The issue is the same as publishing the names of those who have gun licenses. How many of these retirees are retired law enforcement personnel? How easy do you want to make it for those who look for retribution against those officers who put them away? People want to “embarrass” those who collect big pensions, but at the same time, you put those who protected us in harm’s way? Absolute insanity.
They publish them in CA. The unions don’t like it because it exposes the lies about how “small” the public employee pensions and benefits are.
“People want to “embarrass” those who collect big pensions, but at the same time, you put those who protected us in harm’s way? “
“Protected us?” Yeah, right! More likely abused hundreds if not thousands of us. Those who live by the sword, need to be exposed. Especially when they are ripping us off in their “retirement years.” Here in California, all these pension benefits are public. Nice to see all the cops and firemen who have retired at 50, and are making $250k per year and up along with full healthcare. Crooks with badges, continuing to steal from those whom they abused.
It is not the same issue. Posting the personal information of private citizens is not the same as publishing information about public employees.
Further the paper published the addresses of the permit holders. What "purpose" did that serve?