Their privacy, which has value to them and should be respected. You can argue it on a case by case basis but the default is (and should be) to not disclose. As for comparisons to news articles, well maybe this is a place where the government is doing better than some news agencies (reasoning as to why is left to the reader).

What's your name and address? (Rhetorical question, please don't answer.) Is that info you'd be comfortable sharing on a public forum? I presume you're not doing anything particularly wrong.

This also assumes that we can all agree on a definition for "innocent."

> what is there to protect?

Their privacy. Some people have strong opinions on 3 letter agencies and poor reading comprehension. Some people are just mean spirited. Best way to prevent dumb stuff from happening is to not create a situation where dumb stuff could happen.

maybe you told someone you were going to be some place else

maybe you were with your other family and this unwarranted disclosure revealed that to a scorned spouse and friend group that are always looking for holes in the story 40 years later

not criminal issues, not an FBI problem, and yet can alter your private life

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

Details about victims whose release might cause them further harm is the obvious one.