States Weigh Privacy Shields: Public Servants & Location Data

In an era where personal data is both a valuable commodity and a potential vulnerability, state legislatures across the country are grappling with how to best protect sensitive information. A notable trend emerging in early 2025 involves a wave of legislation aimed at enhancing privacy protections, particularly for personal contact details and location data. This legislative activity, spanning at least nine states, seeks to shield certain individuals, often public servants, from potential harassment or harm while also addressing the rapidly evolving landscape of digital tracking. However, these efforts inevitably intersect with long-standing principles of government transparency and public access to information, creating a complex policy challenge.

The Drive for Enhanced Privacy

The core objective behind many of these bills is straightforward: to restrict the public disclosure of sensitive personal information that could put individuals at risk. This often includes home addresses, personal phone numbers, email addresses, and increasingly, real-time or historical location data. The primary beneficiaries are frequently those in public-facing or potentially contentious roles. We see a significant number of bills focused on protecting:

• Law Enforcement Officers and Judges: Recognizing the potential for retaliation or intimidation related to their duties, states like South Carolina are refining laws to keep personal contact information confidential. South Carolina Senate Bill 126 (SC S0126) aims to restrict this information from publicly available government websites while ensuring it remains accessible within official records for legitimate purposes.
• Other Public Servants: The scope extends beyond law enforcement. Florida, a hotspot for this legislative activity, has introduced bills to exempt personal details of personnel from the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FL S1560), the Public Employees Relations Commission (FL S1764), employees of the Office of the Attorney General in Connecticut (CT SB01433), and broader categories of public agency employees in Connecticut (CT HB06850). Oregon House Bill 2922 (OR HB2922) specifically allows State Parks managers and rangers to use their employer's address in Department of Transportation records.
• Specific Licensed or Volunteer Groups: Privacy protections are also being considered for individuals like Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC) permittees (OR SB870), employees and volunteers of Crime Stoppers organizations (FL S0710), and even licensed veterinary technicians in Florida (FL S1336).

These protections are typically achieved by amending existing state public records laws, often variants of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to create specific exemptions for certain types of information or categories of individuals. Florida, for instance, has seen a flurry of bills creating or extending such exemptions, covering everything from lethality assessment forms potentially containing victim information (FL S1640) to vendor details held by the Department of Management Services (FL S1278).

Stakeholders in the Balance

The impact of these policies extends across various groups. Public employees, particularly those in law enforcement, the judiciary, and regulatory roles, stand to gain increased personal security and peace of mind. Veterans are also specifically addressed in Florida Senate Bill 1282 (FL S1282), which exempts certain materials related to the Veterans Florida Opportunity Program. Individuals reporting bigotry or bias may also receive enhanced privacy under proposals like Connecticut Senate Bill 1233 (CT SB01233).

While not explicitly targeted by race, gender, or other demographic factors, these laws could indirectly benefit members of minority groups, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or those with disabilities who may be disproportionately represented in certain public service roles or face heightened risks. However, the analysis also notes potential equity risks, cautioning that disparities in implementation or enforcement could arise.

On the other side of the equation are data brokers and entities that collect and disseminate personal information. Bills like Florida Senate Bill 1610 (FL S1610) directly target these businesses, allowing public servants to demand removal of their data and providing for civil action if brokers fail to comply. Similarly, Texas Senate Bill 1659 (TX SB1659) addresses government entities purchasing location data from brokers, seeking to impose warrant requirements.

The broader public and media organizations, who rely on public records for oversight and reporting, are also significant stakeholders. Increased exemptions can limit access to information previously available, potentially hindering transparency and accountability efforts. This tension is a recurring theme in the debate surrounding these bills.

Geographic Variations and Legislative Approaches

While the goal of enhancing privacy is common, the legislative strategies vary by state. Florida stands out for its sheer volume of bills, primarily focused on creating specific, often narrow, exemptions within its existing public records framework (Chapter 119, Florida Statutes). Many of these Florida bills, such as FL S7000 (endangered species locations) or FL H7005 (disaster recovery assistance info), involve removing sunset provisions on existing exemptions, making them permanent.

In contrast, states like Illinois and Rhode Island are taking a more comprehensive approach specifically targeting location data. Illinois Senate Bill 2121 (IL SB2121) and House Bill 3712 (IL HB3712) propose the "Privacy Protections for Location Information Derived from Electronic Devices Act." This act would make it unlawful for covered entities to collect or process location information without a permissible purpose and explicit consent, backed by significant civil penalties. Rhode Island House Bill 6062 (RI H6062) introduces a similar framework, tasking the Department of Business Regulation with implementation.

Other states blend approaches. South Carolina's SC S0126 consolidates protections for both law enforcement and judicial officers. Connecticut amends its FOIA for broader categories like public agency employees (CT HB06850) and those reporting bigotry (CT SB01233). Virginia House Bill 2546 (VA HB2546) carves out specific exceptions to warrant requirements for real-time location data in credible threat scenarios involving schools, while still requiring post-collection probable cause findings for admissibility in court. Texas (TX SB1659) focuses specifically on the acquisition of location data from third-party data brokers by government entities.

The Spotlight on Location Data

The specific focus on location data in states like Illinois, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia reflects growing societal and legislative concern over the ease with which individuals' movements can be tracked via smartphones and other electronic devices. This data can reveal incredibly intimate details about a person's life, associations, and habits. The proposed regulations often center on several key mechanisms:

1. Consent Requirements: Mandating that entities obtain explicit, informed consent before collecting or processing location data (e.g., Illinois, Rhode Island bills).
2. Permissible Purposes: Defining a limited set of legitimate reasons for which location data can be collected or used.
3. Warrant Requirements: Requiring law enforcement or government agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing location data, particularly when purchased from data brokers (e.g., Texas bill).
4. Data Broker Regulation: Imposing obligations on companies that trade in location and other personal data (e.g., Florida, Texas bills).

These measures attempt to bring legal frameworks up to speed with technological capabilities, addressing scenarios where data might be obtained through commercial channels rather than direct surveillance, potentially bypassing traditional Fourth Amendment protections.

Transparency, Accountability, and Countercurrents

The push for privacy, especially through public records exemptions, inevitably clashes with principles of open government. Transparency advocates argue that broad exemptions can shield misconduct, hinder public oversight, and decrease trust in government. The potential for delays in accessing even permissible information and the chilling effect on investigative journalism are common concerns.

Some legislative proposals acknowledge this tension. Maryland Senate Bill 555 (MD SB555), for example, allows custodians to deny inspection of records related to pending litigation involving the state, raising questions about access during potentially sensitive periods. Florida Senate Bill 1652 (FL S1652) proposes exempting material stricken by a court in noncriminal cases, which could limit understanding of judicial proceedings.

Interestingly, not all related legislative activity points towards less disclosure. Illinois House Bill 3465 (IL HB3465 amends the state's FOIA to explicitly make public the names of individuals on electronic monitoring and data about their violations. This runs counter to the broader privacy-protection trend seen in other bills, highlighting the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of legislative efforts in this domain. It underscores that the balance between privacy, public safety, and transparency is constantly being renegotiated, with different contexts leading to different conclusions.

Implementation Hurdles and Practical Realities

Even well-intentioned privacy laws face significant implementation challenges. Defining key terms like "permissible purpose" for location data collection can be legally complex and subject to interpretation. Ensuring consistent application across numerous state and local agencies, each with different capacities and priorities, is another major hurdle.

The rapid pace of technological change means that laws drafted today might quickly become outdated as new methods of data collection and analysis emerge. Furthermore, compliance and enforcement require resources. State agencies may need additional funding and personnel to handle requests for data restriction, investigate complaints, and enforce regulations against data brokers or other entities. Businesses, particularly data brokers and tech companies, may face increased compliance costs to adapt their practices.

Addressing potential equity risks also requires careful consideration during implementation. Ensuring that protections are applied fairly and do not inadvertently disadvantage certain demographic groups requires ongoing monitoring and oversight mechanisms, as suggested in the demographic impact analysis.

Historical Context and Future Trajectory

While the current focus on digital data and specific public roles feels contemporary, the effort to balance privacy and public access is not new. Laws protecting the confidentiality of specific records, like health information (HIPAA) or student records (FERPA) at the federal level, have existed for decades. States have also previously enacted laws to protect the addresses of domestic violence victims or participants in witness protection programs.

More recently, laws like Daniel's Law in New Jersey, enacted after the tragic killing of a federal judge's son, provided a model for protecting judicial officers' personal information. The current wave of legislation builds upon these precedents, expanding protections to broader categories of public servants and tackling the unique challenges posed by the pervasive collection of digital data, especially location information.

Looking ahead, the trend towards enhancing personal data privacy seems likely to continue. Factors influencing future legislation will include:

• Technological Advancements: New forms of data collection (e.g., IoT devices, facial recognition) will likely spur new legislative responses.
• Public Awareness and Opinion: High-profile data breaches or misuse cases often increase public demand for stronger protections.
• Legal Precedents: Court decisions interpreting existing privacy laws and constitutional rights (like the Fourth Amendment in the digital context) will shape legislative boundaries.
• Federal Action: The ongoing debate around a comprehensive federal privacy law continues. If enacted, federal legislation could set a baseline standard, potentially preempting some state laws but also possibly creating a more unified, albeit complex, regulatory landscape.

States will continue to serve as laboratories for policy innovation in this area, experimenting with different approaches to shield personal information while navigating the critical need for government transparency and accountability. The challenge lies in striking a sustainable balance that protects individuals without unduly hindering the public's right to know in an increasingly data-driven world.