Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

judyrecords.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–289 of 289 posts

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

#281

Post by brobinson »

btdmaster wrote: post #253
brobinson wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

This is why services simply block European IP addresses. If your options are:

1. do extra work to make your service comply with laws in areas you don't live or have any customers

2. put a blanket IP ban in place for these places where you don't live or have customers

3. do nothing

Bigger companies will do number 2, and individuals/small business/small and unmonetized projects will do number 3.

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

#282

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #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: on…

Fixed error in 046.l

    /* percent encode */
      int fileno(FILE *);
      #define p(x,y) {putchar(37);putchar(x);putchar(y);}
    %option nounput noinput noyywrap
    %%
    \x20 p(50,48); /* space */
    \x21 p(50,49); /* exclamation mark */
    \x22 p(50,50); /* double quote */
    \x23 p(50,51); /* pound sign */
    \x24 p(50,52); /* dollar sign */
    \x25 p(50,53); /* percent sign */
    \x26 p(50,54); /* ampersand */
    \x27 p(50,55); /* single quote */
    \x28 p(50,56); /* opening parenthesis */
    \x29 p(50,57); /* closing parenthesis */
    \x2A p(50,42); /* asterisk */
    \x2B p(50,43); /* plus sign */
    \x2C p(50,44); /* comma */
    
    \x2F p(50,47); /* forward slash */
    
    \x3A p(51,65); /* colon */
    \x3B p(51,66); /* semi-colon */
    \x3C p(51,67); /* less than */
    \x3D p(51,68); /* equals sign */
    \x3E p(51,69); /* greater than */
    \x3F p(51,70); /* question mark */
    \x40 p(52,64); /* cuneiform */
    
    \x5B p(53,91); /* opening bracket */
    \x5C p(53,92); /* backslash */
    \x5D p(53,93); /* closing bracket */
    \x5E p(53,94); /* caret */
    
    \x60 p(53,96); /* backquote */
    
    \x7B p(53,123); /* opening brace */
    \x7C p(53,124); /* vertical bar */
    \x7D p(53,125); /* closing brace */
    \15
    %%
    int main(){ yylex();exit(0);}

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

#283

Post by pseingatl »

wolverine876 wrote: post #227
iudqnolq wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, that's not a bill you only have to pay if you get a windfall. That's a bill that (in some places) will be agressively collected as a part of your fines. If you're in prison you also have nearly no rights to a lawyer. (For example, if you want to sue the prison system for inhumane conditions) Edit: For ex you may need to pay fees to be allowed to drive, which you may need to go to work/buy food.

> 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.

Anna Sorokin got 300k from Netflix. Incarcerated individuals may still inherit. Sometimes money comes. The States are not always aggressive in pursuing such funds; but the Feds usually (not always) are.

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

#284

Post by dgellow »

brobinson wrote: post #280
dgellow wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that you understand GDPR fines, the annual revenue is only used as an upper limit for companies with massive revenue.

The service being free doesn't protect you.

> The less severe infringements could result in a fine of _up to €10 million, or 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue_ from the preceding financial year, _whichever amount is higher_.

> The more serious infringements go against the very principles of the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten that are at the heart of the GDPR. These types of infringements could result in a fine of _up to €20 million, or 4% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue_ from the preceding financial year, _whichever amount is higher_.

Source: https://gdpr.eu/fines/

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

#285

Post by brobinson »

dgellow wrote: post #284
brobinson wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure that you understand GDPR fines, the annual revenue is only used as an upper limit for companies with massive revenue. The service being free doesn't protect you. > The less severe infringements could result in a fine of _up to €10 million, or 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue_ from the preceding financial year, _whichever amount is higher_. > The more serious infringements go against the very pri…

Good to know. Hope the author of the site is aware of this if they ever go to Europe.

They should just block European IPs like other sites do, though. It'd be safer for them and also less work.

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

#286

Post by dgellow »

brobinson wrote: post #285
dgellow wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that you understand GDPR fines, the annual revenue is only used as an upper limit for companies with massive revenue. The service being free doesn't protect you. > The less severe infringements could result in a fine of _up to €10 million, or 2% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue_ from the preceding financial year, _whichever amount is higher_. > The more serious infringements go against the very pri…

Good to know. Hope the author of the site is aware of this if they ever go to Europe. They should just block European IPs like other sites do, though. It'd be safer for them and also less work.

Yep. But as I said, California CCPA is more or less equivalent to GDPR, so even this might not be enough.

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

#287

Post by YPPH »

not-a-lawyer wrote: post #259
YPPH wrote: post #183

Does 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.

Thanks, this is a very convincing answer.

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

#288

Post by dgfitz »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #143
dgfitz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in California you only need to pass the bar to become a lawyer, no expensive degree required.

That does not appear to be correct. You can see the requirements to be admitted to the California Bar here: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/admissions/requirements Note in particular the education requirement: > Here are all the options: > - Three or four years of study at a law school accredited by the American Bar Association > - Four years of study at a State Bar-registered, fixed-facility law school > - Four years of s…

I stand corrected.

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

#289

Post by dspoka »

pseingatl wrote: post #237

A lot of commentators are missing the point. Caselaw is what lawyers rely on to determine what the law is. For years, there was a monopoly, the privately-held West Corporation in Minnesota. In the 1970s, the field became a duopoly, with the advent of Lexis. West eventually sold out to Thompson, the company is now Thompson-West. Computer-assisted legal research was extremely expensive. The Air Force set up FLITE, but…

Do you have any good write up on this? Was always interested in the how this space is still locked up.
Post reply on HN