3 ms·
PACER was designed in the early 1990s, before the internet was popular, i.e., when AOL was the internet for most of America. Indeed, PACER is probably as old,
by rprasad 14y ago
PACER was designed in the early 1990s, before the internet was popular, i.e., when AOL was the internet for most of America. Indeed, PACER is probably as old, if not older than, most HN users.
It has not been upgraded since then, largely because Congress has not provided sufficient funds to the courts for them to do so (appropriations in the past two decades have largely been reserved for operations or for courtroom construction, but not technological upgrades. Much of the money from PACER access fees goes toward meeting the shortful in the operation budget, because Congress in its infinite wisdom has underfunded the federal courts for most of the last two decades.
(It's wierd that I have spent most of the last two days defending the American court system...)
- nowarninglabel 14y agoIf you say it's a matter of funding, where do the extra revenues PACER takes in beyond cost go? Are they appropriated back into the general fund and thus not usable for upgrades?
- rdl 14y agoThanks for all of your contributions on this issue, btw -- I disagree with very little of it on matters of fact, just in "should be y nor x".
- rsingel 14y agoThis is such a load of self-serving bureaucratic nonsense. Pacer is an awful site that rips off the American people. Even if it is a cash cow, there's NO justification from keeping copyright free documents that are essential to democracy behind a paywall. Increase the fees that Lexis-Nexis pays. Or charge more to submit documents. There's lots of solutions that could work to create a site that's usable and free to the American people. This blame Congress crap has gone on long enough. When will the U.S. court system take its responsibility to the American people seriously? The answer: when people like you stop parroting its rationale.
- tptacek 14y agoDoes 'rprasad work for the court system? Does he have some financial stake in it? If not, how is this "self-serving"? If it's just the idea that you find "self-serving", why did you target it at him specifically with "people like you"? What incentive does he have to "parrot" anything from the courts? The US Courts are underfunded and have crippling case loads. Beyond that, is it even clear that any court has the authority to "increase the fees that Lexis-Nexis pays"? Or to charge more to submit documents?
- rsingel 14y agoLexis-Nexis pays bulk rates to Pacer via contract. Attorneys pay to file documents. Those are set by the U.S. court system, not Congress. He's making the same argument the U.S. court system has made, sub-rosa, for years, as it's raised fees for accessing court documents. It used to be 8 cents a page. Jumped to 10 cents earlier this year.
- ritchiea 14y agoIf they don't have money to upgrade the system, where does their $65 million in operating "income" go? I recognize this question could sound facetious, but I'm genuinely curious. My guess would be that they probably don't have the autonomy to take their budget and do as they please with it. Do PACER profits just get thrown into some general US gov coffer?
- jcromartie 14y ago> It has not been upgraded since then, largely because Congress has not provided sufficient funds to the courts for them to do so What about the $65,000,000 surplus that the service generates? I'd imagine the system could be drastically improved using a tiny fraction of that income. (Of course it could only get worse if they spent $65M on it...)
- cafard 14y agoBack in the 1990s, I remember that staff at the Civil Division of the Department of Justice used to get into PACER by way of dial-up. I really hadn't thought of PACER since about 1996.