But they haven’t made the names-part of the data available to the public, in your scenario. They’ve made an editorial decision that it’s not in the public interest to know the names of the officers — just like most news orgs don’t publish the name of rape victims even though it’s part of the court record. Virtually no news org will want to set a precedent of selectively releasing info that it previously decided it wanted to withhold.

Yes, we obviously have a different position about the trade offs, that’s why I replied to your comment in the first place. However, what I’m arguing is that your current position is untenable. It is not logistically or morally feasible for a news org to provide upon request info that it has used its editorial judgment to redact.