6 ms·

This is... not great. It's crucial that these records be open to public inspection. But instant full-text search of the entire dockets of 630M cases feels wrong

This is... not great. It's crucial that these records be open to public inspection. But instant full-text search of the entire dockets of 630M cases feels wrong, invasive, and dangerous to me. It's yet another instance of panopticon surveillance now being too cheap to meter. I think our society needs to come to grips with this new reality and figure out what to do about it. Or are we all just cool with this?

EvanAnderson 5y ago
Powerful corporate and government actors have massive surveillance and data warehousing capabilities that aren't going away. At the very least, putting those powers into the hands of the public helps to level the playing field. Society will have to change to accommodate the digital panopticon. I don't see the digital panopticon going away, though.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > putting those powers into the hands of the public helps to level the playing field Agreed, but ... > Powerful corporate and government actors have massive surveillance and data warehousing capabilities that aren't going away. To nitpick: They aren't going away as long as we spread that message. It's not easy, but we can make them go away. People do accomplish things and change the world - just compare today's world with 500 years ago; all the differences the result of people changing things. Defeatism is trendy, and who benefits? (The status quo.)
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    > To nitpick: They aren't going away as long as we spread that message. ... Defeatism is trendy, and who benefits? It's not defeatism-- it's just being realistic. I don't believe there's any useful method to make government actors comply with the law. I have an, admittedly US perspective, but evidence the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, the NSA and the subsequent Church committee hearings, and Snowden's disclosures as examples. The power afforded by mass surveillance and data warehousing is too attractive not to be abused.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > It's not defeatism-- it's just being realistic. You must have heard that line from pessimists 10,000 times before. There would be no startups, science, democracy, etc. if people believed it. We'd be living in caves - 'let's be realistic, we've been living in them for 190,000 years!' > I don't believe there's any useful method to make government actors comply with the law. The evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise: Many, many government actors have been caught, prosecuted and punished, at every level - including multiple Presidents, at least one Vice President (off the top of my head), members of Congress, federal judges, generals and admirals, and more, and that's just the federal level. Goverments have widely differing levels of corruption, and the US has in the past been one of the best - so it's effective. Other countries are also more and less effective than the US, and we can see what they do and what works. There is plenty of research. Nothing is stopping you, but you. The current trend in defeatism - against all evidence, in a country with one of the most effective governments in the history of humanity - serves someone's interests. Who? Who benefits from spreading this message?
codechad 5y ago
There are public court records (criminal, civil), and there are non-public court records (e.g. sealed - juvenile, divorce, etc.) As far as I can tell, all of this data is of the public nature. While it may feel weird to type in someone's name and see their history with regard to legal filings... that is the society we live in: an open society. Aggregating a number of disconnected data sources for search I think is absolutely a legitimate usage of the data.
- lazide 5y ago
  FYI, I found a couple folks I know’s divorce records. So I wouldn’t assume those hard and fast rules apply consistently.
  - codechad 5y ago
    Fair enough - in my state they are limited to parties involved and their counsel. The public can still see the filing and result (when the divorce was granted), but the actual documents are restricted so as not to air all of one's dirty laundry unnecessarily.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- drewmol 5y ago
  I have some records that are sealed, but show up in this database. So there are records that were once ‘public’ but are no more, but this database makes them public again.
mmastrac 5y ago
Don't lawyers already have access to case law like this? I feel like this is not a new thing, but giving access to everyone is novel. I could be wrong on my facts.
- lazide 5y ago
  Generally you’ve had to pay for an expensive service (Lexus nexus), or go to the courthouse yourself to pull the records. Search was also a bit of a black art. So generally easy to hide in the noise. Here you can just put in a name, and off you go.
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    Lexis has the best search capabilities, but there are dozens of cheap clones now that start at $10/month to search these same records.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  The public has access to most local court data in my state (Ohio, US) thru websites run by the various local courts. A state-level database for government use is, as far as I know, still not actually available (though it has been in planning and some phase of execution for 10+ years).
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Don't lawyers already have access to case law like this? Yes, through expensive services like Westlaw and Lexis.
anonu 5y ago
I couldn't find my name. And i know it should be in here. So I'm not that worried yet...
- vanusa 5y ago
  There's no escape. It's just a matter of time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
vasco 5y ago
These records have always been available to people with money to spend on a lawyer with a subscription. So what you're complaining about is that normal people can also access the information now.
- alangibson 5y ago
  Nice false equivalence. Lawyer: duty-bound professional, is an officer of the court, can be publicly disbarred, very expensive degree that needs to be paid off Some guy on the internet with an axe to grind: ???
  - dgfitz 5y ago
    I believe in California you only need to pass the bar to become a lawyer, no expensive degree required.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      I’m sure both of the attorneys who have done an apprenticeship are happy about that.
      - dgfitz 5y ago
        The happiness of lawyers is something I am quite happy to not care about. :)
    - SkittyDog 5y ago
      You're all missing the point... ANYbody with a Lexis Nexus subscription, or a Bloomberg terminal, or one of those background check sites, already has this exact capability. It's not new. You dont need to be a lawyer to access any of it... I think the other poster simply meant that lawyers generally have Lexis subscriptions, already. Also, the various court databases this site is searching are ALREADY online and publicly available, and have been for years. This is just providing a free, unified interface with a fast search index.
sockpuppet69 5y ago
SkittyDog 5y ago
I think you may be misunderstanding what this is... All of these documents were ALREADY public records, and were ALREADY available online. Most US courts have been publishing these records online, for a while now. And they are ALREADY other websites/search products that provide a unified search interface... Lexis Nexus is probably the biggest/oldest, and I believe Bloomberg also has this feature... There are dozens (if not hundreds) of cheap public record search websites that charge $10/month for it, too. If you're surprised by all this, you haven't been paying attention... For a few decades now.
mgdlbp 5y ago
Seems closer to a form of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
oh_sigh 5y ago
Sure, why not? It's not like anything embarrassing or things you want kept secret should be in court proceedings https://www.judyrecords.com/record/vvfe9mivbec8c https://www.judyrecords.com/record/vvfe9mivbec8c
zomglings 5y ago
I don't see any problem with this. These cases are in the public record, why should the public not have the ability to search them for free without requiring access to expensive legal indices?
- ameister14 5y ago
  The public has always had the ability to search them, it's just been more difficult to do in the past. Lowering the barriers to this is not necessarily a good thing. For example: if I have to drive to the county clerk's office to get records, I am unlikely to do so. This means that if I need the information, I will go get it, but if I do not need it, I won't bother. The patent section being so easily searched is very useful and I see no downsides there.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bvirb 5y ago
When the giant Equifax hack happened creditors had to start doing more diligence to make sure they weren't allowing fraudulent borrowing since it was happening so frequently. So optimistically maybe having lots of information public and easily searchable like this ultimately leads to a similar outcome. Like maybe it forces us to stop using date of birth to verify identity since it's so easy to find anyone's date of birth. If the information is going to be out there maybe it's safer for everyone to have it than just a few people. If just a few people have it, and they use it to screw just a few other people, there's no pressure to fix it. Or of course maybe that's wishful thinking.

EvanAnderson 5y ago

Powerful corporate and government actors have massive surveillance and data warehousing capabilities that aren't going away. At the very least, putting those powers into the hands of the public helps to level the playing field. Society will have to change to accommodate the digital panopticon. I don't see the digital panopticon going away, though.

wolverine876 5y ago
> putting those powers into the hands of the public helps to level the playing field Agreed, but ... > Powerful corporate and government actors have massive surveillance and data warehousing capabilities that aren't going away. To nitpick: They aren't going away as long as we spread that message. It's not easy, but we can make them go away. People do accomplish things and change the world - just compare today's world with 500 years ago; all the differences the result of people changing things. Defeatism is trendy, and who benefits? (The status quo.)
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  > To nitpick: They aren't going away as long as we spread that message. ... Defeatism is trendy, and who benefits? It's not defeatism-- it's just being realistic. I don't believe there's any useful method to make government actors comply with the law. I have an, admittedly US perspective, but evidence the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, the NSA and the subsequent Church committee hearings, and Snowden's disclosures as examples. The power afforded by mass surveillance and data warehousing is too attractive not to be abused.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > It's not defeatism-- it's just being realistic. You must have heard that line from pessimists 10,000 times before. There would be no startups, science, democracy, etc. if people believed it. We'd be living in caves - 'let's be realistic, we've been living in them for 190,000 years!' > I don't believe there's any useful method to make government actors comply with the law. The evidence is overwhelmingly otherwise: Many, many government actors have been caught, prosecuted and punished, at every level - including multiple Presidents, at least one Vice President (off the top of my head), members of Congress, federal judges, generals and admirals, and more, and that's just the federal level. Goverments have widely differing levels of corruption, and the US has in the past been one of the best - so it's effective. Other countries are also more and less effective than the US, and we can see what they do and what works. There is plenty of research. Nothing is stopping you, but you. The current trend in defeatism - against all evidence, in a country with one of the most effective governments in the history of humanity - serves someone's interests. Who? Who benefits from spreading this message?

codechad 5y ago

There are public court records (criminal, civil), and there are non-public court records (e.g. sealed - juvenile, divorce, etc.) As far as I can tell, all of this data is of the public nature. While it may feel weird to type in someone's name and see their history with regard to legal filings... that is the society we live in: an open society. Aggregating a number of disconnected data sources for search I think is absolutely a legitimate usage of the data.

lazide 5y ago
FYI, I found a couple folks I know’s divorce records. So I wouldn’t assume those hard and fast rules apply consistently.
- codechad 5y ago
  Fair enough - in my state they are limited to parties involved and their counsel. The public can still see the filing and result (when the divorce was granted), but the actual documents are restricted so as not to air all of one's dirty laundry unnecessarily.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
drewmol 5y ago
I have some records that are sealed, but show up in this database. So there are records that were once ‘public’ but are no more, but this database makes them public again.

mmastrac 5y ago

Don't lawyers already have access to case law like this? I feel like this is not a new thing, but giving access to everyone is novel. I could be wrong on my facts.

lazide 5y ago
Generally you’ve had to pay for an expensive service (Lexus nexus), or go to the courthouse yourself to pull the records. Search was also a bit of a black art. So generally easy to hide in the noise. Here you can just put in a name, and off you go.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  Lexis has the best search capabilities, but there are dozens of cheap clones now that start at $10/month to search these same records.
EvanAnderson 5y ago
The public has access to most local court data in my state (Ohio, US) thru websites run by the various local courts. A state-level database for government use is, as far as I know, still not actually available (though it has been in planning and some phase of execution for 10+ years).
wolverine876 5y ago
> Don't lawyers already have access to case law like this? Yes, through expensive services like Westlaw and Lexis.

anonu 5y ago

I couldn't find my name. And i know it should be in here. So I'm not that worried yet...

vanusa 5y ago
There's no escape. It's just a matter of time.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vasco 5y ago

These records have always been available to people with money to spend on a lawyer with a subscription. So what you're complaining about is that normal people can also access the information now.

alangibson 5y ago
Nice false equivalence. Lawyer: duty-bound professional, is an officer of the court, can be publicly disbarred, very expensive degree that needs to be paid off Some guy on the internet with an axe to grind: ???
- dgfitz 5y ago
  I believe in California you only need to pass the bar to become a lawyer, no expensive degree required.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    I’m sure both of the attorneys who have done an apprenticeship are happy about that.
    - dgfitz 5y ago
      The happiness of lawyers is something I am quite happy to not care about. :)
  - SkittyDog 5y ago
    You're all missing the point... ANYbody with a Lexis Nexus subscription, or a Bloomberg terminal, or one of those background check sites, already has this exact capability. It's not new. You dont need to be a lawyer to access any of it... I think the other poster simply meant that lawyers generally have Lexis subscriptions, already. Also, the various court databases this site is searching are ALREADY online and publicly available, and have been for years. This is just providing a free, unified interface with a fast search index.

sockpuppet69 5y ago

SkittyDog 5y ago

I think you may be misunderstanding what this is... All of these documents were ALREADY public records, and were ALREADY available online. Most US courts have been publishing these records online, for a while now. And they are ALREADY other websites/search products that provide a unified search interface... Lexis Nexus is probably the biggest/oldest, and I believe Bloomberg also has this feature... There are dozens (if not hundreds) of cheap public record search websites that charge $10/month for it, too. If you're surprised by all this, you haven't been paying attention... For a few decades now.

mgdlbp 5y ago

Seems closer to a form of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

oh_sigh 5y ago

Sure, why not? It's not like anything embarrassing or things you want kept secret should be in court proceedings https://www.judyrecords.com/record/vvfe9mivbec8c https://www.judyrecords.com/record/vvfe9mivbec8c

zomglings 5y ago

I don't see any problem with this. These cases are in the public record, why should the public not have the ability to search them for free without requiring access to expensive legal indices?

ameister14 5y ago
The public has always had the ability to search them, it's just been more difficult to do in the past. Lowering the barriers to this is not necessarily a good thing. For example: if I have to drive to the county clerk's office to get records, I am unlikely to do so. This means that if I need the information, I will go get it, but if I do not need it, I won't bother. The patent section being so easily searched is very useful and I see no downsides there.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bvirb 5y ago

When the giant Equifax hack happened creditors had to start doing more diligence to make sure they weren't allowing fraudulent borrowing since it was happening so frequently. So optimistically maybe having lots of information public and easily searchable like this ultimately leads to a similar outcome. Like maybe it forces us to stop using date of birth to verify identity since it's so easy to find anyone's date of birth. If the information is going to be out there maybe it's safer for everyone to have it than just a few people. If just a few people have it, and they use it to screw just a few other people, there's no pressure to fix it. Or of course maybe that's wishful thinking.