Law, Matt Adkisson, also finds himself in a complicated position. On one hand, he is suing numerous companies for exposing officers’ personal data in the state. On the other, his own company has previously collected and monetised personal data.

When a data broker he sued restricted access to certain databases belonging to the law firm in order to comply with privacy measures, Adkisson and his clients claimed retaliation, even though such restrictions were an obvious consequence of their demands. This calls into question consistency and whether the goal is genuine reform or selective privacy for a privileged few.

If Daniel’s Law were expanded to cover all New Jersey residents, it could represent a meaningful step toward addressing the broader issue of data privacy. As it stands, however, it benefits a specific, already-powerful group: judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers. The average resident, including victims of stalking, harassment or worse, lacks such protections. For them, the risks of personal data misuse are as high as ever.

This is not to suggest that better privacy laws aren’t necessary; they absolutely are. Personal data continues to be harvested, sold, and misused at an alarming rate, leaving people vulnerable to everything from identity theft to targeted harassment.

The critique, however, is that legislation like Daniel’s Law fails to address systemic issues. Instead, it creates additional layers of protection for those who already have the means to safeguard themselves, while leaving the majority of people exposed.

The debate around privacy laws highlights a deeper truth about how data policies are crafted and implemented. While such laws may address specific, high-profile incidents, they often fail to account for the broader societal need for comprehensive data protection.

Until everyone’s privacy is protected, selective regulation will continue to reveal systemic injustices. The powerful get more protection, and the rest of the population is left to navigate an increasingly intrusive digital landscape.

Ultimately, this discussion isn’t just about one law in one state. It’s about rethinking how privacy is treated in a world where personal information is constantly exposed and openly traded. Everyone deserves better safeguards against data misuse — not just those in positions of influence.

Until lawmakers recognise this, the gap between those protected and those left exposed will only continue to grow.

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.