5 ms·

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 $

by 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?
  - dplgk 8y ago
    Does it matter? The point is that the state made the cost prohibitively high.
    - MrEldritch 8y ago
      It matters for "does Ancestry.com get preferential access" if they did, in fact, jump through all the same illegal hoops and just had the money to pay for them
      - dogecoinbase 8y ago
        In that circumstance, the state was able to grossly overcharge a private company for access to public records. I imagine that would also be worthwhile information to both that company's shareholders and voters in the state. How on earth are there so many people on HN defending this? It's clear that _something_ untoward happened, and somehow the bad actor is not-for-profit archivists?
        privateSFacct 8y ago
        "grossly overcharge"? Seriously - these tech companies have burn rates in the millions PER MONTH. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if ancestrery is doing over $1B per year. Please note - these are records that CAN NOT be lost by the state. Some shmucks who can't even afford $100K want to take possession of this stuff? Forget it. Seriously, the van crashed on the way to the cheap place that scans these, the van burned up on the way to our "super cheap" scanning place - is no excuse to permanently lose irreplacable records. That's how half these startups and fly by night groups work. I've often looked at these quotes. The cost to government, with salaries, pensions, supervisors and admin to do something it doesn't normally do, make sure it is safe, get in the scanners, do the quality control etc is higher than you think. Just to do the RFP is a HUGE PAIN in goverment. You have to write it, get it approved, publicize it, get bids, find a scoring panel, score them, check they meet all the city and goverment requirements (redwood purchasing, mcbride principles for northern ireland, health care accountability - the list goes on). Then do all the adjustments for preference groups (now mostly local and micro biz and small biz, and WME etc). Then you have to fight the appeals. Every politicans rule drives the cost UP in govt. Voted in by the people. By the time you are at contract stage, getting city attorney approval etc - you are burnt out. Trust me, if someone comes knocking and wants all this for free - forget it. If ancestry paid, then the real issue is these schmucks got preferential treatment by not paying and free-riding off the work the company paid for. And this is considered preferential treatment for ancestry? I'm not fan of them (and don't use them), but folks, get a grip. If one requester has to pay $150K or insure, demonstrate prior experience doing this etc etc, and another get's it free because the first paid, that is NOT preferential treatment for the first who paid. What planet are these guys on?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by cwyers 8y ago

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?
- dplgk 8y ago
  Does it matter? The point is that the state made the cost prohibitively high.
  - MrEldritch 8y ago
    It matters for "does Ancestry.com get preferential access" if they did, in fact, jump through all the same illegal hoops and just had the money to pay for them
    - dogecoinbase 8y ago
      In that circumstance, the state was able to grossly overcharge a private company for access to public records. I imagine that would also be worthwhile information to both that company's shareholders and voters in the state. How on earth are there so many people on HN defending this? It's clear that _something_ untoward happened, and somehow the bad actor is not-for-profit archivists?
      - privateSFacct 8y ago
        "grossly overcharge"? Seriously - these tech companies have burn rates in the millions PER MONTH. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if ancestrery is doing over $1B per year. Please note - these are records that CAN NOT be lost by the state. Some shmucks who can't even afford $100K want to take possession of this stuff? Forget it. Seriously, the van crashed on the way to the cheap place that scans these, the van burned up on the way to our "super cheap" scanning place - is no excuse to permanently lose irreplacable records. That's how half these startups and fly by night groups work. I've often looked at these quotes. The cost to government, with salaries, pensions, supervisors and admin to do something it doesn't normally do, make sure it is safe, get in the scanners, do the quality control etc is higher than you think. Just to do the RFP is a HUGE PAIN in goverment. You have to write it, get it approved, publicize it, get bids, find a scoring panel, score them, check they meet all the city and goverment requirements (redwood purchasing, mcbride principles for northern ireland, health care accountability - the list goes on). Then do all the adjustments for preference groups (now mostly local and micro biz and small biz, and WME etc). Then you have to fight the appeals. Every politicans rule drives the cost UP in govt. Voted in by the people. By the time you are at contract stage, getting city attorney approval etc - you are burnt out. Trust me, if someone comes knocking and wants all this for free - forget it. If ancestry paid, then the real issue is these schmucks got preferential treatment by not paying and free-riding off the work the company paid for. And this is considered preferential treatment for ancestry? I'm not fan of them (and don't use them), but folks, get a grip. If one requester has to pay $150K or insure, demonstrate prior experience doing this etc etc, and another get's it free because the first paid, that is NOT preferential treatment for the first who paid. What planet are these guys on?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]