Expands "Daniel's Law" to prohibit disclosure of personal information concerning child protective investigators.
If passed, A4947 would have significant implications for state laws governing privacy and transparency regarding public officials' personal information. The act amends existing statutes to include child protective investigators under the protective umbrella granted previously to law enforcement and judicial officials. This effectively strengthens the protections around personal data and aligns the statutory framework with contemporary views on the necessity of safeguarding public servants, ensuring they can operate without fear of retaliation or harm.
Assembly Bill A4947 seeks to expand the provisions of 'Daniel's Law' in New Jersey, which aims to protect the personal information of child protective investigators. The bill specifically prohibits the disclosure of personal details, such as home addresses and phone numbers, concerning these investigators. As child protective investigators play critical roles in the safeguarding of vulnerable children, this legislation intends to enhance their safety and security by making it more difficult for potential threats to access their information. Overall, the bill is a direct response to the challenges faced by these professionals in the line of duty, addressing issues of harassment and intimidation against those serving in public protective roles.
The sentiment surrounding A4947 appears largely supportive among legislators, reflecting a commitment to safety for those in critical child welfare roles. Advocates for the bill argue that it is essential to protect the identity and personal information of these workers, especially given the sensitive nature of their duties. However, some opposition may arise from concerns about transparency and accountability in government functions, with critics arguing that increased privacy measures could hinder public access to information pertinent to oversight.
Notable points of contention may stem from the balance between individual privacy rights and the transparency expected from public officials. Proponents highlight the risks that child protective investigators face, underscoring that exposing their identities could lead to serious safety threats. Opponents of the bill may raise issues regarding the rights of the public to access information about who is investigating potential child abuse cases, arguing that such oversight is essential to maintaining trust in the system. The discussion around these privacy measures thus illustrates the competing interests between protecting public servants and ensuring governmental accountability.