Vermont panel hears support and limits for H.342 to curb online sharing of public servants’ personal data

The House committee on H.342 heard testimony from prosecutors, judges and law-enforcement officials who said requiring data brokers to stop distributing personal information could reduce threats against public servants, but raised questions about who would be covered and whether the bill’s “upon request” mechanism is sufficient.

Kim McManus, with the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the committee that prosecutors and their offices receive threats “fairly regularly” and described the safety work that follows credible threats, including home-security surveys and coordination with local police. “And if that is what the bill aims to do, either minimize or eliminate our personal information online, we support that,” McManus said.

The bill would let covered persons ask data brokers to cease distribution of personally identifiable information. Supporters said a statutory process could reduce easy online access to home addresses, phone numbers and other data that attackers use to escalate harassment into violence. Retired Vermont state police sergeant Michael O’Neil, executive director of the Vermont Troopers Association, said the law “provides a necessary measure of protection” and urged the committee to move the proposal forward.

But witnesses and some legislators urged changes before passage. McManus asked that coverage extend beyond prosecutors to victim advocates, paralegals, front-office staff and other employees who also receive threats. Several law-enforcement witnesses, including James Pontbreand, chief of police in Berlin and a representative of the Vermont Chiefs of Police, said the bill addresses data brokers but not other actors — such as special-interest accounts or individuals — who post officers’ personal information with the apparent intent to intimidate.

Tom Zoney, chief superior judge, said the bill is a legislative policy decision but added that limiting easy access online is “a step towards protection of covered persons.” Zoney also suggested a technical change to the bill’s definition of judge to ensure federal and all state judges and magistrates are covered.

National experts and states’ experience informed the committee’s discussion. John Muffler, a consultant and retired U.S. Marshals Service official, told the panel that making personal information harder to obtain both discourages some attackers and increases the chance their research will be detected. “The more difficult it is to obtain, the better chance of being detected in the process,” Muffler said. Robin Morante, who oversees court and judicial security in New Jersey, described New Jersey’s implementation after the passage of Daniel’s Law and related programs, including a statewide incident-reporting platform and a judicial security task force (JSMART). She said Daniel’s Law in New Jersey was “an essential first step to enhancing security for judges without question.”

Committee members also questioned whether the bill’s “upon request” approach would help people who do not know their information has been republished. Tom Oliver and others asked whether the policy would be effective if covered persons have to proactively find and request removal of their data. Several witnesses recommended that the Commerce or Office of Information Privacy develop procedures and metrics for how requests would be made and tracked and how the state would measure whether the law reduced exposure.

The committee did not take a vote. Members signaled interest in refining the bill’s definitions (who qualifies as a covered person and which entities count as data brokers) and in seeking more data from the Office of Information Privacy on threats and the results of New Jersey’s implementation before advancing the measure.

For now, testimony left two consistent points: witnesses who work or have worked in courts and law enforcement said the easy availability of personal data online increases risk to families and staff, and many experts view statutory limits on data-broker disclosures as one necessary part of a broader security program that includes threat reporting, residential security surveys and coordinated law-enforcement response.