Transparency and privacy: how far should we go with public salaries?

Talking about money is always delicate. And when it comes to salaries in public administration, even more so. On one hand, there is the demand for transparency: citizens want to know how public money is spent and how much people working for the administration earn. On the other hand, there is data protection: salaries are also part of a person’s private life. So, where do we draw the line?

The Catalan Data Protection Authority dove right into this topic in an opinion that, although it may sound technical, actually touches quite an everyday issue: can anyone request information about the salary of a specific public employee?

Management staff vs general staff

The opinion makes a clear distinction. If we are talking about executive positions, trusted personnel, or people with special responsibilities, their salaries can be published along with their full names. Why? Because there is an obvious general interest: if that person manages resources, leads teams, or represents the administration, it is logical that the public should know how much they earn. Maximum transparency.

But if we are talking about regular staff, things change. Here, the rule is that salary data must be provided in an aggregated form: minimum and maximum salaries, averages by category. That is, you can know how much is paid within a range of positions, but without pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

What if someone doesn’t want it to be known?

Imagine a worker objects to having their data published. The opinion says that access may only be restricted if there is a specific personal circumstance that justifies it. For example, situations of vulnerability that make it advisable to protect that person’s identity. But opposing “on principle” is not enough, especially if they hold a position of responsibility.

The difficult balance

What’s interesting about all this is the balance being sought. Transparency does not mean a free-for-all to expose personal data. And privacy cannot be used as an excuse to hide information of public interest. In the end, it’s about applying common sense:

Total transparency for high-responsibility positions.

Aggregated, nameless data for standard positions.

Justified exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

This debate shows that protecting privacy is not at odds with being transparent. In fact, they complement each other. Citizens have the right to know how public money is used, but people also have the right not to have their private lives exposed without reason.

The key, as always, lies in balance: providing the information needed for accountability, but without exposing more than necessary. And in that sense, data protection acts as a safeguard to prevent transparency from turning into voyeurism.