State Lawmakers Weigh Need for Vermont Version of Daniel's Law

“I realize our role in this is trying to determine if we should proceed with this, if it's needed by these potential service providers,” said Rep. Karen Dolan (D), one committee member.

H-342 would prohibit data brokers from disclosing personal information of certain public servants if requested. It mimics New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, which was created after a federal judge was targeted by a litigant who had practiced in her courtroom, found the judge's information from data broker resources and showed up at her house to assassinate her. The person instead killed the judge's son, Daniel, and wounded her husband.

“Four months later, New Jersey passed Daniel's Law,” said Matt Adkisson, CEO of Atlas Data Privacy, who helped implement the N.J. law. “It was the strongest privacy bill in the United States, but very narrowly targeted. It was focused on protecting judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers, and it focused on just two pieces of information: home addresses and home telephone numbers.”

Covered persons under H-342 include active former judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, municipal employees, Department of Corrections’ Family Services Division employees, parole and probation officers and public defenders, as well as their immediate families.

“The threat environment that these public servants work under is terrifying,” Adkisson said. “It doesn't matter if you're a federal judge or a new correctional officer guarding inmates in a jail or a state trooper patrolling the highways in the roadways of the state you are constantly operating under this shadow of fear that because of some interaction you have in your public duties, blowback from that could target you or could target your family in a violent way.”

He also said part of what makes the bill so strong and important is its private right of action. “Without enforcement, the bill means nothing,” Adkisson said. “Any privacy law in the United States, if there's no effective enforcement, it's not even worth the paper it's printed on.”

The Office of Legislative Counsel's Rik Sehgal fielded many questions from the committee about possible litigation that could arise from S-342. Adkisson answered similar questions from members, including what has happened in the years since Daniel’s Law in New Jersey was established.

“Fundamentally, what the bill allows an individual to do is, if their rights are ignored, they can go to court and seek relief,” Adkisson said. “There is a lot of precedent in us, law and history supporting that.”

However, Vermont Defender General Matt Valerio said he talked to some public defenders about the bill and found no one was for or against it. “Nobody had any idea what this was about,” he said. “They didn't understand why there was a need for it. They didn't really see a problem. They haven't experienced the problem, and the level of ambivalence was strong.”

Valerio added that finding information like someone’s address does not require going to a data broker. “Nobody hides in Vermont very easily,” he said. “The bottom line is the constituency I'm dealing with really didn't see a need for it. In general, public defenders don't like to be singled out as having any extra protection or extra anything.”

One of the main things that sets this bill apart and makes it necessary is where it provides protections, Adkisson said. "Targeting someone at work is very different than targeting someone at home," he said. "At the courthouse, there should be sheriffs there. There's security there. Many of these attackers are fundamentally cowards. They're not going to go where they might meet resistance."

Kim McManus, legislative attorney for the Vermont Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, agreed. "Will this bill eliminate threats to prosecutors? No," she said. "Could it help minimize threats and potential violence to our prosecutors through minimizing the utilization of finding our private information online? Very possibly."