With respect to the law enforcement example, the access there is to non-public data. That seems like an essential difference to me, but perhaps you're citing this situation in preparation for your third paragraph.
In your third paragraph, I think I'm seeing a dilemma. I don't understand how jumping through the hoops changes the potential for abuse.
Let's say 30 people go to the county records office and get the data. They all sign an agreement of some kind. 30 people now have (presumably) exactly the same data set. One of the 30 violates the agreement and publishes it anonymously on the Internet. The data is now "in the wild" and any potential for abuse that it held is now up for grabs.
I recognize that I may be missing something, but if I am, I'm not able to see it. I might need more coffee. ;-)
I agree that there's a difference between public and non-public data.
With respect to the public data though, this is an issue which we've been wrestling with (and largely punting on) since various public records became readily available in electronic form. The fact is that, in the US, there's quite a bit of public information available about individuals. Much of this information (think home sales, past addresses, any court records) is public for historically sound reasons. However, there is a huge difference between scouring dusty town, county, and state records at considerable cost of time and money and making a few quick queries on the Internet, possibly paying a nominal fee if you really want to go deep.
But, to your point, we effectively implement privacy through obscurity/bureaucracy to shield ostensibly public information that we don't feel comfortable about anyone having access to it. But it probably works about as well as security through obscurity.
With respect to the law enforcement example, the access there is to non-public data. That seems like an essential difference to me, but perhaps you're citing this situation in preparation for your third paragraph.
In your third paragraph, I think I'm seeing a dilemma. I don't understand how jumping through the hoops changes the potential for abuse.
Let's say 30 people go to the county records office and get the data. They all sign an agreement of some kind. 30 people now have (presumably) exactly the same data set. One of the 30 violates the agreement and publishes it anonymously on the Internet. The data is now "in the wild" and any potential for abuse that it held is now up for grabs.
I recognize that I may be missing something, but if I am, I'm not able to see it. I might need more coffee. ;-)