Quantity has a quality of its own. To use a similar example, arrest and imprisonment records are public data in my country. But you have to actually go to the courthouse and fill out some paperwork and/or hire a lawyer to do it for you.

This has consequences. For example, in some US states it takes a few seconds for an employer to find out a candidate was once arrested while drunk, or has a conviction for a minor offense from 15 years ago. And employers do that sort of search routinely, because it's free and easy. Only someone being targeted for a specific background check gets that treatment here, because it's not so easy.

Same argument applies to, for example, reading the previous divorce case for someone you're dating. Only a real weirdo would do that here, in part because it involves time and money. If it's freely available online, I do think it would be a lot more common.

I don't know whether it'd be better or worse to have such information more accessible, but it can change things.

> Only a real weirdo would do that here, in part because it involves time and money.

I think your parent's point is that money isn't an issue for the rich. A billionaire doesn't care that it costs $150 to find out, they don't care that it costs a $1,000 to find out. So suddenly information becomes a class issue. Either it should be available to nobody or everybody, money shouldn't factor into it.

i don't think that's a valid argument.

A lot of policies or laws don't affect billionares the same way. We don't fine speeding tickets based on income like norway. Nobody is changing any laws to make it proportional impact on billionares.

Nice false equivalence.

Lawyer: duty-bound professional, is an officer of the court, can be publicly disbarred, very expensive degree that needs to be paid off

Some guy on the internet with an axe to grind: ???

I believe in California you only need to pass the bar to become a lawyer, no expensive degree required.

You're all missing the point... ANYbody with a Lexis Nexus subscription, or a Bloomberg terminal, or one of those background check sites, already has this exact capability. It's not new.

You dont need to be a lawyer to access any of it... I think the other poster simply meant that lawyers generally have Lexis subscriptions, already.

Also, the various court databases this site is searching are ALREADY online and publicly available, and have been for years. This is just providing a free, unified interface with a fast search index.

> This is just providing a free, unified interface with a fast search index.

Yes, and that is a phase change difference. It's not a trivial enhancement.

So you think the $10/month fee for existing services is what induced the phase change? I've done hundreds of these searches, paid maybe $20 total.

I have a different theory about why this bugs you... Previous to today, you were ignorant of that these records were available online so cheaply and quickly. Nothing has really changed, except your own anxiety levels as your worldview struggles to absorb this information. But your brain wants the change to be external, because that's less threatening than the realization that this capability has been lurking out there in the world, all along.

Ha! It bugs me for exactly the reasons I stated above.

At some level I get the angst about typing someone's name, especially if it's fairly unusual, and getting back a whole lot of information about, in this case, mostly legal-related stuff and in others past addresses, things they've written etc. for free. (And, if you know something about them you can probably sift the returns somewhat effectively.) You may be able to find out a lot about your date, your neighbor, etc.

On the other hand, outside of casually checking out someone, the reality is that this has long been available for anyone want to spend a very few bucks to do so.

That does not appear to be correct. You can see the requirements to be admitted to the California Bar here: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/admissions/requirements

Note in particular the education requirement:

> Here are all the options:

> - Three or four years of study at a law school accredited by the American Bar Association

> - Four years of study at a State Bar-registered, fixed-facility law school

> - Four years of study with a minimum of 864 hours of preparation at a registered unaccredited distance-learning or correspondence law school

> - Four years of study under the supervision of a state judge or attorney

> - A combination of these programs

If all you've done is pass the bar exam, you can go to hell. It may not even be possible; the requirements for the California exam are behind a login wall, but other states have restricted eligibility to take the exam based on the testee's education. I assume they didn't want to be embarrassed by having the wrong sort of person pass the bar.

I stand corrected.

I’m sure both of the attorneys who have done an apprenticeship are happy about that.

The happiness of lawyers is something I am quite happy to not care about. :)