In a whole lot of countries this information is not readily publicly available in the first place, and privately publishing it means someone has violated the terms under which they were given access.

E.g. in the UK, to even be able to do a check to see if someone is barred from certain types of work, you are required to abide by a long list of terms which goes much further than merely not republishing the data. To request a less comprehensive check requires you to have a compelling need (a specific set of roles). The basic checks can only requested by the person they're about.

Violating the terms comes at the risk of no longer being able to do records check (among other consequences), which may force you to close down your business in the worst case.

Nothing prevents you from making a truthful record of history if you have the data, but lots of things act to prevent most attempts to publish them.

That's fine, but this thread is specifically talking about the US, where all court records are public documents unless specifically sealed by a judge, with justification that can be challenged in court.

Now, publishing expunged records in the US is morally dubious. I don't know the case law in this area, though, so I don't know where it stands on legal grounds.

Do you believe it should be legal for companies to have terms that prevent you from working at a competing company in a similar industry. It is illegal to share much of the information you learn there as well. The big difference is that you aren't meticulously saving every piece of information for easy access at your new company and that you know you're breaking the law if you did share that information. Simply make it illegal to use the data after a certain amount of time and the problem will fix itself.