Comment from Anonymous

Anonymous AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: A CFPB union member, commenting in a personal capacity, opposes the proposed SORN due to concerns over employee privacy and potential retaliation for protected speech and union activity. The commenter argues that the policy lacks a legitimate purpose compared to existing FOIA protections and will make it harder to recruit and retain talented employees.
Docket ID: CFPB-2026-0016 Re: Routine Use 18, at 91 FR 29466 I am a CFPB union member, and I am submitting this comment in my personal capacity. I write to oppose the proposed SORN. I am deeply troubled by this proposed change to employees’ privacy rights. As an active member of the employees’ union, I am especially worried this policy will be used to retaliate against me for my protected speech and my protected union activity. I am very protective of my privacy and online presence. Many years ago, I made the choice not to participate in social media. Until this proposed SORN was published, I had no reason to think that simply choosing to serve through my CFPB position would put my privacy at even greater risk! I can’t understand what legitimate purpose this change serves, given that members of the public and media can file FOIA requests to access public records. Unlike this proposed SORN, the FOIA system has special processes in place that protect my privacy. Under this proposed SORN, I won’t even have a right to prior notice before my private information is released. That feels unfair and scary. Given everything CFPB employees have publicly endured over the past year and a half, I have no doubt this proposed SORN will make it even harder to keep and recruit talented employees who are committed to fighting for consumers. Instead of accomplishing the purported purpose of “preserv[ing] confidence in the integrity of the Bureau,” this change will do the opposite. It will silence valid employment concerns and make people fearful of fighting against powerful interests. I ask you to reconsider this dangerous precedent.

View on Regulations.gov