You better not earn any money on this... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/all-of-mugshots-...
Can you explain your thought process? How is that related?
Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
251–260 of 289 posts
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it collects personally identifiable information (at least IP addresses, but it's not clear where it stops) this requires special treatment under GDPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Analytics#Privacy
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).
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it collects personally identifiable information (at least IP addresses, but it's not clear where it stops) this requires special treatment under GDPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Analytics#Privacy
Why does an unmonetized website about US court cases, presumably targeted towards Americans, need to care about GDPR?
It was just an example; similar issues occur under the CCPA and other legislation. (Assuming no user is covered by GDPR, which is likely not the case.)
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. Court records used to be accessible in person only. You would have to be motivated to find anything. This puts everyone's past and often forgotten transgressions on display. This might look cool or even useful to some, but it's straight up immoral.
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 that documents that are publicly available like this don't need to be requested through FOIA since they are already available.
I can go to my state's website and get the same information as on this site. The thing this site does is allow you to search all state's for free. There are plenty of sites that will allow you to search for people like this, but they currently charge money.
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be more of a problem with the legal system, not this search page.
That's not true. Court records used to be accessible in person only. You would have to be motivated to find anything. This puts everyone's past and often forgotten transgressions on display. This might look cool or even useful to some, but it's straight up immoral.
"This might look cool or even useful to some, but it's straight up immoral."
Again, that's an issue with the legal system. States make this information available to the public online, and have done so for a long time. This is an aggregation, and similar services have been around for a long time.
If you want this information to be private, then you need legislation to be passed. Frankly, this isn't even the most immoral thing the system is involved in with. For example, 2-10% of the incarcerated are wrongly convicted. Or the fact that complaints and misconduct of judges are so secret that even if they contain exculpatory evidence they are not required to be exposed. Or that magistrates in most places are not required to have a law degree nor pass the bar, leading to the farcical outcome that the lawyers arguing the case have more knowledge of the law than the "judge" who is supposed to be the authority on the law. The list goes on and on. One day, enough people will be screwed over by the system that there won't be support for it anymore.
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#256Nice work, very fast, simple display. Also, I learned that a speeding ticket I never paid back in the 80's is still an open case, and that a few articles I wrote in the 90's have been cited in dozens of patents. Yippee.
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#257Nice work, very fast, simple display. Also, I learned that a speeding ticket I never paid back in the 80's is still an open case, and that a few articles I wrote in the 90's have been cited in dozens of patents. Yippee.
Doesn’t that mean you can be arrested in that state?
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#258Nice work, very fast, simple display. Also, I learned that a speeding ticket I never paid back in the 80's is still an open case, and that a few articles I wrote in the 90's have been cited in dozens of patents. Yippee.
Doesn’t that mean you can be arrested in that state?
Probably? I haven't been there in years, but I'll be contacting them to pay the fine.
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#259Does anyone know why American court opinions tend to omit the word "the" before plaintiff and defendant? For instance "Afterwards plaintiff sued defendant claiming damages". In Australia and the UK, this would be "Afterwards the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages". In general US opinions seem more concise and formulaic than their Anglo counterparts. This is just one striking example. I'm just curious about…
American courts generally give very strict and tight page limits when submitting briefs, so American legal writing has evolved to be concise as possible. The best lawyers regularly and repeatedly cut their briefs to length, removing any superfluous words. There's no requirement to omit "the" before plaintiff and defendant, but it's acceptable and saves space, so everyone does it.
Re: Show HN: Full text search on 630M US court cases
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be more of a problem with the legal system, not this search page.
That's not true. Court records used to be accessible in person only. You would have to be motivated to find anything. This puts everyone's past and often forgotten transgressions on display. This might look cool or even useful to some, but it's straight up immoral.
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 when the town clerk is in the office--and he doesn't come in much.