[ocschwar]

The Mitnick files contain information about innocent people who are alive and whose privacy rights remain paramount.

[vasco]

Perhaps too naive a question, but if they are innocent what is there to protect? I get it in the case of informants or agents that operate undercover or in plains clothes but if just a bystander how is it different than some news article?

[some_random]

Their privacy, which has value to them and should be respected. You can argue it on a case by case basis but the default is (and should be) to not disclose. As for comparisons to news articles, well maybe this is a place where the government is doing better than some news agencies (reasoning as to why is left to the reader).

[itishappy]

What's your name and address? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.) Is that info you'd be comfortable sharing on a public forum? I presume you're not doing anything particularly wrong.

This also assumes that we can all agree on a definition for "innocent."

> what is there to protect?

Their privacy. Some people have strong opinions on 3 letter agencies and poor reading comprehension. Some people are just mean spirited. Best way to prevent dumb stuff from happening is to not create a situation where dumb stuff could happen.

[genewitch]

Licensed ham radio operators give their address every 15 minutes by law. And their full name. Sometimes it's a PO box, but mostly a home address's.

I can't think of anything more public than airwaves.

[some_random]

There are many things you're allowed to disclose about yourself that are considered unacceptable to disclose about others without their consent.

[jagged-chisel]

That regulation is known before one signs up to be a ham. So the disclosure is voluntary.

[verandaguy]

This is a bad take. Plenty of licenses involve essentially exchanging a right for a privilege (in simple terms). People who aren't comfortable with this compromise have the choice to not get a certain type of license (and many don't, HAM radio licenses aren't held by anywhere near a sizeable chunk of the population).

Is the underlying assumption that everyone redacted in that report is a licensed HAM radio user deprived of their right to have a private name and address?

[ajsnigrutin]

Sure, they know what they're doing and they're doing it on purpose.

If you rented out a room (or even a hotel room) to Eric Weiss (mitnicks alias, one of many), do you really want everyone here to see your full name and address?

Or if someone hacked some database of users and used your name/surname to socially engineer someone else.

or worse!

[yieldcrv]

maybe you told someone you were going to be some place else

maybe you were with your other family and this unwarranted disclosure revealed that to a scorned spouse and friend group that are always looking for holes in the story 40 years later

not criminal issues, not an FBI problem, and yet can alter your private life

[chgs]

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

[dgacmu]

Details about victims whose release might cause them further harm is the obvious one.