5 ms·

It's a travesty that we have to pay for this information at all!

by 1024core 6y ago

varenc 6y ago
75% Of usets don’t pay. The first $N dollars are free.
- readme 6y ago
  have you used it? I signed up just to see if I could pull dockets on publically traded companies, so I'd know if there'd be litigation before others and get an edge in trading. It was about 2 hours of using the system before I realized this would be impossible (you know, on my personal budget.) I think I made like under 10 searches and racked up over a dollar in fees. Some of the pages actually charge you per search result not even search. So if you query a term and you get 100 results, that's 100 charges.
  - varenc 6y ago
    Yes! I used it a bunch and it was free. Had a friend that was prosecuted by the feds. It was a long/complex case and I pulled up all the documents for it, multiple times. I ended up not being charged a thing! Though the pricing was very opaque. I assumed I would be charged something so was surprised a bit when it was all free. (though they should have made this much more clear) I feel like using PACER data to inform stock trading signals is a pretty niche use case... For "regular people" that have a connection with a few cases, I think it should be free, and it was in my experience.
site-packages1 6y ago
I agree that they're public records, but you even have to pay reasonable fees for FOIA requests, which are also public records. There is some cost in maintaining and distributing the records. While it's true that the government could pay for it as a public service, and I believe they should, PACER is self-funded via these fees for now. In that regard, it's actually quite a good system, unreliant on annual budgets by Congress, but instead funded via the users at a pro rata rate for how much use a user gets out of it. Notably, the information is free up to a certain threshold.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Taxes should cover this sans abusers.
  - site-packages1 6y ago
    Yeah, that's basically what I said. My comment was more that outside of a normative sense, it's actually a good system.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- duskwuff 6y ago
  > You even have to pay reasonable fees for FOIA requests, which are also public records… Hm? FOIA requests are usually made to request the release of data which is not yet available to the public. Most such requests require some level of human intervention, e.g. to determine what sorts of records need to be searched, to perform manual searches on non-digitized or poorly indexed data, and to perform any necessary redaction on the retrieved data. PACER, by contrast, is already fully automated. The court records it searches are all already digitized, and have all been cleared for release; literally the only thing which users are paying for is the operation of the service.
  - site-packages1 6y ago
    There are plenty of FOIA requests where the responder simply has to do a quick search of digital internal records that already exist but aren't "public" in the same way that PACER records aren't "public" because they're behind a paywall. Further, it's no longer the case that "most" such requests require human intervention such as "perform[img] manual searches on non-digitized or poorly indexed data," though it is true someone needs to check for redactions. Think of the average case being like the high touch PACER option: someone takes your FOIA request, performs an internal digital search, checks to make sure results look good, and emails them to you. I'd say in this way they're relatively analogous, though you're partially correct in pointing out some of the differences.
- 6y ago
alexfromapex 6y ago
Agreed this is valuable public information and should be paid for using our taxes before they’re used to pay for useless wars and more aircraft carriers
- CrazyCatDog 6y ago
  I’m not 100% in agreement with this being valuable. There are many shady people who initiate cases, and if the Pacer data was free, then many would be hurt by having been mentioned as a defendant for cases that had no merit to begin with. The sad reality is that if someone was accused of something and later recused, many casual observers will fail to double click through everything to uncover that the defendant was cleared of any wrong doing. Even worse, many people settle whilst innocent as the cost of litigation exceeds settlement requests—-therefore even if someone did double click to learn the outcome, their reputation is tarnished nonetheless. I hate paying the pacer fees, but if it creates a barrier to people misusing (which I am 100% certain will happen) what they find, then the Pacer fees are in fact a good thing. Put bluntly, unlocking Pacer to be free for all will have a devastating effect on minorities who have been racially targeted by bad actors in the past.
rayiner 6y ago
Case law is free. Apart from that, it’s a self-funding government service like many others. Do you complain about having to pay for a drivers license?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  If my drivers license user fee is funding projects unrelated to issuing me a license, yes. The issue is with soaking PACER users for court costs unrelated to PACER.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Your drivers license fee absolutely does fund projects unrelated to issuing you a license; for instance, in Illinois, they're also part of the road fund.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
pnw_hazor 6y ago
Not really. Most of what is only available on PACER is nuts and bolt lawyering. Opinions and orders are available for free from government sources. Also, important motions and other filings are usually made available too. It costs money to run PACER, so fees are required, like for many government services. The issue here is that the collected fees were higher than needed, providing a slush fund that did not require congressional appropriation. Similarly, the USPTO is self-funded by user fees that are over priced. The excess fees provide a slush fund for congress.
- belltaco 6y ago
  >Opinions and orders are available for free from government sources. Also, important motions and other filings are usually made available too. Where are opinions and order available?

It's a travesty that we have to pay for this information at all!

varenc 6y ago

75% Of usets don’t pay. The first $N dollars are free.

readme 6y ago
have you used it? I signed up just to see if I could pull dockets on publically traded companies, so I'd know if there'd be litigation before others and get an edge in trading. It was about 2 hours of using the system before I realized this would be impossible (you know, on my personal budget.) I think I made like under 10 searches and racked up over a dollar in fees. Some of the pages actually charge you per search result not even search. So if you query a term and you get 100 results, that's 100 charges.
- varenc 6y ago
  Yes! I used it a bunch and it was free. Had a friend that was prosecuted by the feds. It was a long/complex case and I pulled up all the documents for it, multiple times. I ended up not being charged a thing! Though the pricing was very opaque. I assumed I would be charged something so was surprised a bit when it was all free. (though they should have made this much more clear) I feel like using PACER data to inform stock trading signals is a pretty niche use case... For "regular people" that have a connection with a few cases, I think it should be free, and it was in my experience.

site-packages1 6y ago

I agree that they're public records, but you even have to pay reasonable fees for FOIA requests, which are also public records. There is some cost in maintaining and distributing the records. While it's true that the government could pay for it as a public service, and I believe they should, PACER is self-funded via these fees for now. In that regard, it's actually quite a good system, unreliant on annual budgets by Congress, but instead funded via the users at a pro rata rate for how much use a user gets out of it. Notably, the information is free up to a certain threshold.

dkdk8283 6y ago
Taxes should cover this sans abusers.
- site-packages1 6y ago
  Yeah, that's basically what I said. My comment was more that outside of a normative sense, it's actually a good system.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
duskwuff 6y ago
> You even have to pay reasonable fees for FOIA requests, which are also public records… Hm? FOIA requests are usually made to request the release of data which is not yet available to the public. Most such requests require some level of human intervention, e.g. to determine what sorts of records need to be searched, to perform manual searches on non-digitized or poorly indexed data, and to perform any necessary redaction on the retrieved data. PACER, by contrast, is already fully automated. The court records it searches are all already digitized, and have all been cleared for release; literally the only thing which users are paying for is the operation of the service.
- site-packages1 6y ago
  There are plenty of FOIA requests where the responder simply has to do a quick search of digital internal records that already exist but aren't "public" in the same way that PACER records aren't "public" because they're behind a paywall. Further, it's no longer the case that "most" such requests require human intervention such as "perform[img] manual searches on non-digitized or poorly indexed data," though it is true someone needs to check for redactions. Think of the average case being like the high touch PACER option: someone takes your FOIA request, performs an internal digital search, checks to make sure results look good, and emails them to you. I'd say in this way they're relatively analogous, though you're partially correct in pointing out some of the differences.
6y ago

alexfromapex 6y ago

Agreed this is valuable public information and should be paid for using our taxes before they’re used to pay for useless wars and more aircraft carriers

CrazyCatDog 6y ago
I’m not 100% in agreement with this being valuable. There are many shady people who initiate cases, and if the Pacer data was free, then many would be hurt by having been mentioned as a defendant for cases that had no merit to begin with. The sad reality is that if someone was accused of something and later recused, many casual observers will fail to double click through everything to uncover that the defendant was cleared of any wrong doing. Even worse, many people settle whilst innocent as the cost of litigation exceeds settlement requests—-therefore even if someone did double click to learn the outcome, their reputation is tarnished nonetheless. I hate paying the pacer fees, but if it creates a barrier to people misusing (which I am 100% certain will happen) what they find, then the Pacer fees are in fact a good thing. Put bluntly, unlocking Pacer to be free for all will have a devastating effect on minorities who have been racially targeted by bad actors in the past.

rayiner 6y ago

Case law is free. Apart from that, it’s a self-funding government service like many others. Do you complain about having to pay for a drivers license?

toomuchtodo 6y ago
If my drivers license user fee is funding projects unrelated to issuing me a license, yes. The issue is with soaking PACER users for court costs unrelated to PACER.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Your drivers license fee absolutely does fund projects unrelated to issuing you a license; for instance, in Illinois, they're also part of the road fund.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

pnw_hazor 6y ago

Not really. Most of what is only available on PACER is nuts and bolt lawyering. Opinions and orders are available for free from government sources. Also, important motions and other filings are usually made available too. It costs money to run PACER, so fees are required, like for many government services. The issue here is that the collected fees were higher than needed, providing a slush fund that did not require congressional appropriation. Similarly, the USPTO is self-funded by user fees that are over priced. The excess fees provide a slush fund for congress.

belltaco 6y ago
>Opinions and orders are available for free from government sources. Also, important motions and other filings are usually made available too. Where are opinions and order available?