9 ms·

Lawsuit claims Ancestry.com gets preferential access to New York public archives

144 points by wooboo 8y ago

dmitrygr 8y ago
Government agencies screwing over those who are likely to take it and not cause trouble? Gasp! The surprise!
- dang 8y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
zzleeper 8y ago
Never heard of reclaim the records until now. What they are doing is amazing! I was even moved to donate, even though I have no US ancestry ("Donation Confirmation Thank you for supporting Reclaim The Records!")
- andrewem 8y ago
  Reclaim the Records has done amazing work. HN user Asparagirl is the founder and runs it (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Asparagirl https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Asparagirl).
  - Asparagirl 8y ago
    waves hello
NoblePublius 8y ago
I’m willing to wager Ancestry does digitization better, faster and cheaper than any non profit would.
- jerrysievert 8y ago
  or that ancestry has a low-friction data ingestion pipeline that is many less steps than a standard data request.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  cheaper for whom? their basic subscription is $200/y
- andrewem 8y ago
  The counterexample to your claim is FamilySearch.org, which worked with Reclaim the Records on digitizing a set of records. (It's a nonprofit run by the LDS church, which is a behemoth in genealogy records.)
  - dsiegel2275 8y ago
    Couldn't upvote this enough. I have done significant genealogical research over the last 6 or 7 years, using primarily Ancestry and FamilySearch.org. FamilySearch, particularly for non U.S. records, offers access to an order of magnitude more resources than Ancestry, though not all of them are digitally indexed. Ancestry, with its larger budget, seems to have invested heavily in digitizing and making available a small subset of commonly used resources, resources that will enable more casual users to make quick progress. So records like the 1940 U.S. Census and state-based death certificates (usually up to 1960) are digitized, and thus made widely available to keep and draw new subscribers.
  - NoblePublius 8y ago
    Read what I wrote and try again. I said nothing about which records were scanned or what they did with them after scanning. I merely spoke of the scanning itself which, buoyed by a profit motive, will be optimized for speed and efficiency, unlike a non profit.
cwyers 8y ago
If you read the article, Reclaim The Records filed a FOIL (NY state version of FOIA) request for the records, which were stored on microfilm. The state quoted $150k for the request -- you still need to pay to have copies made. The group thought the state's quote was too large. Then Ancestry.com comes in, pays for the microfilm to be digitized, and the state tells the group "nevermind, we can do it for free now." And this is the evidence that bad things are going on, somehow. The records group got the copies faster than if Ancestry.com hadn't gotten involved, and didn't have to pay for the.
- Asparagirl 8y ago
  Hi, I’m Brooke Schreier Ganz, founder and president of Reclaim The Records. Your comment is misleading as to the substance of this lawsuit and the issue at hand. I would urge you to read this backstory, and the actual lawsuit text: https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/freedom-of-information-request/reclaim-the-records-vs-new-york-state-department-of-health/ https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/freedom-of-information-req... and https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=5f700fdc65a51d3813e67dab2&id=cdcda2eb9e https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=5f700fdc65a51d3813e67da... The short version: we had many onerous requirements put upon us by the New York State Department of Health when we tried to get the records through FOIL, only ONE of which was a crazy-inflated $152,000 price tag that had nothing to do with the actual cost of digitizing the microfiche. The state made up the price. This is illegal under FOIL’s requirement that a requestor pay only the actual costs of digitization. In the links above, you can read the story of how we on our own calculated the actual costs, and provided multiple price comparisons from commercial firms and from the National Archives (NARA), which were a tiny fraction of that inflated estimate. Getting the records for free after a seventeen month long fight was unexpectedly awesome. But apparently-preferential treatment by government agencies for commercial entities instead of non-profit or individual records requestors is really disturbing. We’re trying to figure out what happened and why. And that’s where this lawsuit, for copies of agency e-mails and contracts and meeting notes and such, is important.
  - nowarninglabel 8y ago
    Hi Brooke, one thing that isn't clear from reading the links you provided, did Ancestry pay the fee requested by the state? From what I can tell, you refused to pay the fee (rightly or wrongly, I have no ability to assess the cost quoted to you). But if Ancestry paid it, would that not explain why their request was fulfilled first?
altitudinous 8y ago
"suspects". I did not read the article because of this. The internet slanders many based on only suspicion. I suspect that we are not alone in the universe. I suspect that Elvis might still be alive. But I have no proof. Get some proof. I'm not going to write some article stating Elvis is still alive and pass it off as fact.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  The article explicitly states they are doing to get information as to how Ancestry was so promptly serviced, and for how much. They are trying to get some proof. That's the purpose of the lawsuit. You should try reading the articles from now on.
  - altitudinous 8y ago
    Trying to get proof is absolutely NOT proof. I'm not going to read articles where someone has made something up. You may as well start preparing for the forthcoming zombie apocalypse.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      Trying to get proof is called Discovery and is quite literally one of the key points in filing a lawsuit. You can't argue something invalid because it doesn't have proof when the entire purpose of the lawsuit is to get proof.
  - privateSFacct 8y ago
    Dude, trying to get proof is not proof. For all they know ancestry didn't even ask the state to do the work but did it for them for free, and then after doing the work themselves gave it to these guys (not required). So no cost estimate needed, no fight about cost needed. You've got one group demanding detailed costs estimates, demanding names of vendors (the government probably doesn't even have yet because they've not bid it yet). You've got ancestry who shows up, willing to work for free, willing to give images back, with past experience. Do we seriously want government to turn group #2 away and battle away with group #1? Or do we want govt to let group #2 do the work, no battle on price needed, then give the items to group #1. After exercising some common sense, the government is now going to be sued by these guys.
Asparagirl 8y ago
If you enjoyed reading this story, which is about our fifth Freedom of Information lawsuit, you might also enjoy reading about our eighth and newest lawsuit, which we just filed against the parent agency of the New York City Municipal Archives a few days ago: https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/records-request/22/ https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/records-request/22/ Teaser: “Welcome to the single stupidest lawsuit that our organization has ever had to file. Alternately, we could subtitle this story let’s all gather round and watch the NYC Department of Records light taxpayer money on fire!”
squirrelicus 8y ago
Ancestry developed relationships with many archival sources for a damn good reason. They have developed non trivial processes, equipment, and trained staff that treat the records with care. When I worked there it was a badge of honor for their document processing division that they were the only entity essentially allowed to just walk into the National Archives and take whatever they wanted to digitize, because they were known and trusted to return the extraordinarily fragile documents unharmed. Reputation matters. Presumably the cost that the plaintiff incurred was a form of insurance or "are you really seriously sure you have the capital to treat this stuff with care?" I am not a lawyer and I might be making it all up.

144 points by wooboo 8y ago

dmitrygr 8y ago

Government agencies screwing over those who are likely to take it and not cause trouble? Gasp! The surprise!

dang 8y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

zzleeper 8y ago

Never heard of reclaim the records until now. What they are doing is amazing! I was even moved to donate, even though I have no US ancestry ("Donation Confirmation Thank you for supporting Reclaim The Records!")

andrewem 8y ago
Reclaim the Records has done amazing work. HN user Asparagirl is the founder and runs it (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Asparagirl https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Asparagirl).
- Asparagirl 8y ago
  waves hello

NoblePublius 8y ago

I’m willing to wager Ancestry does digitization better, faster and cheaper than any non profit would.

jerrysievert 8y ago
or that ancestry has a low-friction data ingestion pipeline that is many less steps than a standard data request.
nyolfen 8y ago
cheaper for whom? their basic subscription is $200/y
andrewem 8y ago
The counterexample to your claim is FamilySearch.org, which worked with Reclaim the Records on digitizing a set of records. (It's a nonprofit run by the LDS church, which is a behemoth in genealogy records.)
- dsiegel2275 8y ago
  Couldn't upvote this enough. I have done significant genealogical research over the last 6 or 7 years, using primarily Ancestry and FamilySearch.org. FamilySearch, particularly for non U.S. records, offers access to an order of magnitude more resources than Ancestry, though not all of them are digitally indexed. Ancestry, with its larger budget, seems to have invested heavily in digitizing and making available a small subset of commonly used resources, resources that will enable more casual users to make quick progress. So records like the 1940 U.S. Census and state-based death certificates (usually up to 1960) are digitized, and thus made widely available to keep and draw new subscribers.
- NoblePublius 8y ago
  Read what I wrote and try again. I said nothing about which records were scanned or what they did with them after scanning. I merely spoke of the scanning itself which, buoyed by a profit motive, will be optimized for speed and efficiency, unlike a non profit.

cwyers 8y ago

If you read the article, Reclaim The Records filed a FOIL (NY state version of FOIA) request for the records, which were stored on microfilm. The state quoted $150k for the request -- you still need to pay to have copies made. The group thought the state's quote was too large. Then Ancestry.com comes in, pays for the microfilm to be digitized, and the state tells the group "nevermind, we can do it for free now." And this is the evidence that bad things are going on, somehow. The records group got the copies faster than if Ancestry.com hadn't gotten involved, and didn't have to pay for the.

Asparagirl 8y ago
Hi, I’m Brooke Schreier Ganz, founder and president of Reclaim The Records. Your comment is misleading as to the substance of this lawsuit and the issue at hand. I would urge you to read this backstory, and the actual lawsuit text: https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/freedom-of-information-request/reclaim-the-records-vs-new-york-state-department-of-health/ https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/freedom-of-information-req... and https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=5f700fdc65a51d3813e67dab2&id=cdcda2eb9e https://us11.campaign-archive.com/?u=5f700fdc65a51d3813e67da... The short version: we had many onerous requirements put upon us by the New York State Department of Health when we tried to get the records through FOIL, only ONE of which was a crazy-inflated $152,000 price tag that had nothing to do with the actual cost of digitizing the microfiche. The state made up the price. This is illegal under FOIL’s requirement that a requestor pay only the actual costs of digitization. In the links above, you can read the story of how we on our own calculated the actual costs, and provided multiple price comparisons from commercial firms and from the National Archives (NARA), which were a tiny fraction of that inflated estimate. Getting the records for free after a seventeen month long fight was unexpectedly awesome. But apparently-preferential treatment by government agencies for commercial entities instead of non-profit or individual records requestors is really disturbing. We’re trying to figure out what happened and why. And that’s where this lawsuit, for copies of agency e-mails and contracts and meeting notes and such, is important.
- nowarninglabel 8y ago
  Hi Brooke, one thing that isn't clear from reading the links you provided, did Ancestry pay the fee requested by the state? From what I can tell, you refused to pay the fee (rightly or wrongly, I have no ability to assess the cost quoted to you). But if Ancestry paid it, would that not explain why their request was fulfilled first?

altitudinous 8y ago

"suspects". I did not read the article because of this. The internet slanders many based on only suspicion. I suspect that we are not alone in the universe. I suspect that Elvis might still be alive. But I have no proof. Get some proof. I'm not going to write some article stating Elvis is still alive and pass it off as fact.

jhall1468 8y ago
The article explicitly states they are doing to get information as to how Ancestry was so promptly serviced, and for how much. They are trying to get some proof. That's the purpose of the lawsuit. You should try reading the articles from now on.
- altitudinous 8y ago
  Trying to get proof is absolutely NOT proof. I'm not going to read articles where someone has made something up. You may as well start preparing for the forthcoming zombie apocalypse.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Trying to get proof is called Discovery and is quite literally one of the key points in filing a lawsuit. You can't argue something invalid because it doesn't have proof when the entire purpose of the lawsuit is to get proof.
- privateSFacct 8y ago
  Dude, trying to get proof is not proof. For all they know ancestry didn't even ask the state to do the work but did it for them for free, and then after doing the work themselves gave it to these guys (not required). So no cost estimate needed, no fight about cost needed. You've got one group demanding detailed costs estimates, demanding names of vendors (the government probably doesn't even have yet because they've not bid it yet). You've got ancestry who shows up, willing to work for free, willing to give images back, with past experience. Do we seriously want government to turn group #2 away and battle away with group #1? Or do we want govt to let group #2 do the work, no battle on price needed, then give the items to group #1. After exercising some common sense, the government is now going to be sued by these guys.

Asparagirl 8y ago

If you enjoyed reading this story, which is about our fifth Freedom of Information lawsuit, you might also enjoy reading about our eighth and newest lawsuit, which we just filed against the parent agency of the New York City Municipal Archives a few days ago: https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/records-request/22/ https://www.reclaimtherecords.org/records-request/22/ Teaser: “Welcome to the single stupidest lawsuit that our organization has ever had to file. Alternately, we could subtitle this story let’s all gather round and watch the NYC Department of Records light taxpayer money on fire!”

squirrelicus 8y ago

Ancestry developed relationships with many archival sources for a damn good reason. They have developed non trivial processes, equipment, and trained staff that treat the records with care. When I worked there it was a badge of honor for their document processing division that they were the only entity essentially allowed to just walk into the National Archives and take whatever they wanted to digitize, because they were known and trusted to return the extraordinarily fragile documents unharmed. Reputation matters. Presumably the cost that the plaintiff incurred was a form of insurance or "are you really seriously sure you have the capital to treat this stuff with care?" I am not a lawyer and I might be making it all up.