Public Records Belong to the Public

The Times and Mr. Liptak are absolutely right about this. Public access to government records, including court documents, should be free and easy. I tried to access Federal court documents a few weeks ago, as an individual trying to learn more about an issue I read about in the Times. I ran in to the Pacer paywall, and had to stop. I could have afforded the fees, but I didn't know how high they would be - though I understand from Mr. Liptak there is a cap on the fee, that was not made clear to me on Pacer. And the search engine needs to be as user friendly as possible, so that non-lawyers can find what they are looking for.

Wouldn't a 0.1% tax on the super rich fund PACER forever at no cost to the rest of the population? Isn't that an idea the rich can "buy" into?

Pennsylvania charges 25 cents a page, raised from 10 cents about a year ago, along with a $5 service fee -- even for a one-page download from its court records. PACER overcharges. Pennsylvania's system is highway robbery, disenfranchising its residents.

@nytimes, in the meantime, try Docketbird (www.docketbird.com). They crowdsource access to PACER docs such that once a document is downloaded the first time, it is free for everyone else. Since litigants are entitled to a free copy, if they also use the service, it is free for all. If multiple news orgs join as a consortium, you could share any costs between you rather than each paying separately for the same material. Their subscription fee is very reasonable and you can also set up notifications for free. Oh, and did I mention they OCR everything so everything is fully searchable? Great service that will only get better the more people who use it!

While the cost is probably not "free," it sounds like PACER should reflect the actual cost of providing the documents. PACER should pay for itself and its own infrastructure needs and not be subsidizing the rest.

It would be nice if public records were all still public. Some are not public any longer. If you think you are overcharged for a copy of a public record by the government, just try to get one that has been turned over to a private entity. You will pay 10 x more, and will have to hand over some of your privacy,too. Talk about "privatization"! Yes, government records, especially those having to do with geneology, have been sold to private companies in exchange for their digitizing the records and putting them online. They are then behind the company's paywall, and you either have to pay for membership, or sign up for a "free trial" so they can get your e-mail address and use it to market stuff to you or sell it to other companies. Donate to Reclaim the Records - they are an organization that is filing suit in court so that public records can again be public.

So is the Editorial Board driving free printing of anything anyone wants to see? Wow, the expanse of government entitlements knows no bounds at the request of the NYTimes. And most comments seem to agree. Free, free, free. NOTHING is free. And if they were to make it 'free' (another tax payer funded agency?) then they will need to start cutting down what remains of our forests as free means no obligation to limit. Public Records belong to the courts, they are public only because they haven't been labeled classified or hidden by court order.

For those who have only done research in the post-online filing era, the costs may seem high. But they are nothing compared to the costs and delays associated with being unable to access court records without physically going to the appropriate district court clerk's office to get copies, or else hoping to get a helpful clerk on the phone, determine what documents were needed, get a cost per page (it was 25 cents per as I recall with was 50+ cents per in today's money) PLUS return postage costs, and the clerk required payment in advance which meant sending a check and a return envelope by some kind of fast delivery service. So now there may be excessive costs, how much is making up for the accrued costs of setting up the system? Both sides need to be considered before resetting costs to the user. And as a long-time user of many court document systems, PACER actually quite user friendly if you take time to learn the system's full features.

Make it apply to lost Birth Certificates, auto titles, homeowners deeds, bonds, certificates of deposit, insurance policy copies etc?

Note: While PACER coss 10 cents a page, the user is not billed unless he exceeds $10 worth or charges in any month. The article is somewhat misleading in it presentation of user fees. I also note that the Editorial Board believes that their use of PACER should be free-of charge when they do, in fact, charge for the product that they produce based on "free" information. The press should, perhaps, get a volume discount, but their access should not be free of charge as long as others are having to pay.

I see no reason why ALL government records shouldn't be reduced to digital copies and made available for public inspection. There would be, of course, carve-outs for currently protected records that fall under the protection of executive privilege or statutory protection, but everything else should be available. We could take all of the monies paid by government to research FOIA requests to fund the creation and operation of the new systems. This would go a long way towards the goal of open government and increased trust in and credibility of our systems of government and the people engaged to do The People's work.

I'll share this with my congressman. Later: I did. And my senator.

February 8, 2018 In and ideal world of the modern electronic information age -there indeed requires seamless access to uploading information as needed and there is then no need to costs to the public access. As such my enjoyment of accesing articles at the NYT or at my NY Public library free data bases is free and in both cases we all win for the information is a remedy for deterrence or learning the practices of the the laws and events that will guide and educate or public in many, many important fields of study and knowledge at the source of quality data management - with times for corrections - or as at the Times its comments are managed to its selection of import and saves the readership from annoyances incurred by circumstance......

The text of the proposed reform act says nothing about how to fund either the web site or the other items that are being covered by the fees now. The sponsor (Representative Collins of Georgia) voted for the deficit-exploding Trump tax cuts. Let's fund the needs of the courts and let's not pay for ongoing costs through ongoing deficits.

I do work for a small not-for-profit with very little resources. One of the things we do is research cases, and the PACER fees are a real drain on our budget. I hope this lawsuit succeeds in getting the fees lowered to the actual cost.

During the shutdown, PACER fees allowed the courts to stay open with no drop-off in service. Same story in 2013. Unfettered access to electronic documents may come with a price, namely, access to the courts and court staff - the people who answer your questions about deadlines, hearings and, yes, documents. Without PACER fees, court employees would have been furloughed or working without a paycheck, just like everybody else.

Way to lobby for your own bottom line. Sorry you find the fees onerous. I suppose I would too if I were regularly on the receiving end. However, you're looking at public record requests the wrong way. All government money is coming from the same pot. You the tax payer. We can lower fees on Pacer but the court system is just going to need to find some other way to buy flat-screen TVs for jurors. Public records fees are a tax on high demand users. It's sort of like the toll on the GWB. If you're not using the GWB everyday, you don't care. No occasional driver thinks very hard about how that money gets spent. If you're driving that bridge every day though, you start to care. Instead of complaining about the fees, you should ask why that money isn't used to improve the system you rely on so heavily and your fees are supporting. Searchable PDFs are a quite sensible demand. You'll quickly get your money back in employee hours saved. What is the technical hurdle preventing searchable PDFs? Regardless of what the ECRRA says in writing, I guarantee you the implementation of that law is much more complicated than you think. Have you ever bothered to ask public records administrators what challenges they are facing when dealing with Pacer? They aren't intentionally trying to keep the records from you. However, sometimes providing them to you is easier said than done. Imagine a world before Pacer. Think about that one.

Although this article is about a particular legislation and system, this problem extends to all parts of government. The ridiculous and often enormous fees local, state and federal governments across the country use as an intentional hindrance to access documents is blatantly a violation of public record laws. It's unbelievable what our governments will do to hide public information from us.

"But the public can gain access to these public documents online only by paying significant fees." Last I checked, the NYT charges a subscription fee. Yet the news belongs to and relates to the public. Why charge the public? The NYT also solicits advertisements. The courts cannot/ If the court documents were to be made public, who bears the expense? The public of course, even that public that does not want the documents. So why should the public subsidize or pay for the requests of the NYT. What your editorial policy can argue is for fair and reasonable prices not free.

This is a no-brainer. The problem, of course, is that government types who bleat about transparency because it sounds good all-too-often do the exact opposite in real life. Barack Obama is a prime example. His first act as president was to sign an executive order telling agencies to quit stonewalling. Then he became one of the most secretive presidents in modern history, exempting the White House from FOIA requests and racking up a record $36 million plus in legal bills during his last year in office fighting record requests. Pacer is a relic of the past, when courts charged 50 cents per page, or more, for copies and cellphones that could take pictures for free didn't exist. Some local courthouses--and many federal courthouses, for that matter--ban cellphones (unless you're a lawyer) and so prevent the public from taking photos of court documents, and good luck getting a digital camera into a courthouse unless you have some kind of badge. When Pacer first surfaced, folks who cared about this sort of thing screamed hallelujah because it was such a vast improvement over what had existed---heck, the first 100 or so pages were, likely still are, free, which was a great loss leader in the political sense. But it's time for an update. Thanks for this editorial. A lot of folks who don't think this matters do an about-face when it affects them or someone they know. It's not just the media.

Of course public records need to be free and easily available, just as one can get last night's ball scores one should be able to get public records (and without the advertising). We assume the fees are used to dissuade people (us) seeking such access. Would the government be that devious ?

The records of mayors' administrations should be public also. I recall that Mayor Rudy Giuliani took possession of his administration's records for the purported protection of them and copying etc. That seemed to me to be a rather flagrant conflict which may have been followed by other administrations at various levels of government.

In a free society there must be a presumption that government records, in whatever form, are free to obtain and easily obtainable. The Freedom of Information Act is instructive here, although it applies to Federal agencies. It presumes open and unfettered access unless, and only if, any of the carefully crafted exceptions apply. The presumption of availability, rebuttable only by narrowly drawn qualifiers, and its attendant costs are a price of freedom, to be borne by the society at-large. Courts are about the public's business, and thus there must be unfettered (free) access to its records.

While we're talking about public records belonging to the public, let's add paid research that should be accessible on government sites. Political appointees overseeing government institutions and departments should not be able to remove language and research that documents climate change. Or any other research that is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. I hope the NY Times will do an investigative series about this.

The advantage of gaining access to the quality and working of the justice system far outweigh the administrative and financial cost of providing free public access to the federal judicial cases and the related documents. For, an informed opinion and active citizen participation in governance do not only ensure its transparency and accountability but is a prerequisite for winning trust of the people in the working of the government specially its judicial arm.

You can receive up to 150 pages from PACER per-quarter free of charge. The fee cannot exceed $3.00 for any one document. Is free better? Of course! But for private citizens it's virtually free now. However ordinary folks cannot see all of the records that are available to others. That's very frustrating.

The documents at issue are available at courthouses for free. The PACER charge is for the convenience of electronic access. 3/4 of those who use PACER are individuals or small entities that pay little or nothing. And academics generally qualify for free access. That leaves large entities, mostly private, that often make large scale document requests. These entities mostly represent lawyers and journalists. So the lawsuit is designed to cut costs for lawyers and journalists at the expense of the government and taxpayers. If the plaintiffs win, taxpayers will be the losers and Fox News and Rudy Giuliani will prevail. Sounds to me like this article is rooting for the wrong side.

We don't really want everything effortlessly, freely available. A little bit of friction in what is supposed to be free helps balance our rights. Do we really want every document in evidence and every word of testimony freely searchable by anyone across the globe with access to a web browser?