> information about public employees is uniquely available

It really isn't unique. This report is clearly part of an agenda to establish a two-tier surveillance state.

> The report advocates for legislation that would specifically address privacy concerns for all public servants,

Instead of taking the obvious stance that legislation should ensure the privacy of all people equally, they are only interested in protecting government employees. Sadly, this seems to be a global trend taking root in many countries and it brings me great despair for the future.

I think EVERYONE is worthy of privacy. The ad cartel has millions (billions?) of lobby money in their war chest. Any real reform would be moving a mountain. Funny how it's framed this way; shows just how impossible it is to concede to privacy for all. Instead we have as another commenter said: "a two-tier surveillance state."

Why would we care more about public servants than regular people? Regular citizens need their info protected, not government servants.

If you are working in the public sector, your info will be completely out there. That is how a functioning government works with accountability.

What would happen if we just banned data brokers?

This "there is a threat" talk is going too far, unrelated to that i find curious how the electoral processes are being attack recently.

Unaccountable elite want to remain unaccountable.

Public is bad, must make them more accountable and more surveilled.

Do not watch the public servants, do not notice that they act more like "private" servants.

Anyone who says anything, anywhere, gets threats. Is there any data showing the follow-through percent is any higher for public servants?