There’s been a lot of buzz about the Mega Millions lottery jackpot these days.

On Friday, it was at $980 million — $452.2 million in cash — and the eighth largest jackpot since the game began in 2002.

A lucky player in Georgia was the sole winner and after the lottery takes its cut and federal and state taxes accounted for, their take-home would be around $261 million.

According to Georgia law, the winner would have to be identified, but has the option to retain anonymity — The kind of money in Saturday’s jackpot is certainly life-changing.

Here in Pennsylvania, though, current winners would need to be identified — even if on a limited basis.

A proposal being considered in Harrisburg would offer winners the opportunity to stay anonymous.

Senate Bill 73, presented by Sen. Lisa Baker, would allow winners of $100,000 or more in the Keystone State to keep their personal information anonymous unless they choose to publicize their identity, thus protecting them from “potential harassment and unwanted attention.”

On the surface, it might be a bet worth taking.

But looking a little deeper, the proposal stipulates that certain details, such as a winner’s city or township of residence, their county of residence, and the prize amount will still be considered public information.

Baker, whose legislation got the Senate’s nod in late October, based the proposal on the experience of a friend who won a major payout in a scratch-off game. Both the winner and her family soon became victims of harassment, and scammers wanted to separate her from the newfound wealth.

Baker, a Republican who represents the state’s 20th district in Luzerne, Susquehanna, Pike, Wayne and Wyoming counties, blamed technology for the increase in bad actors approaching lottery winners and maintains that big-ticket winners need special consideration.

Current Pennsylvania lottery rules require winners to fill out a claim form to maintain transparency and comply with open records laws.

The Lottery says the rules are in place since it needs to uphold confidence in the integrity and legitimacy in its actions by showing the games are fair and that prizes are awarded to real, taxpaying residents.

The current law, in part, reflects a balance between transparency and winner privacy to keep the lottery open to public scrutiny.

To a degree, the practice has some merit.

The proposed changes come from cases where big winners experienced ongoing scam calls and people or groups constantly seeking cash.

Some of those requests for donations are legitimate, while others are just plain scams.

And there’s no guarantee changes in existing law will help, only because there hasn’t been any tracking of crime or fraud.

Those guarantees are weakened with amounts lower than $100,000, where the option of anonymity doesn’t exist.

Winners don’t have a say when information — even though limited — is released.

Nevertheless, those winners are listed on the state Lottery website, among them multiple winners.

Do lesser jackpots or reduced winnings bring a lesser chance of fraud or harassment? Is that bet worth taking?

Pennsylvania isn’t alone in its discussion about keeping lottery winners anonymous. Nine states let winners stay anonymous, and many are pondering changes. In New York, only winners of $5 million or more can go unidentified. Other states have no requirements that winners be identified, and still others require only a county and amount be released.

Senate Bill 73 is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough.

Buying a lottery ticket is a strictly personal decision. Win or lose, the state gets its money.

The Property Tax and Rent Rebate program, free public transportation fares for the elderly and all of the lottery’s other benefits still get funding.

The state can be as transparent as it wants with its share. A winner shouldn’t have to disclose anything about theirs.

When it comes to the personal safety and common respect of others, the Lottery needs to rethink its position.

The person who bought that winning ticket, played that winning number or scratched off the resin covering information didn’t do so seeking fame and shouldn’t be exposed — even on a limited basis — to any of it.

All they did was get lucky.

ED SOCHA | tneditor@tnonline.com

Ed Socha is a retired newspaper editor with more than 40 years’ experience in community journalism.

The foregoing opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or Times News LLC.