3 ms·
That looks like PACER still falls under that. I wonder if this would make it easier to build a replacement whose interface isn't utterly terrible. Of course, t
by afarrell 11y ago
That looks like PACER still falls under that.
I wonder if this would make it easier to build a replacement whose interface isn't utterly terrible. Of course, the hard part would be convincing the courts to use it. Based on a sample size of one Clerk of Court, who thinks PACER is absolutely fantastic, this will be hard. To be fair, it is state-of-the-art in terms of access to court documents in the US.
- nwenzel 11y agoCould you imagine an API-only version of PACER where developers were free to build search, mobile, other front-ends on of it? Sure, that's basically a high school project using a MongoDB or CouchDB back-end. But legal tech is horribly antiquated and govt-legal tech has a long way to go. It seems like the best move would be API-only so that individuals and companies could build services on top. BTW - check out www.casetext.com for an idea of what private enterprise can do in terms of making public records useful.
- konklone 11y agoDifferent branch, though. This policy only covers certain executive branch agencies.