It’s because her phone records are evidence in a murder case. And that evidence is now public record. We have laws to protect our privacy, but there are then laws that trump those laws, if that makes sense.
It’s just the way it is. Justice has to be transparent for the people to have faith in the justice system. This is the evidence they have, thus it’s released upon request.
Someone in the last thread mentioned the raunchy photo of NK. That was included because CW is in the mirror of that photo, therefore it is evidence of their relationship, and of the nature of that relationship.
I understand why it’s uncomfortable, but I also understand the necessity of transparent justice, which trumps my right to privacy. This isn’t the only case with a document dump like this, I remember feeling bad for Michelle Carters friends who had a lot of personal info exposed.
I get it.
But, that transparency can be coupled with common sense; i.e. redacting info. that is not necessary to the general public.
Example - say you witness a home invasion/robbery at your neighbors home, someone at the home is raped and murdered, as a good citizen, you contact local LE and you are interviewed. They'd like to know, did you maybe take a picture or video of anyone entering the home? Why yes, you did!
LE asks if they may see your phone, so that they may validate date/time/location of photo or video taken, and extract it. They need to know that it's not just some random photo/video that appears to be a robbery, or that you staged to look that way (maybe you're a nut and want your name in media lights aka Trent B., etc.) You agree, your a good citizen doing your civic duty. You've already sent the photo to your husband at work, your adult daughter and maybe a few friends...just because, or asking them what you should do.
This is a murder case, media is all over it. Article in the local and not-so-local papers, includes the photo or video taken, your first name is mentioned, along with the fact that you are a neighbor of the victim...and the murder locations approx. address is included ("110 block of Stevens St., in Baltimore, or whatever). LE sees that you've distributed the photo, and asks your about that. You, sadly, have a son-in-law who has a break-in and robbery conviction in his past. He and some buddies broke into someones garage and stole tools, or whatever. LE wants to know more about that, could he maybe be involved? He lives, with you, close to the crime scene, he has a record, etc. Your son-in-law has done his time, paid his dues...and does not associate w/his tool stealing buddies, but they have continued to commit crimes. Bad hombres.
All of a sudden, your civic duty has become more. Your first name, approx. address, and possibly phone number are out there, via the media and "data dump".
I think you can see/understand how this could blossom.
This is just one (admittedly slightly convoluted) example of how releasing private info. that isn't necessary to the general public (and bad hombres) can potentially lead to problems.
In the case of domestic abuse, this can be very, very bad. Phone numbers CAN be part of the record, but they DO NOT have to be made public.
Again, this is why we have the word redact.
Last I will defend my position on data privacy.