This commentary is by Vermont Reps. Monique Priestley and Angela Arsenault. Rep. Priestley serves on the House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development and the Joint Information Technology Oversight Committee. Rep. Arsenault serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the Joint Judicial Retention Committee.
In July 2020, a man fueled by hate and armed with an address he found online, traveled to Judge Esther Salas’s New Jersey home to murder her. Her 20-year-old son, Daniel, happened to be home that day and answered the door when the killer came knocking. Daniel was shot and killed. His father was gravely wounded. Judge Salas, by sheer chance, survived.
This horrific tragedy exposes the brutal truth of our digital age: Big Tech has made personal information a weapon. While they peddle the illusion of connection and convenience, unscrupulous data brokers and tech giants are profiting from selling the information that puts our public servants in the crosshairs. They’ve built a system where home addresses and private details are readily available to anyone — stalkers, extremists and those bent on violent revenge. They are complicit in the danger.
But when it comes to protecting those who protect us, Vermont has a chance to play a leadership role. We should follow New Jersey’s lead and immediately enact a Vermont version of Daniel’s Law – legislation to shield the online privacy of our judges, police officers and other vulnerable public servants from the predators lurking in the digital shadows — which was named after Judge Salas’s son.
Those who dedicate their lives to upholding the law and protecting our communities should not be forced to live in fear, constantly looking over their shoulders, because some tech company decided their safety is worth less than a few advertising dollars.
New Jersey, shocked by Daniel Anderl’s murder, acted decisively. Daniel’s Law restricts the disclosure of certain personal information — home addresses, phone numbers — of covered public servants. It doesn’t hide their official actions; it simply makes it harder for those with evil intentions to find out where they live or how to contact them on a personal phone number.
Vermont must do the same, and for these urgent reasons:
- Immediate threat of violence: Judges, prosecutors and police officers make tough decisions every day. They deal with criminals, litigants and others who may leave an interaction feeling angry or even vengeful. Threats are a daily reality, and the ease with which personal information can be weaponized online has dramatically increased the danger. Daniel Anderl’s murder is not an anomaly; it’s a warning.
- Erosion of justice: How can we expect our justice system to function when those who administer it are living under constant threat? Fear breeds caution, and caution can erode impartiality. Protecting the personal information of our public servants is essential to preserving the integrity of the entire system. It allows them to do their jobs without fear of reprisal, ensuring a fairer and more just society for all.
- Accountability, not secrecy: Let’s be clear: this is not about hiding public officials from scrutiny. Their official actions, their decisions, their records — all remain accessible. This is about preventing the weaponization of personal information that has absolutely no bearing on their public duties. It’s about drawing a line between legitimate transparency and enabling violence. Public officials must be accountable, but their families should not be targets.
- Taking the lead, and protecting our own: Enacting our own version of Daniel’s Law would position the state as leaders in privacy protections and the heightened risk associated with some public servant roles.
The parochial belief that “it can’t happen here” is a dangerous one. The internet knows no boundaries. Big Tech’s reckless disregard for privacy has created a nationwide crisis, and Vermont is not immune. Every day we delay is another day our public servants are needlessly exposed. Public officials across this state have faced threats. Such threats are not widely known because the target often does not like to publicize their experience.
We are not calling for absolute secrecy. We are seeking a responsible, targeted solution to a clear and present danger. A Vermont version of Daniel’s Law is a powerful statement that we will not tolerate the digital endangerment of those who protect us. It’s a recognition that their service should not come at the cost of their sense of safety or their lives.
We implore our colleagues in the Vermont Legislature: Take a stand against Big Tech’s ability to place profits over the safety of our public servants. Learn from the tragedy of Daniel Anderl. We must hold Big Tech accountable and begin to fundamentally change how personal information is bought, sold and used — without the explicit consent of the individual to whom it belongs.
This is the first step in a longer fight, but it is a step we should take today. We must begin to dismantle the system that allows Big Tech to profit from jeopardizing lives, and passing a Vermont Daniel’s Law is how we start reclaiming control over our personal information and demanding an end to this appalling practice.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Reps. Monique Priestley and Angela Arsenault: Public servants’ lives are the stakes in Big Tech’s privacy gamble.