5 ms·

The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. That is equally satisfied by

The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. That is equally satisfied by having the court proceedings sealed for a given time, for example 5 years. By then, the information is nearly worthless to a competitor.

passwordoops 3y ago
"Indeed, Google lawyers have explicitly argued that the judge should avoid allowing documents to become public solely because it is “clickbait.” To put it differently, the search giant literally argues material should stay sealed merely because if that material is interesting. " There's nothing about industry secrets. Google's lawyers don't want to "embarrass" the company or its execs.
- thfuran 3y ago
  In a sane world, the lawyer would be censured for even suggesting that.
- batch12 3y ago
  > allowing documents to become public solely because it is “clickbait.” The irony is, the company makes a lot of money from 'clickbait'.
- nerpderp82 3y ago
  It isn't even embarrass, it is backlash at lies, hypocrisy and contorted justifications that they are ultimately making. This judge has no business presiding over this case.
- ploum 3y ago
  "If you want to hide something, you should not be doing it in the first place" Eric Schmidt, then Google CEO
  - fourthark 3y ago
    He meant "you".
- Jensson 3y ago
  Google probably has data of the others bids. If Bing bid billions for that spot as well and Google had to outbid them, then I think it is fair for Google to bring that up as evidence. At the same time Microsoft and Apple probably don't want to reveal to the public what actually happened there, so it makes sense for the judge to keep that under wraps since it isn't related to Google. Google maybe even signed an agreement to keep that secret, so they aren't allowed to reveal evidence about Apple or Microsoft to the public, in that case it wouldn't be fair for the court to force Google to breach that contract just to defend themselves.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Sorry Mr. Judge. Says here I signed this agreement with my competitors that if I'm ever on trial, nothing about it can be made public.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Yeah, I assume that is basically it. What would you expect to happen in that case? I'd assume nobody involved wants the world to see how these deals are made, and the judge probably agreed since this is a trial against Google and not Googles competitors.
__alexs 3y ago
This doesn't really add up to me. If a currently in progress trial is corrupt, we can prevent the harm that a corrupt outcome will cause before it happens. If you have to wait 5 years to discover that the trial was corrupt then we get at least 5 years of harm out of it. Potentially much more because have to retry the case years later will be much much more difficult due to evidence destruction.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  It depends if the goal is to satisfy the public that courts are treating this case fairly, or cases in general fairly. One might imagine that if any unfairness is discovered, laws and processes are adjusted for future cases, but past cases will not be re-reviewed.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    Wait, what should we do if courts are unfair or corrupt? Because honestly, …we’re way past that point in pretty much every country of the world. People are too demoralized or weak to do anything about it, but just for intellectual curiosity, what is supposed to happen when something abnormal happens in our societies?
  - dangerface 3y ago
    One might imagine but so far it has failed to happen in all of human history. The powerful never give up their power.
grumple 3y ago
> The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. Closing the court sessions eliminates that assurance. We have seen multiple times in our history that closed sessions are used to break the laws and conventions of this country in a way that harms our citizens and degrades their rights (see FISA court). > That is equally satisfied by having the court proceedings sealed for a given time, for example 5 years. By then, the information is nearly worthless to a competitor. There's an old saying, "justice delayed is justice denied". If in 5 years it turns out this this judge (who has since retired/died) violated all common sense and fair administration of the law, what happens? Nothing. Hell, even if they are still in office, what's the worst that will happen? They resign in shame? Meanwhile 300 million American people spend 5 years suffering the ill effects of the miscarriage of justice. That is not a fair return and it's not justice. Secrecy is largely incompatible with democracy and justice. Think of why wikileaks was so damaging: because our government did things that were illegal, immoral, and kept them a secret from us. Same thing with the FISA court, which basically eliminated the 4th amendment. And at least those instances relied on the idea that they were special needs due to foreign intelligence requirements and security; Google's only argument is that they might lose money.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. Don't agree. One purpose of public trials is to show the public how much the authorities disapprove of <criminal act X>. That is, public trials are intrinsically show-trials. A second purpose is to punish the defendant for pleading Not Guilty (and/or warn others of the consequences of such a plea); even if you are innocent, your actions will be paraded in public, and subjected to the harshest possible criticism.
dangerface 3y ago
The court houses are public to provide transparency to the public locking that away for 5 years does not provide transparency. I can't use that information when voting if the information is sealed until years after the next election.

passwordoops 3y ago

"Indeed, Google lawyers have explicitly argued that the judge should avoid allowing documents to become public solely because it is “clickbait.” To put it differently, the search giant literally argues material should stay sealed merely because if that material is interesting. " There's nothing about industry secrets. Google's lawyers don't want to "embarrass" the company or its execs.

thfuran 3y ago
In a sane world, the lawyer would be censured for even suggesting that.
batch12 3y ago
> allowing documents to become public solely because it is “clickbait.” The irony is, the company makes a lot of money from 'clickbait'.
nerpderp82 3y ago
It isn't even embarrass, it is backlash at lies, hypocrisy and contorted justifications that they are ultimately making. This judge has no business presiding over this case.
ploum 3y ago
"If you want to hide something, you should not be doing it in the first place" Eric Schmidt, then Google CEO
- fourthark 3y ago
  He meant "you".
Jensson 3y ago
Google probably has data of the others bids. If Bing bid billions for that spot as well and Google had to outbid them, then I think it is fair for Google to bring that up as evidence. At the same time Microsoft and Apple probably don't want to reveal to the public what actually happened there, so it makes sense for the judge to keep that under wraps since it isn't related to Google. Google maybe even signed an agreement to keep that secret, so they aren't allowed to reveal evidence about Apple or Microsoft to the public, in that case it wouldn't be fair for the court to force Google to breach that contract just to defend themselves.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Sorry Mr. Judge. Says here I signed this agreement with my competitors that if I'm ever on trial, nothing about it can be made public.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Yeah, I assume that is basically it. What would you expect to happen in that case? I'd assume nobody involved wants the world to see how these deals are made, and the judge probably agreed since this is a trial against Google and not Googles competitors.

__alexs 3y ago

This doesn't really add up to me. If a currently in progress trial is corrupt, we can prevent the harm that a corrupt outcome will cause before it happens. If you have to wait 5 years to discover that the trial was corrupt then we get at least 5 years of harm out of it. Potentially much more because have to retry the case years later will be much much more difficult due to evidence destruction.

londons_explore 3y ago
It depends if the goal is to satisfy the public that courts are treating this case fairly, or cases in general fairly. One might imagine that if any unfairness is discovered, laws and processes are adjusted for future cases, but past cases will not be re-reviewed.
- eastbound 3y ago
  Wait, what should we do if courts are unfair or corrupt? Because honestly, …we’re way past that point in pretty much every country of the world. People are too demoralized or weak to do anything about it, but just for intellectual curiosity, what is supposed to happen when something abnormal happens in our societies?
- dangerface 3y ago
  One might imagine but so far it has failed to happen in all of human history. The powerful never give up their power.

grumple 3y ago

> The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. Closing the court sessions eliminates that assurance. We have seen multiple times in our history that closed sessions are used to break the laws and conventions of this country in a way that harms our citizens and degrades their rights (see FISA court). > That is equally satisfied by having the court proceedings sealed for a given time, for example 5 years. By then, the information is nearly worthless to a competitor. There's an old saying, "justice delayed is justice denied". If in 5 years it turns out this this judge (who has since retired/died) violated all common sense and fair administration of the law, what happens? Nothing. Hell, even if they are still in office, what's the worst that will happen? They resign in shame? Meanwhile 300 million American people spend 5 years suffering the ill effects of the miscarriage of justice. That is not a fair return and it's not justice. Secrecy is largely incompatible with democracy and justice. Think of why wikileaks was so damaging: because our government did things that were illegal, immoral, and kept them a secret from us. Same thing with the FISA court, which basically eliminated the 4th amendment. And at least those instances relied on the idea that they were special needs due to foreign intelligence requirements and security; Google's only argument is that they might lose money.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. Don't agree. One purpose of public trials is to show the public how much the authorities disapprove of <criminal act X>. That is, public trials are intrinsically show-trials. A second purpose is to punish the defendant for pleading Not Guilty (and/or warn others of the consequences of such a plea); even if you are innocent, your actions will be paraded in public, and subjected to the harshest possible criticism.

dangerface 3y ago

The court houses are public to provide transparency to the public locking that away for 5 years does not provide transparency. I can't use that information when voting if the information is sealed until years after the next election.