You don't think a job which massively inconveniences petty and violent criminals - some of whom will be part of larger crime families and networks - is inherently risky?

> You don't think a job which massively inconveniences petty and violent criminals - some of whom will be part of larger crime families and networks - is inherently risky?

Those jobs are, but regular people have dangerous stalkers, are subject to harassment at their homes, or just want the peace of mind of some extra privacy, too.

No one's arguing that judges shouldn't have protection, it's just that the same protections should be available to everybody else. Limiting these projections to judges & police officers only really helps marketers and sleazy peoplesearch websites, etc.

At first glance it appears being a judge is safer than being an office worker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health...

Except as a judge you tend to die a terrible death if you do indeed die owing to your occupaion[0].

[0]https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/16921-judges-face-threats-w...

I probably would think it was too. But instead of just guessing I looked it up. It's not. Not even close.

It's so far away from being risky, in fact, that having people in the field intentionally lying means I think they are lying for a specific reason and I think people should be concerned about that.

I think to know if it's more risky, we would need to see violent crime statistics of people in these positions vs those who are not.