State of officer privacy 2026
What 200+ broker sites know about US first responders — and how state-level privacy laws are (and aren't) holding up. Detailed report in development. What follows is the framework and what we're measuring; the full data set ships when the methodology survives independent review.
Methodology
Cross-broker scan against a sample of US first responders by role (LE, fire, EMS, dispatch, corrections), by state, and by metro. Each scan run covers 200+ broker sites and records: which sites have the subject, what data fields they expose, and whether the listing reappears within 30/60/90 days after a removal request. Sample composition published with the full report; raw data is not (it would itself be a privacy risk).
Top findings (preliminary, full data in the report)
Average sworn officer is on 60+ broker sites. State laws shielding agency disclosure (CA Penal Code §6254.21, TX Gov. Code §552.117, etc.) do not reach the brokers — measured re-listing rates are roughly identical in protected and unprotected states. NJ's Daniel's Law is the exception: brokers operating in NJ show measurably higher compliance with removal demands compared to broker behavior in states without a private-right-of-action statute. Re-listing inside 6 months is the rule, not the exception, across all measured brokers.
State-by-state breakdown
NJ leads on enforcement teeth (Daniel's Law). NY, CA, TX, FL all have meaningful agency-side shields with significant gaps at the broker layer. Most states with no statutory shield show the highest baseline broker exposure — but the gap closes faster than expected once continuous broker opt-outs are run. Detailed per-state numbers ship with the full report.
Broker-by-broker breakdown
Spokeo, Whitepages, BeenVerified, TruePeopleSearch, and Radaris account for most of the high-traffic exposure. Compliance with state law varies significantly: some brokers honor Daniel's Law demands within the 10-day window consistently, others slow-walk. Atlas Data Privacy's ongoing NJ litigation against more than 100 brokers is producing the visible compliance shifts. We track which brokers are converging toward compliance and which remain non-responsive.
Recommendations
For individuals: file the state-level public-records confidentiality election, then run continuous broker opt-outs. The state shield closes the agency disclosure path; broker opt-outs close everything around it. For departments and unions: bulk-coverage plans for sworn members produce measurable, auditable improvement within one quarter. For policymakers: Daniel's Law-style private rights of action against data brokers are the single most-effective tool measured, by a significant margin.