Re:Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings
by rayiner on Saturday February 09, 2019 @02:17PM
(#19124026)
It should be clear in HN of all places that what the product is named and what it does at a technical level is not the same thing. Technically, PACER is a view into the ECFS database, and it’s not set up for the sort of wide-spread public access you’re talking about. One could build such a system, but now you’re talking about building that system at substantial cost, while undercutting your PACER revenue. And I’m not clear what the public benefit is that justifies that.
I think in a common law system like ours, opinions must be available to the public as a matter of political morality. I don’t think that same moral justification extends to the other filings in cases, which don’t have the force of law. I think you need some utilitarian justification for incurring the cost of making these more widely available, and I don’t see a compelling one.
Re:Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings
by anticensor on Saturday February 09, 2019 @03:23PM
(#19124368)
> I think in a common law system like ours, opinions must be available to the public as a matter of political morality
Any democracy deserves that, even civil law systems.
Re:Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings
by dd36 on Saturday February 09, 2019 @03:52PM
(#19124547)
The decisions are based on what is contained in those other filings.
Re:Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings
by rayiner on Saturday February 09, 2019 @05:32PM
(#19125106)
Decisions are written to be self contained.
Re:Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings
by jimktrains2 on Saturday February 09, 2019 @07:07PM
(#19125544)
Previous decisions are often referenced, which I believe is what gp was saying.
Re:Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings
by sfifs on Sunday February 10, 2019 @06:05AM
(#19127309)
Which are also freely available correct since all decisions are freely available?
Re:Attacking a Pay Wall That Hides Public Court Filings
by jimktrains2 on Sunday February 10, 2019 @11:45AM
(#19128481)
Isn't the point of this article and whole thread that there is no prohibition on their access, but often there are (unreasonable) financial barriers?
If the mechanism for providing public access to court records is inefficient or poorly-done, let's fix that. Saying "we have to charge for PACER because PACER isn't the right way to do what PACER claims to do" doesn't seem valid to me.
Charge attorneys and other filing groups to use CMECF (the filing side of PACER) and make public access to download documents available for free. Or, make a bulk feed and database dump of documents available to download, like Wikipedia does, and let a group dedicated to open records access take up the charge. I'd rather have the government provide the search service but if it can't or won't, make the data available for free and allow for the opportunity for someone else to take up the charge.