6 ms·

National Day of PACER Protest

49 points by gbotelho 12y ago

rando289 12y ago
I am all for pacer reform, but I cannot see more than .05% of readers getting past the statues analogy around line 7, where this document has yet to even hint at the argument it is making. Also, lots of unexplained, unreadable, unrelated text at the top. It begins "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR PUBLIC OPINION." Well, please think about what this means. It means, each time you make us read something like that before getting to the point you lose about half of the public, and this document does about 30 times over.
hackuser 12y ago
This needs a more descriptive title. It give readers little indication of what this is about. How about: "National Day of PACER Protest - Carl Malamud, Public.Resource.Org"
- gbotelho 12y ago
  updated!
hackuser 12y ago
Carl Malamud might get more support for this idea if he could boil it down to fewer than 61 paragraphs.
- Titanous 12y ago
  Here are some shorter/alternative takes on the situation: http://freelawproject.org/2015/03/20/what-is-the-pacer-problem/ http://freelawproject.org/2015/03/20/what-is-the-pacer-probl... http://qz.com/283772/why-pacer-should-and-should-not-be-like-edgar/ http://qz.com/283772/why-pacer-should-and-should-not-be-like... https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/making-excuses-for-fees-on-electronic-public-records/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/making-excuses-for-fe... There are many more if you take time to peruse the Re: PACER document and click through the citations.
  - josinalvo 12y ago
    Using PACER: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA4Z9LEJSBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA4Z9LEJSBw
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Looks like a good target for the US Digital Service. [1] "Every day, millions of people interact with the American government. We apply for Social Security benefits and small business loans. We look for affordable health insurance and financial aid. We need passports and tax refunds. Too often, these interactions can be frustrating and cumbersome because of outdated tools and unreliable systems. Government is ready for a change." -- https://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-service https://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-ser...
- hackuser 12y ago
  Does the Digital Service do work for the Judicial Branch? I assumed it only does projects for the Executive Branch. Certainly every branch could use a Digital Service.
  - thinkcomp 12y ago
    No.
yuhong 12y ago
Thinking about it, the charging of search results are what bothers me the most, as it creates perverse incentives.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
I don't really understand the criticism of PACER. It's not necessary to use PACER to access case law. Federal court opinions are published on each court's website, and collected by a number of sources that aggregate them (I've never run across a case that wasn't on Google Scholar). PACER is a filing system used by litigants. The search and other features work great for their intended purpose, which is looking up dockets and keeping track of documents in dockets. You can't full-text search across dockets, but why would you?
- thinkcomp 12y ago
  Not so simple. Different judges define "opinions" differently. Not every material opinion is published on a court's site. There are all kinds of research tasks that require searching full-text briefs and viewing dockets. PACER is a filing system used by reporters, the general public, litigants, and opposing counsel. The fact that public domain materials are locked up behind a paywall illegally is borderline criminal.
  - jsmthrowaway 12y ago
    > The fact that public domain materials are locked up behind a paywall illegally is borderline criminal. (a) Court dockets are not public domain, they're often public record, which is an important difference and (b) pretty much every jurisdiction on the books has set it up so that agencies can recoup their costs when records are accessed. As an example, to get full parcel data for Alameda County, a CD-ROM is $20,000. Considering most of those records involve measurements in furlongs and chains and date from the Gold Rush era, I can understand that digitizing was expensive, but right next to it is a ZIP containing almost the same thing in Shapefile form for free. Nobody said governmental fees to access public records are logical, but calling efforts to recoup costs "illegal" and "borderline criminal" is a bit much. Rein it in. Those are serious (and false) things to say, specifically because of the legislation allowing the practice in almost every venue. Call it anything else like "misguided," and I'm with you. Illegal? Come prepared.
    - thinkcomp 12y ago
thinkcomp 12y ago
For reasons I don't fully understand Carl left out the only lawsuit ever to directly challenge PACER fees, which I filed recently: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northern-district-court/think-computer-foundation-et-al-v-administrative-office-of-the-united-states-courts-et-al/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northe...
Animats 12y ago
As someone who has a paid PACER account, the charges aren't a big deal. Opinions and decisions are free. Only if you need the detailed documents as a case progresses is there a charge. It would be nice to have all that searchable with Google, but it's not a high priority.

49 points by gbotelho 12y ago

I am all for pacer reform, but I cannot see more than .05% of readers getting past the statues analogy around line 7, where this document has yet to even hint at the argument it is making. Also, lots of unexplained, unreadable, unrelated text at the top. It begins "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR PUBLIC OPINION." Well, please think about what this means. It means, each time you make us read something like that before getting to the point you lose about half of the public, and this document does about 30 times over.

hackuser 12y ago

This needs a more descriptive title. It give readers little indication of what this is about. How about: "National Day of PACER Protest - Carl Malamud, Public.Resource.Org"

gbotelho 12y ago
updated!

hackuser 12y ago

Carl Malamud might get more support for this idea if he could boil it down to fewer than 61 paragraphs.

Titanous 12y ago
Here are some shorter/alternative takes on the situation: http://freelawproject.org/2015/03/20/what-is-the-pacer-problem/ http://freelawproject.org/2015/03/20/what-is-the-pacer-probl... http://qz.com/283772/why-pacer-should-and-should-not-be-like-edgar/ http://qz.com/283772/why-pacer-should-and-should-not-be-like... https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/making-excuses-for-fees-on-electronic-public-records/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/making-excuses-for-fe... There are many more if you take time to peruse the Re: PACER document and click through the citations.
- josinalvo 12y ago
  Using PACER: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA4Z9LEJSBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA4Z9LEJSBw

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Looks like a good target for the US Digital Service. [1] "Every day, millions of people interact with the American government. We apply for Social Security benefits and small business loans. We look for affordable health insurance and financial aid. We need passports and tax refunds. Too often, these interactions can be frustrating and cumbersome because of outdated tools and unreliable systems. Government is ready for a change." -- https://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-service https://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-ser...

hackuser 12y ago
Does the Digital Service do work for the Judicial Branch? I assumed it only does projects for the Executive Branch. Certainly every branch could use a Digital Service.
- thinkcomp 12y ago
  No.

yuhong 12y ago

Thinking about it, the charging of search results are what bothers me the most, as it creates perverse incentives.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 12y ago

I don't really understand the criticism of PACER. It's not necessary to use PACER to access case law. Federal court opinions are published on each court's website, and collected by a number of sources that aggregate them (I've never run across a case that wasn't on Google Scholar). PACER is a filing system used by litigants. The search and other features work great for their intended purpose, which is looking up dockets and keeping track of documents in dockets. You can't full-text search across dockets, but why would you?

thinkcomp 12y ago
Not so simple. Different judges define "opinions" differently. Not every material opinion is published on a court's site. There are all kinds of research tasks that require searching full-text briefs and viewing dockets. PACER is a filing system used by reporters, the general public, litigants, and opposing counsel. The fact that public domain materials are locked up behind a paywall illegally is borderline criminal.
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  > The fact that public domain materials are locked up behind a paywall illegally is borderline criminal. (a) Court dockets are not public domain, they're often public record, which is an important difference and (b) pretty much every jurisdiction on the books has set it up so that agencies can recoup their costs when records are accessed. As an example, to get full parcel data for Alameda County, a CD-ROM is $20,000. Considering most of those records involve measurements in furlongs and chains and date from the Gold Rush era, I can understand that digitizing was expensive, but right next to it is a ZIP containing almost the same thing in Shapefile form for free. Nobody said governmental fees to access public records are logical, but calling efforts to recoup costs "illegal" and "borderline criminal" is a bit much. Rein it in. Those are serious (and false) things to say, specifically because of the legislation allowing the practice in almost every venue. Call it anything else like "misguided," and I'm with you. Illegal? Come prepared.
  - thinkcomp 12y ago

thinkcomp 12y ago

For reasons I don't fully understand Carl left out the only lawsuit ever to directly challenge PACER fees, which I filed recently: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northern-district-court/think-computer-foundation-et-al-v-administrative-office-of-the-united-states-courts-et-al/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northe...

Animats 12y ago

As someone who has a paid PACER account, the charges aren't a big deal. Opinions and decisions are free. Only if you need the detailed documents as a case progresses is there a charge. It would be nice to have all that searchable with Google, but it's not a high priority.