[HN Gopher] "Free PACER" bill advances through Senate judiciary ... ___________________________________________________________________ "Free PACER" bill advances through Senate judiciary unanimously Author : walterbell Score : 341 points Date : 2021-12-09 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (fixthecourt.com) (TXT) w3m dump (fixthecourt.com) | inoffensivename wrote: | PACER is a wonderful tool, but the current website is Byzantine. | I'm very happy that it's getting some much-needed attention. | Shicholas wrote: | how is PACER wonderful? charging exorbitant fees to access the | laws that govern me is a complete racket. | [deleted] | inoffensivename wrote: | Well, the fees aren't wonderful, but the information you can | get out of it is excellent. I grew up in not-America, where | access to court records is even more difficult and expensive | (e.g. have to have a lawyer do it for you). | | I didn't know that Free PACER was a thing, but I'm happy that | it is! | sgent wrote: | It is, and its 100% funded by the fees they charge attorney's | and others to access the documents. The amount of fees and use | of them is somewhat ridiculous currently, but if they remove | the fees without setting up an ongoing funding source I'm | afraid it will stagnate like many state court systems. | busymom0 wrote: | As someone who's gotten into reading law related stuff, this is | amazing news. | romanzubenko wrote: | This is great news. I had to implement PACER integration back in | my days at Gusto for compliance and the pricing among many other | things was very annoying to work with. The pricing is based on | "number of pages" returned, which means that when you submit a | query you don't know exactly how it will cost you ahead of time. | ianhawes wrote: | That's the best part of PACER! | | The other exciting thing is the threatening letter you get from | the government when they can't charge your expired credit card | for $9 and threaten to withhold that amount from your tax | return if you don't pay the balance. | romanzubenko wrote: | The best part was for us was that after wrangling with their | native API, we decided to go with one of the private | companies that provide sane API wrapper on top of PACER. It's | kinda crazy that there is a small industry of companies who | make government api better. You can see some of these | services by googling "bankruptcy monitoring". | Isthatablackgsd wrote: | Same for public sector procurement (Request for | Qualification/Proposal) portals. All the portals are | annoying because there are 50 of them, and each of the | portal have their way of navigation and filters. So, it | become PITA to remember every portal tendency. There is a | private website that offer a meta indexer service (with | filters) that scrapped every single bit of procurement | portal contents as for a fee monthly. I forgot the name of | the site in the top of my head. It is worth the paid | service for procurement. | [deleted] | the_optimist wrote: | PACER explored new boundaries in regulatory capture "from the | inside." It is now all too obvious a trend to have taxpayers fund | and mandate the development of an institution, then subsequently | build a sinecure upon its rental to those same taxpayers. This | kind of triple-dipping is grotesque, and never should have been | allowed in the first place. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Hats off to the Free Law Project for championing this. Success is | possible. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24086570 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24085158 | AlbertCory wrote: | For reference: [1] shows the currently-free RECAP ("PACER" | spelled backwards) listing for the Elizabeth Holmes / Theranos | trial. | | The way this works is: you install a Chrome extension which | automatically uploads anything you get from PACER into a free | archive. | | How are they funded? I expect they're a 501(c)(3). So it's not a | question of whether PACER can be free; it already is, partially. | | As for patents: Google used to host all the patent files for | free, and then someone complained that that gave them an unfair | advantage (note: but what???), so now someone else hosts them for | free. | | So I don't think finding the funding is really much of an issue | nowadays. | | [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7185174/united- | states-v... | kragen wrote: | The unfair advantage, I suspect, may have been that Google | could look to see which patents were popular, or which ones | were popular at a particular company, or which ones were | becoming popular at a particular university. They already have | that unfair advantage when it comes to search traffic, but | reading a patent can expose you to treble damages for willful | infringement. | smg wrote: | Does this mean that all the documents (emails from tech | executives) that are part of the evidence for a court case will | be publicly available? | kingcharles wrote: | They are already publicly available. You can access up to, | IIRC, $30 worth of PACER for free each month. I know my access | usually comes under the free boundary. | | But as poster below mentions, it depends on how the documents | exist. There are two types of documents in a court case: common | law record and discovery. | | Discovery = evidence kept by both sides, but not held by the | court. This includes written documents, audio/video recordings, | but also the transcripts of any depositions that have been | taken of important people in the law suit. (A deposition is | where you sit down with a person and question them under oath | outside of the court room) | | Common law record = anything that is said in court, or filed in | court. | | Most discovery never makes it into a court room. It is just | shuffled back and forth between the plaintiff and defendant. | | Now, when it comes time to file a motion (let's say one of the | parties tries to get the case dismissed) then it will usually | be necessary to attach some documents as exhibits to the motion | to clarify the point you are making to the judge. At that | point, those documents will make it into the public record and | will be in PACER. | | Even if something isn't filed in court, if the court case is | USA v. TechBro, for instance, then as the USA is a governmental | entity it is subject to FOIA and you can often get a copy of | all the discovery that way. I often use FOIA just to avoid | PACER fees. | pwned1 wrote: | No, generally evidence is not filed as part of a docket. PACER | only includes court filings such as the complaint, answer, | motions, orders, etc. | granzymes wrote: | And quotations from evidence produced during discovery are | often redacted from those filings. | mminer237 wrote: | Giving the article contenteditable=true is certainly...a choice, | especially because that makes the links unclickable. | smegsicle wrote: | Ha! a mockup mode they forgot to turn off, right? it doesn't | seem to be on other pages. | | Note that links are still right-clickable, took me a second to | try that. | blendergeek wrote: | It looks fixed now. | gibolt wrote: | Probably done by the editor, and forgot to disable it when | shipping to prod -\\_(tsu)_/- | kevinsundar wrote: | > The CBO's cost Dec. 2020 estimate to build the new system was | in the mid-two-digit millions, though given the fees that the AO | is collecting from power users and agencies, the appropriation | would more likely need to be in the single-digit millions, at | most. | | What? Double digit millions for a CRUD app for public | information? | nojito wrote: | Because the scale of PACER is absolutely insane. | throwawaygh wrote: | _> Because the scale of PACER is absolutely insane. _ | | ...is it, though? It 's fucking 2021. Interns play with | petabytes. Literally. | | CRUD on massive datasets is not a hard problem anymore. Or, | at least, isn't eight digits and 10 years hard. | recursive wrote: | > Interns play with petabytes. Literally. | | Most interns don't. Most industry veterans don't either. | throwawaygh wrote: | Most interns and industry veterans don't write wordpress | plugins either ;-) | | The point is that you can learn enough of the basics to | do useful things in 3 months with minimal prior | experience. | | Working with petabytes of data isn't a "hard" problem | like it was 10 years ago. IDK how large PACER is, and I'm | not suggesting that an intern could implement a new | system, but $x0,000,000 and a decade of lead time is at | least an order of magnitude off. | TheCraiggers wrote: | This sounds awesome! Now here's hoping they might do the same for | the tax system someday. If only Intuit could stop lobbying to | keep it a horrible train wreck. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Call your representatives. Share your concerns. In volume, it | moves the needle. | jessaustin wrote: | Has the tax system ever become less of a trainwreck? I'm not | an expert, but the trainwreckedness seems to monotonically | increase. On multiple occasions in the past, significant | numbers of voters have contacted their representatives to | discuss just this topic. Why didn't voicing their concerns | work on those occasions, and why will it be different this | time around? | rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: | Yeah, Reagan drastically simplified the tax code in 1986 by | eliminating a ton of deductions and expanding the standard | deduction. [1] | | (It also lowered the top tax rate from 50% to 28%, and | raised the bottom tax rate from 11% to 15%, so it wasn't a | complete win). | | For all its faults, the Trump admin also nearly doubled [2] | the standard deduction in 2017, which hugely simplifies | taxes for the people who choose to use it. | | From Wikipedia: | | > The standard deduction nearly doubles, from $12,700 to | $24,000 for married couples. For single filers, the | standard deduction will increase from $6,350 to $12,000. | About 70% of families choose the standard deduction rather | than itemized deductions; this could rise to over 84% if | doubled. | | Much of the information that TurboTax asks for is just help | you figure out _whether or not_ to choose the standard | deduction. (At least that 's what Intuit claims, but if you | don't opt-out of the data sharing agreement, they get to | have an absolute field day with all the financial data | you've given them). | | But if you choose the standard deduction, the logic is | usually quite simple, and you don't need massively complex | software to help you. | | [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tax-Reform-Act | | [2] https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform- | plan-ex... | jessaustin wrote: | _But if you choose the standard deduction, the logic is | usually quite simple, and you don 't need massively | complex software to help you._ | | This is true. Since the turbotax web form seems to help | many taxpayers (the other possibility is that it's all | SEO?), it might be nice if IRS ran an analogous web form | in addition to what they do now. | TheCraiggers wrote: | You're right. I haven't done that in awhile. Thank you for | the reminder. | ncphil wrote: | PACER should have been free from the beginning. Gatekeeping legal | information for profit (even if only used to supplement | appropriations) isn't only a problem at the federal level. In | many states you need a commercial subscription to even read court | opinions and statutes, let alone search. Localities in most | places rely on commercial publishers to archive the text of | ordinances, which only those with ridiculously expensive | subscriptions can access. The digitization of everything had just | begun when I retired, but the handwriting was already on the | wall. The contrast with the widespread availability of technical | doc is staggering: and reminds me of why I changed careers. | cwkoss wrote: | A similar injustice is that many building codes are privately | copyrighted AND enforced by law. | criddell wrote: | They are privately copyrighted because those organizations | research and develop the codes which is a significant | expense. | | Since it's unlikely that taxpayers will accept paying for all | of this stuff, the likely outcome is that specific code | references will be removed from the law and replaced with an | insurance requirement. And insurers are going to require the | ferris wheel or elevator or boiler to comply with the same | code that used to be in the law. | cwkoss wrote: | Forcing people to buy privately owned IP to comply with the | law is effectively a tax. Taxpayers are still paying - it's | just political money laundering. | gowld wrote: | It's a user fee, which is reasonable way to tax non- | basic-needs. | jimktrains2 wrote: | There should be no user-fee on being able to know the | law. That's the point, not that non-governmental | organizations shouldn't be compensated if their work is | used, required, or referenced by a law. | my123 wrote: | Being able to access to the law itself is a basic need. | gambiting wrote: | I honestly feel like America is on a different planet | sometimes. If it's required by law, then it should be free | to read. What do you mean organizations research and | develop codes at an expense? What organisations? Anyone | other than the government is in charge of setting up the | law? That doesn't ring any alarm bells there? | colejohnson66 wrote: | Organizations such as everyone that works on standards at | ISO, IEEE, etc. Should they be free to read? Yes! How am | I supposed to comply with a law I can read, but can't | follow? But the government doesn't need to do everything. | In fact, quite a few laws defer to "best industry | practices". | gambiting wrote: | Of course, but these organisations, even if private | entities, will be paid by the government to conduct | research and offer best practices and advice, so if the | taxpayer is already paying for it....then it should be | free to read - OP made it sound as if private | organisations conducted research out of their own good | will and therefore it was justified to charge the public | for it.....which is fine, but not if the rules become | law! | criddell wrote: | Today the government usually doesn't pay them. They fund | themselves by selling paper and electronic copies of the | code. The idea is that if you are designing some type of | equipment, then you should help pay for the development | of the code governing that equipment. | | It maybe makes sense for esoteric things but not at all | for common things (like the building and electrical codes | covering all houses. | | Edit: Sometimes private organizations did write the codes | for their members and later the government notices that's | what everybody is using and it's working, so make it the | law of the land. | fl0wenol wrote: | It's frustrating that the government doesn't step in to | pay/fund on behalf of the public in situations like that. | Standards organizations should want such a guaranteed | income stream. | criddell wrote: | > If it's required by law, then it should be free to | read. | | Nobody really disagrees with that. Most of the codes are | available in paper form in libraries. | | Organizations like the ASME (https://www.asme.org/) write | the codes and they do a pretty good job. | monocasa wrote: | Right? This idea literally goes back to the Code of | Hammurabi. | omegaworks wrote: | >I honestly feel like America is on a different planet | sometimes. | | "America" is a loosely-coupled minimum-viable veneer over | private capital. As built, extraction and concentration | of value is the primary purpose of the system. The roots | of this settler-colony are still visible. | throwaway984393 wrote: | You're being downvoted because people just want everything | to be free without ever paying for it or doing any work to | achieve it. They're the same people who expect politicians | to fix everything for them, rather than us having to | personally get involved in solving societal problems. | MAGZine wrote: | The supreme court recently upheld that people are legally | allowed to know the laws that govern them without paying. | | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_7m58.pd | f | | Only on hackernews would you read a comment saying that its | fine for some corporation to hold the copyright on the law | of the land. | criddell wrote: | I didn't say it's fine and in another comment I added | that nobody disagrees that codes referenced by laws | should be freely available, but the organizations making | those codes do need to be compensated. | | How happy would you be if you were an engineer who | developed a set of equations around some dangerous piece | of equipment and your consulting business was built | around selling your expertise. Then the state government | comes along and says "nice work, now it's the law". | | I don't know how you get around the insurance backdoor | that I mentioned. Any ideas? | | Edit: Looking at the link you posted, that seems to be | specifically about annotations to the law. How does it | cover codes incorporated by reference? It might be right | there and I'm not seeing it. I'm not used to reading | these types of materials. | shawnz wrote: | > How happy would you be if you were an engineer who | developed a set of equations ... Then the state | government comes along and says "nice work, now it's the | law". | | Personally, I'd be ecstatic if my work could have such a | wide reaching impact as that | criddell wrote: | I get that, but surely you understand how others might be | upset at effectively losing the copyright on their work. | alasdair_ wrote: | You can't copyright equations to begin with so this | wouldn't be an issue. | elliekelly wrote: | The organizations don't write model code because they | want to own the copyright they write model code so they, | an unelected entity, can exercise an inordinate amount of | power over legislation and draft regulations that further | the business interests and line the pockets of their | members. | | Even without copyright protection the special interest | groups will continue writing model code exactly as they | were except that member corps might have to kick in a bit | more money now that ordinary citizens won't be | subsidizing their efforts to manipulate the democratic | process. | sgent wrote: | That was a very fact specific case that ruled that the GA | legislature's copyright on the GA code was invalid. It's | a stretch to expand that to something like the National | Electrical Code or International Building Code since | those copyrights are not owned by a legislature. | kingcharles wrote: | Thank you for that. I hadn't seen that case before. I | sued the State here in Illinois a couple of years ago | because I tried to FOIA some statutes and was rejected | under the copyright exemption. The State even had their | database admin come to testify that they paid thousands | of dollars a month to LexisNexis. I cited all the | previous district court and appellate rulings (from other | circuits), but ultimately lost. | fibers wrote: | The same can be said about research colleges being | backstopped by the taxpayer and having their research being | paywalled by JSTOR. Are you willing to make the argument | that all of this stuff should be paywalled? | LorenPechtel wrote: | I don't care. The law should be free, period. Cheaper to | pay once through the legislature than to put a paywall on | it. | criddell wrote: | Cheaper for some, more expensive for others. | | Even though you aren't likely to build a petroleum | distillation column in your apartment, you don't mind | helping to pay for the ongoing R&D involved in producing | the engineering codes governing that equipment? For | esoteric stuff like that, I kind of like the user-fee | model. If we all pay, it feels like another subsidy to | (in this case) oil and gas companies. | duped wrote: | The taxpayers are already paying for this. | criddell wrote: | Are you thinking of one code in particular? I'm sure | there are some that came out of academia and those likely | are freely available. | hyperbovine wrote: | If you start dabbling in DIY remodeling you'll soon find | yourself trying understand parts of the national electrical | and plumbing codes. They actually remind me a lot of reading | the C++XX standards--clearly the product of a ton of time and | effort by a bunch really smart and experienced people. | There's no way in hell an elected body could/should ever | wrote those. So, while I'm not saying that the current system | is ideal or even fair, there's absolutely a need to | compensate somebody to write and maintain these standards. | reaperducer wrote: | It's getting even worse than that. In some cities and counties, | you have to pay to read real estate records online. Public | documents that were free just a few years ago are now behind | paywalls. Even though my tax dollars paid for these systems | that were supposed to make the public documents public. | | Want to read it for free? Come on down to the courthouse, fill | out a paper form, and we'll find the right book for you. Also | for a fee. | | See also: GIS systems. | Infernal wrote: | Yup. And then charge you a dollar a page to make copies. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | Technical docs are better but far from perfect. For example, | could you please link me to a copy of the C++ standard? It's | ISO/IEC 14882:2020, if that helps. | roblabla wrote: | The drafts are available in openstd, both of older versions | of the standard[0], and the next, upcoming version[1]. | | Those are not technically the _actual_ standards, but they | 're pretty close. But yes, I too dislike the fact that ISO | standards are paid for. You know what bugs me the most? ISO | 9660, the standard behind the .iso file format. It's been | published in 1988, and today still costs roughly 130EUR to | buy... | | [0]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/standards | | [1]: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft | javajosh wrote: | The central dictum of the legal profession: "you will have to | pry every piece of the leverage I have over you out of my cold, | dead hands." | rz2k wrote: | Aaron Swartz should be credited for his early activism in support | of making this public good accessible.[1] | | I suspect that it played a role in how vicious the prosecutor | Carmen Ortiz was in _United States v. Aaron Swartz_ , the later | case about bulk downloading of research on JSTOR from the MIT | library system, and which eventually lead to his suicide. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#PACER | newbamboo wrote: | Was curious what that prosecutor had gotten up to. | https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz... | | Live by the sword... | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Her fatal mistake was not knowing that rubbing shoulders with | people who operate on the national stage and having ambitions | to be one of them herself meant she had to care about optics | at that level. And driving a college kid to suicide over | what's basically alleged petty theft is rather tactless in | that context. Driving a college kid to suicide over | allegations of what basically amounts giving "the system" the | bird with a side of petty theft would have gone over just | fine at the state level. | mminer237 wrote: | It's good to see when good tools, like RECAP, become obsolete | because of wider improvements. Mission accomplished. | | It's also good to see unanimous bipartisan action doing simple | good things. | zestyping wrote: | As one of the developers of RECAP, I am delighted to see the | project become obsolete! | kingcharles wrote: | PACER's paywall is bullshit, but just to temper things it does | allow you to download a certain amount for free. I think it might | be something like $30 a month. All my requests usually come in | under this amount. | | What are the fees if you go to the courthouse? I've actually | never been inside a federal courthouse despite litigating there | for almost a decade. I assume they have an indigency application | if you can't afford their fees - the state courts I've worked at | do. | | You have a 1st Amendment right to court documents (and usually a | constitutional or statutory right under state laws too). I don't | know exactly how fees interact with your 1st Am. right. I would | imagine that if you wanted a lot of documents and couldn't afford | them that your 1st Am. right would win if you sued for it. | 1024core wrote: | It just boggles the mind that in a society ruled by laws, access | to said laws would be locked up behind a paywall. | mumblemumble wrote: | It's not that unusual. PACER's pricing was ridiculous, but, in | principle and from a historical perspective, having to pay for | access to information has been the norm. And for understandable | reasons. Only a generation ago, access to court records | naturally cost money, because neither paper nor file clerks' | time is free. | | It's only within the past couple decades that technology has | reduced the costs associated with providing public access to | court records down to a level where it's easy to contemplate | making the service free to all users as part of the public | budget. | robflynn wrote: | I was shocked the first time I needed to download something | from PACER and saw that the pricing was per-page (of a PDF!) | mumblemumble wrote: | Per-page is pretty common in the legal industry generally. | It's a holdover from the paper days, when the provider's | costs were more a function of page count than document | count. | bell-cot wrote: | The old "He who has the gold makes the rules" trick works even | better when those without the gold only get to learn the rules | when & where convenient to those with. Or they have to give up | whatever silver they've managed to scrape together in order to | learn _some_ of the _current_ rules. | cyral wrote: | It reminds me of how ISO standards, from date specifications, | to the hz for the musical note "A", to railway engineering, | have to be purchased from ISO just for the PDF. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> It reminds me of how ISO standards, from date | specifications, to the hz for the musical note "A", to | railway engineering, have to be purchased from ISO just for | the PDF. _ | | At eye-watering rates. | | https://webstore.ansi.org/Search/Find?st=iso&v=5&cp=1&f1=Sta. | .. | tiahura wrote: | They are not. Court of appeals decisions (a decision that's of | precedential value) and any district court decision of | importance are public already. | | This makes public district court opinions nobody cares about | (ok I suppose), as well as the pleadings and motions filed by | the parties in the case. Those documents contain a treasure | trove of private information that wasn't disclosed with the | expectation of broad public dissemination. | tiahura wrote: | Terrible news. | | Federal court isn't personal information mother lode that state | courts would be, but there's all sorts of stuff in there that | doesn't need to be widely disseminated. If you're just interested | in the occasional document, that's already free. This is just | going to enable the worst sort of data harvesting. | LorenPechtel wrote: | The pricing is per page, not per document. One larger document | can go over the free threshold. | encryptluks2 wrote: | Courts already allow you to request that documents be flagged | as sensitive. | setpatchaddress wrote: | I understand your concern, but you're advocating for a form of | security-through-obscurity. Data harvesting of this information | is already available to bad actors. If information must be | private for security reasons, it should not be in the public | court records in the first place. | tiahura wrote: | It's already available to anyone. Your first $X / month is | free, and after that, it's like $.10 page. Or, you can drive | to the courthouse and snoop for free all day long. | | Mostly, this just facilitates more adtech and profile | building. I don't see the benefit. | torstenvl wrote: | Can you provide a citation for the proposition that rate- | limiting is a form of security-through-obscurity? That seems | like a pretty novel interpretation to me. | IncandescentGas wrote: | I think you're right. Pacer is basically free for any of us | wanting to look something up reasonably. The people that care | are the people that want to harvest the data contained therein | and sell it, use it for extortion, or use it to deny the | reformed ex-con underclass access to housing, jobs and credit. | [deleted] | afarrell wrote: | On the one hand, this is a good thing for the easy ability to | access public information. | | On the other hand, this removes an important backup source of | funding for the US federal courts. | | On the gripping hand, it is bonkers that court admins are wise to | prepare for the 2023 government shutdown. | trhway wrote: | Somewhen during this year Santa Clara Superior Court removed case | documents from their online case access, now only dates and | parties are available there. So much for the progress, and that | in Silicon Valley :) During physical access to the case documents | at the court building one is prohibited from using say phone or | any other camera. | kragen wrote: | If this had passed fifteen years ago, the FBI would never have | launched their investigation into Aaron Swartz, the one preceding | the MIT prosecution. Maybe he'd still be alive. | ccleve wrote: | The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is obviously | incompetent to carry out this work. Anyone who demands nine years | to do this shouldn't be taken seriously. | | All documents should simply be dumped into a common repository. | S3 would do fine. Define some standards for common document | metadata so each document is identified by case, author, type, | etc. Enable S3 version histories. | | Then create an API for creating cases and uploading documents. | This will require some controls, logins, security, and some | facility for billing users for filing fees. If the court just | provides an API, they can stop there. | | Private companies who want to provide a user interface to lawyers | and the public can do so. I'm sure that more than a few will make | searches and document downloads free. | | And that's it. If the government would just get out of the way, | this could be done in six months to a year and would be very, | very cheap. | kingcharles wrote: | I want to make one more comment and then I am done. Access to the | federal court system is a bargain. An absolute bargain. You can | usually file a case for about $350-400, and the fees are tempered | or removed if you can prove indigency. You get a LOT for your | money if your case is legitimate. You can potentially eat up | hundreds of hours of court room (judge, clerk) time, which is | clearly tens of thousands of dollars worth of work. | | The court system is incredibly subsidized in the USA. | | Shame about the lawyer fees....! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-09 23:00 UTC)