Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

judyrecords.com

271–280 of 289 posts

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#271
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and others are essentially arguing that we should put artificial barriers in place for accessing information that is public as a matter of law. Arguably there is information that's public today only because the circumstances at the time when that decision was made were different. But the solution would be to make less information public if it's a problem. Not to tell people they can only access this information w…

I disagree. That is an excellent throttling mechanism. Keeps records open but preserves a modicum of privacy. It's another topic if court records should be public at all, but I gather that's a pretty integral element of US judicial system.

How does that work? Lawyers and others can run searches and have for decades. This isn't anything new, except now you don't have to pay a lot of money.

Either it's private or it's not. Fake throttling that discriminates based one's ability to pay or suffer inconvenience is ridiculous. Not to mention, it's been decades since this information hasn't been available in this format.

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#272
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mixed feelings on this, and a lot of it unfortunately stems from these systems requiring access in-person only as well as courts generally being inaccessible through FOIA. Had these records been available through FOIA from the beginning, for example, then these records would have gone through a review/redaction process. But, they're being released now, which can many ways be seen as a reaction to the lack of access t…

The documents being released are currently publicly available. It looks like records of minors either don't show up, or don't show details. It also looks like expunged convictions do not have the case showing up. FOIA doesn't apply for two reasons. One is like you say - many court documents are considered privileged and not subject to FOIA (which I agree has many issues around things like complaints). The other is th…

Access to justice and information about justice shouldn't be gatekept through money. I understand where you're going with it, but it's very close to the same reasoning used to justify ex[tp]ensive bail -- it only fucks the poor.

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#273
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The documents being released are currently publicly available. It looks like records of minors either don't show up, or don't show details. It also looks like expunged convictions do not have the case showing up. FOIA doesn't apply for two reasons. One is like you say - many court documents are considered privileged and not subject to FOIA (which I agree has many issues around things like complaints). The other is th…

Access to justice and information about justice shouldn't be gatekept through money. I understand where you're going with it, but it's very close to the same reasoning used to justify ex[tp]ensive bail -- it only fucks the poor.

"Access to justice and information about justice shouldn't be gatekept through money."

I agree. My comment was about how this site allows that access for free. And also that FOIA is moot for this information - it's publicly available without a request.

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#275
Simple judyrecords continuation search from command line. Requires sed, netcat, stunnel and flex.

    setup:    
    flex -8iCrf 045.l;
    cc  -std=c89 -Wall -pedantic -pipe lex.yy.c -static -o yy045; 
    flex -8iCrf 046.l;
    cc  -std=c89 -Wall -pedantic -pipe lex.yy.c -static -o yy046;  
    stunnel 1.cfg
    echo 127.39.100.156 www.judyrecords.com >> /etc/hosts;
    usage:
    1.sh query > results.htm
    1.sh > results.htm
    
        #!/bin/sh 
        # http/1.1 pipelining: only allowed 3 req then connection closes :(
        x0=$(printf '\r\n');
        x1=www.judyrecords.com;
        x2=$(printf 'host: '${x1}'\r\n');
        x4=$(printf 'connection: close\r\n\r\n');
        case $# in :)
        ;;0) # get next page
        x5=$(sed -n '1{s/.*x3 //;s/ .*//p;};
        /Go to next page/{s/.*href=\"//;s/\".*//p;}');
        x6=$(echo "${x5}"|sed -n \$p);
        x5=$(echo "${x5}"|sed -n 1p);
        test "${x5}" -a "${x6}"||exit 1;
        sed "s/ *//" "|sed "s/${x0}//g";
        echo "";
        sed "s/ *//" 

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#276

Simple judyrecords continuation search from command line. Requires sed, netcat, stunnel and flex. setup: flex -8iCrf 045.l; cc -std=c89 -Wall -pedantic -pipe lex.yy.c -static -o yy045; flex -8iCrf 046.l; cc -std=c89 -Wall -pedantic -pipe lex.yy.c -static -o yy046; stunnel 1.cfg echo 127.39.100.156 www.judyrecords.com >> /etc/hosts; usage: 1.sh query > results.htm 1.sh > results.htm #!/bin/sh # http/1.1 pipelining: on…

Super interesting. Can you share screenshots or video of how this all comes together?

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#277
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to justice and information about justice shouldn't be gatekept through money. I understand where you're going with it, but it's very close to the same reasoning used to justify ex[tp]ensive bail -- it only fucks the poor.

"Access to justice and information about justice shouldn't be gatekept through money." I agree. My comment was about how this site allows that access for free. And also that FOIA is moot for this information - it's publicly available without a request.

My point is that we should have gone through a FOIA route from the beginning.

And no, a lot of important information still isn't publicly available, so we still have these issues that need to be ironed out for the exact same reason as I'm describing. This release still only scratches the surface. I'm able to get court documents from city law departments, but the process takes forever (ten complaints per week, for example) and the alternative is to go downtown to work with computer systems that have poor search capabilities.

Had we been (and been able to be) aggressive from a FOIA perspective from the beginning, the inefficiencies of these systems (eg, segmentting private information is stored in court records) would be more ironed out.

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does an unmonetized website about US court cases, presumably targeted towards Americans, need to care about GDPR?

Who says this website is unmonetized? The search query stream alone is very valuable.

There's no way to make an account, and there isn't any functionality for payment. There aren't even any Paypal/Patreon accounts or donation links. The info page on the site literally says "judyrecords is a 100% free nationwide search engine".

How do you think this website is monetized in the absence of those things?

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's not a bill you only have to pay if you get a windfall You can't get a windfall as a criminal defendant, just a conviction or not.

That's (mostly) true, but unrelated to what I meant. I meant to say if the government determines you can't afford a lawyer, it will (sometimes) bill you for the lawyer it provides. Sometimes if you're very poor you get debts that in theory you have to pay but in practice won't be pursued unless you get a windfall, because you don't have any money. This isn't one of those.

I see what you mean - a windfall independently of the criminal prosecution. That makes sense.

Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does an unmonetized website about US court cases, presumably targeted towards Americans, need to care about GDPR?

Because the website is accessed by Europeans, meaning it is collecting Europeans data (via google analytics). But also because California has CCPA which is more or less equivalent to GDPR (as far as I understand at least. I might be incorrect).

Got it. In that case, whatever European commission is in charge of GDPR fines can charge them a % of their $0/year income like other GDPR violators.
Post reply on HN