[lxgr]

1. is possible without knowing the owner’s identity – “public” (and maybe whether that means federal or state) and “private” seems to be enough.

2. breaks down when you consider rentals. A tenant might be legally allowed to deny access to a landlord in some circumstances. Tenants are usually not registered in property registers.

For 3., how does the information for taxation have to be public? The government also needs to know my pay history to tax me, and that’s not public either.

4. if it’s the government’s information about me, should I really get absolutely no say in how it’s published?

[pixl97]

>4. if it’s the government’s information about me, should I really get absolutely no say in how it’s published?

This is not the governments information about you... This is the 'publics' information about you and who owns property in their communities.

Stop thinking of the government as some kind of corporation, and instead the executive will of the populace itself.

[jedberg]

For #1, just knowing it is private isn't enough. I may have a claim to the land, and need to know who owns it. For example it's really handy to know who owns the land that borders mine.

For #2, the owner is ultimately responsible. If there is a lease or any other contract, that is a civil matter. But all that matters to the police is who owns it.

For #3, your income and taxes you pay should probably be public too. Why shouldn't they? In other countries it is public. And in America, if you work for the government, your income is public too.

For #4, you do have a say. You can vote for people who will change the laws. For example, in some counties the ownership information is available online, but in many counties, it is not. You have to go into the county office to get the name and address of the owner.

[j33zusjuice]

The public employee thing is irrelevant in this discussion. We get to see their salaries because we pay them. Whether or not salary should be public is a tough topic, imo. I can see it creating security concerns for some people who have enough to be targets of those who have very little while not having enough to pay for protection (i.e. most of the people who frequent this site, given IT workers are some of the best paid in the country).

[jedberg]

It's very relevant, because it shows that we already have a precedent for public salary disclosure.

And I'm not sure that concern is very warranted. You already know who gets paid a lot, because they live in nice houses in nice neighborhoods. Where they pay for protection through increased police presence due to their higher property taxes.