Comments Received by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in response
to Request for Comment on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files                               

Each comment has a number, date, and where provided, a geographical identifier.   In cases
where the comment was sent by an individual with no business or professional affiliation noted,
the name of the commentor is not included.  In cases where the comment was sent by an
individual in a professional capacity or on behalf of a group or organization, the name of the
commentor and/or the name of the group is included.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts reserves the right not to post a comment,
or any part thereof, which contains irrelevant or scurrilous material.  Footnotes and endnotes
attached to comments have been omitted.  

No. 1                           
11/08/00
Richard A. Berger
Associated Professional Services
Waterloo, NY
All court records should be available to the public by all means possible at all times, with no
exceptions.

No. 2
11/10/00
Jennifer L. Hathaway
Judgment Recovery Specialist
Foremost Search & Recovery Co.
A division of DAR Services, Inc.
Camden, DE
I am writing in response to the initiative to restrict and/or shut down the electronic/PACER files.
I strongly oppose such mandate to shut down this important outlet to get information.

The use of electronic files, especially PACER, is a very important outlet for professionals that
use this source.  May I also note, that the information contained in these files is a duplicate of the
information contained in the hard copy file located at the court.

Without the information access thru online sources, it would make many professionals jobs
harder.  I collect judgments that debtors owe, but do not pay.  These judgments are legally
rendered in a court of law. 

By limiting or decreasing online sources it would make it highly difficult to locate these debtors. 

While I can understand the problems in today's world with right to privacy, these court
documents are public record, are available as hard copy at the agency they are located at, and are
not altered or added to when put into an online forum, such as PACER.

Please add me to your list of those who do not wish to see this source taken away from the
professionals that use online resources in a legal and professional way.

However, I don't wish to take part in a public hearing.  By all means, use my letter as evidence to
this issue.

No. 3
11/11/00
Charles T. Pinck
President of the Georgetown Group
Washington, DC
(It appears this text appeared in the Legal Times on Monday, October 30, 2000)
Need to Know: In the rush to protect privacy online, Americans must not forget the very real
benefits of public access to information.

Recently, I was contacted by a person whose aunt had died suddenly under mysterious
circumstances and had left her multimillion-dollar estate to a much younger person whom she
had known only a short time. I run an investigative services firm. My new client was very
suspicious that this younger person had exerted undue influence over the aunt and possibly
played a role in her death. But without any actual evidence she couldn't convince the police to
look into the matter.

So I ran a database search available to licensed investigators to find the younger person's address
history and Social Security number. And what I learned was that the deceased aunt's name and
Social Security number were connected to this person's home address - a possible indication of
credit card fraud. Armed with this evidence, my client was able to persuade the police to take up
the case.

As an investigator who specializes in the use of online resources, I do this kind of work all the
time. Sometimes the clients hire my firm directly; sometimes we're hired by the clients' lawyers.
And now in the name of privacy, lawmakers are threatening to stop these database searches.

With the explosion of the Internet and the ever-increasing sophistication of computer technology,
safeguarding personal privacy has understandably become a critical issue. New laws to protect
personal information are being introduced on the state and federal levels at a frenzied pace.

Many of these laws, proposed and already enacted, are reasonable. I'm well aware of the
incredible amount of information available over the Internet and the potential for misuse. New
statutes that address the collection, use, and dissemination of personal information in order to
protect individuals against identity theft and related crimes are needed.

But as I watch the concern about privacy ratchet up, I'm troubled that these efforts to protect
personal privacy will soon restrict access to previously public information. Such information is
absolutely crucial to professional investigators. And investigators play an important and often
unheralded role in our legal system.

The Truth Is Out There            

Professional investigators access personal identifying information from database companies that
require every investigative agency to provide proof of licensing and to abide by specific rules for
its use. We use this information in many ways: to prevent and investigate fraud and other
criminal acts; to find stolen and misappropriated assets; to enforce judgments and locate people
seeking to avoid paying child support and other debts; to investigate the theft of intellectual
property; to find witnesses; to conduct due diligence and background searches; to assist in
litigation; and to discern the truth in a variety of other matters.

Personal identifying information is critical every time a licensed investigator must determine the
correct identity of an individual or verify that documents refer to a specific individual. This is
typically accomplished by matching a name with an address, Social Security number, or date of
birth - commonly referred to as "identifiers." Imagine the difficulty in finding, say, one particular
Michael Brown absent such information.

Database searches based on identifiers, often referred to as "credit headers," are always used
when searching for criminal records, perhaps the most critical aspect of many investigations.
Since the only nationwide criminal record database, the National Criminal Information Center, is
not open to the public, private investigators must look for criminal records jurisdiction by
jurisdiction. To determine where to search, we commonly begin by putting together an address
history from online sources.

For example, an individual's address history gathered online played a major role in a recent due
diligence investigation. With that history, I was able to locate a criminal record that otherwise
would have remained hidden. It persuaded my client not to pursue a multimillion-dollar
investment with a prospective business partner. Without access to credit headers, I wouldn't have
found it.

But new Federal Trade Commission regulations and two bills pending in Congress - the Privacy
and Identity Protection Act (S. 2876 and H.R. 4857) and the Identity Theft Prevention Act (S.
2328 and H.R. 4311) - may soon make such searches impossible. The information contained in
computer databases will be walled off, even to licensed investigators.

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the FTC recently issued privacy regulations, including a
prohibition on the use of credit header information other than for very limited purposes under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. While a literal reading of the act does not require such a prohibition,
the FTC chose to interpret it as applying to credit headers. The agency did this by reversing its
longstanding position that personal identifying information contained in credit reports is not
"financial." By deciding that such information - including a person's name - is "financial," the
FTC is able to claim that this information must be protected under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Back in 1997, the FTC reported to Congress that it saw no need for privacy legislation
concerning credit header information. The new rule, scheduled to be implemented by July 1,
2001, would effectively prohibit most current uses of this information.

The two bills now under consideration in Congress would collectively ban the sale or purchase of
Social Security numbers and require their removal from credit headers, ban the sale of credit
headers altogether, and grant the FTC broad authority to make further rules regarding the use of
personal identifying information.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the proposed Identity Theft Prevention Act is a provision
that would place investigators in the same legal category as credit bureaus. This would require us
to turn over our entire files upon request to suspected felons and others being investigated.
Victims or witnesses, fearing retribution, would be extremely reluctant to speak with any
investigator. We might even have to obtain signed permission from the individuals we
investigate - an obviously unworkable prospect.

Meanwhile, the proposed Amy Boyer's Law (S. 2554), which has been inserted into a "must
pass" appropriations bill, provides a better solution to this problem. It would make it illegal to
sell Social Security numbers to individuals - the greatest source of misuse - but would permit
continued access for licensed investigators and certain other businesses that have a legitimate
need. (As of last Friday, the president was threatening to veto the appropriations bill, in part
because of the Amy Boyer provision.)

Need to Know

Severely restricting access to personal identifying information will undoubtedly aid criminals and
others seeking to hide their illicit activities. It will embolden some individuals to commit even
more crime, knowing that tracking them down will be that much more difficult. It will help
criminals trying to conceal stolen assets and avoid prosecution. Ironically, legislation designed to
protect individuals against identity theft and other types of fraud will cripple investigation of the
very same crimes.

Among those hurt will be lawyers and their clients. Such laws could make the service of process
nearly impossible. They'll increase the cost of hiring investigators, who will have to resort to
more time-consuming, less effective, and costlier techniques.

According to The Wall Street Journal, a 1995 survey of major New York City law firms found
that investigators were retained in approximately "a fifth of the firms' litigation matters . . . a 33
percent increase in the past five years." I'm confident that a survey today would find that use of
investigators had risen even further.

Because state and federal law enforcement agencies are overwhelmed by their workload,
professional investigators also play a critical role in supplementing their efforts.

In short, while laws designed to protect privacy and prevent identity theft are being introduced
with the best of intentions, they will have damaging consequences. Americans need access to
information to protect themselves, their families, and their companies.

Access to public information and the right to privacy are both hallmarks of a healthy society.
Confronted by new and rapidly changing technology, we're struggling to strike a balance between
these two ideals. A former high-ranking military officer (for whom I once worked) told me that
phone books were not publicly available in the old Soviet Union. He also said that he would
never want to live in such a society, where only the government and the police had access to
information.

Americans are blessed with freedom in many different forms, including ones that we don't always
recognize. Many of us take for granted the benefits of the free flow of information. We need to
recognize that unreasonable restrictions placed on access to previously public information will
critically impair the functioning of our legal system and ultimately our society.

No. 4
11/13/00
Arianne Ciarlo
Claimsupport.com
Pompano Beach, FL
I strongly protest the Government's newest initiative to close down access to Pacer and other
Federal Court databases.  This is yet another erosion of the public's right to gain access to open
records that the Privacy special interests and their political machine are
attempting to pressure the Courts to embrace.

If this rule goes through, it will result in an enormous change on how lawyers can obtain
information and the cost thereof.  You will be back to having to hire investigators and paralegals
all over the nation to hand-check court files. 

In short, lawyers will be once again practicing in the stone age and their clients will pick up
the cost of this type of inefficient method of conducting very basic investigation. Once access to
court records on a federal level are changed, the States will also begin to restrict data
commerce on-line by attorneys, investigators, paralegals, etc. While they cannot
shut down access to hard files at the Courthouse, one can only imagine the cost of hiring people
to go to many court facilities to do a single check.

Our experience has shown that "Request For Comments" is the first step that is used to narrow
access, as  was the case by the FTC when it commenced the evisceration of the banking, credit,
and financial databases through its very narrow interpretation of recent law. (Now being
challenged in Federal Court in Washington DC; see IRSG, et al., vs. FTC, et. al.)

No. 5
11/13/00
John Healy
Litigation Intelligence Service
Warner, NH
Courts have always been open and accessible in this country. It is one thing that sets us apart
from Third World Banana Republics. The records are used, daily, by the legal, investigative, law
enforcement and investigative community. Over and above that they should remain open to the
public. They have a right, and there is a basic need for the public to be able to observe this
process.

No. 6
11/13/00
Landers Service Company
Private Investigation
Milton, MA
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. 1) Your privacy questions should be
divided between access by A) licensed professionals and B) general public.  They are two
different questions. 2) Lawyers are individually licensed and responsible to the Board of
Overseers and ultimately to the court in each state where they practice. 3) Private investigators
are licensed and responsible to the state police and ultimately to the courts in each state where
they practice. 4) Both lawyers and private investigators have the professional responsibility to
develop full information on certain individuals and subjects as a duty to their client's right to full
representation before the law. 5) Background investigations performed by private investigators
are severely inhibited by privacy restrictions. Whether the subject of investigation is being
considered for the presidency of a major corporation, coach of a little league team or physician of
a girl swim team, private sector background investigations are critical to public safety and they
are all performed by licensed private investigators. Certainly, the FBI is not restricted in their
investigations of appointees who must appear before the US Congress. A simple matter of public
safety in both areas. 6) The Drivers Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC ch 123 addresses the private
investigator permitted use question better than most, allowing permitted access for permissible
uses. 7) These comments apply to civil, bankruptcy and criminal cases. 8) I have met the touring
PACER people and was very much impressed with them as professionals. 9) Caution: state laws
around the country frequently differ from each other in privacy questions such as criminal
records, birth records, electronic intrusions, interception of oral communication and others as
they also differ from the USC. 10) In your judicial conference be aware of which state each
conferee comes from. Likely, the conferee will reflect that state. 11) Texas and Florida are
outstanding in their records availability to the general public.  Massachusetts is an
embarrassment. Example: In Massachusetts you may have access to criminal records and civil in
any district court or county superior court. You may walk in off the street and search the criminal
and civil indices of the court and order a copy of the file of needed. BUT, you may not search the
index of the entire state all at once via state-wide data base. How can one search every district
and superior court in Massachusetts? One cannot. 12) Television greatly influences public
opinion with very few credentials to do so.  Television portrayal of private detectives is
outrageous. Those programs as created by morons for unthinking people to watch. As a result,
public opinion get formed. I have appeared as a guest speaker several years in a row at the
Romance Writers of America conference trying to teach correct facts about professional
investigators for their books. 13) Medical records. Our office has conducted Contestable Death
Claims investigations for 25 years in the insurance industry all over the United States. Even when
I am armed with letters of representation and authority from the carrier, prior releases from the
deceased, current releases from the beneficiary, probate court executor appointments and all the
rest, it is difficult to obtain the medical history on an individual. And yet, during television talk
shows some privacy freak will appear and claim that PI's can obtain anybody's medical record on
the internet without the persons knowledge and permission. It just plain isn't true. We are
constantly bombarded like this on TV and in other uninformed areas. These are some of my
concerns regarding privacy. Thank you.

No. 7
11/13/00
John P. Frank, Esq.
Lewis and Roca LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
With regard to your request for concerns in relation to the electronic access to court files, my
partners raise one concern: There is a concern that this device will make it very easy for persons
with no legitimate interest to obtain financial information about "targets" for possible fraud.
While this, of course, will be equally true if the evildoer had to go to court to get the file in the
traditional way, this device may made fraud easier. I send no solution to this problem and think it
probably is a cost which simply must be borne. However, in bankruptcy this could be particularly
serious. One of my partners sends me the following paragraph: "The big problem is with
bankruptcy cases, although some appellate cases would involve trade secrets and could be
problematic as well, if readily available. Bankruptcy debtors must disclose their Social Security
numbers, bank account numbers and other details of their lives in their petitions and bankruptcy
schedules. That's not too much of a problem for corporate debtors, but it can be a real problem
for individuals. It would be easy for anyone wanting to "steal a person's identity" to use his Social
Security number and bank account numbers to incur debts in phone transactions and have the
purchased assets shipped to the thief's residence.  I suspect the problems can be much more
severe.

No. 8
11/14/00
William Losefsky
Private Investigator
Goffstown, NH
As a private investigator, I use the pacer court system on a DAILY basis. I assist people and
attorneys to collect court ordered judgments. Without the use of pacer and other public records
data bases, my efforts would be futile.

No. 9
11/14/00
E. Guy Paradee
Chief Investigator
Investigative & Accident Reconstruction Services, Inc.
Rutland, Vermont
I am the President of Vermont's only professional private investigator and security officer
association. I am a former detective lieutenant with the Rutland City Police Department. I hold
two college degrees and working on my Masters. I also teach criminal justice classes at a local
college. I work as the chief investigator and president of a large private investigating and.12
accident reconstruction agency licensed in several states.  I have clients all over the US and
abroad. Obtaining information is what makes most of our investigations successful. The
collection of public information is absolutely essential in forming the foundation of many of our
investigations. Private investigators are not interested in wasting time, energy and money on
obtaining information that is not essential to their investigations. Any while I agree that certain
types of information should be obtained by private investigators or any other type of investigator
for that matter with certain restrictions and "need to know basis", the type of public information
that you seek to restrict is simply wrong. We seek this information for many types of
investigations such as locating witnesses, conducting background investigations on doctors,
nurses, teachers executives and all types of people for pre-employment purposes. The lack of
information that courts contain would be very detrimental in our ability to document any
unlawful or legal problems these people may have had. It is clear that you lack the information
necessary to understand why investigators need this information and what it is used for. I suggest
you listen to the testimony of us and read our letters to educate yourself that there are reasons
why this information is absolutely essential for us to conduct legitimate business with court
information. Thank you for your consideration.

No. 10
11/14/00
Teresa Vila
Premiere Investigation Services
Fort Lauderdale, FL
As a Licensed Private Investigator located in Fort Lauderdale FL, as great deal of my search
options include databases available over the internet to verified users. To prohibit these types of
databases would effectively shut the door on the ability of my small, minority business to
compete in the broader, nationwide market. Without an unlimited bank account to facilitate in
person searches, we would not be able to provide customers with any services. This would limit
our firm to taking on local cases only, and could, in all likelihood, cause us to go out of business.
The ability to obtain accurate and detailed information is the cornerstone of our business. We
train our employees to decipher data provided accurately. To involve the time, travel and money
necessary for in-person searches is beyond our reach. This is the age of technology, the year is
almost 2001. To return to an antiquated system rather that the advanced systems appearing on an
almost daily basis, is to walk backwards. We should all embrace technology for what it is -The
ability to provide data to a wide range of acceptable users. Let us go forward, not backwards!

No. 11
11/14/00
Ted L. Moss, President
The Background Network, Inc.
Cleveland, OH
Regarding the proposed restriction on public access to electronic case files at the federal level, I
would like to offer the following commentary.  My name is Ted Moss.  I am the President of The
Background Network, Inc.  I am also a member of the American Society for Industrial Security
and the Legislative Committee Chairman for the Cleveland Chapter.  Our organization conducts
pre-employment screening for employers on a nationwide level.  Restricting electronic access to
public records is, in my opinion, the same as restricting access.  I am sending accompanying
articles which I have written in the past regarding this subject.  Most recently, the Driver Privacy
Protection Act restricted access of driving records to companies like mine which conduct
employment screening.  All though the Driver Privacy Protection Act considers employment
screening a permissible purpose, electronic access has been restricted by this law.  There are
many unforeseen consequences of restricting access to public records.  One of which is the affect
it has on public safety.
In 1993, a survey conducted by Northwestern National Life Insurance found that more than two
million employees suffer physical attacks on the job each year and more than six million are
threatened in some way.

More than a thousand Americans are murdered on the job every year, 32% more than the annual
average in the 1980's. A Time-CNN poll in May 1995 reported that 37% of Americans see
work-place violence as a growing problem.  In the same poll, 18% witnessed assaults at work and
another 18% worry about becoming victims themselves.
According to the American Management Association, 19% of respondent managers reported at
least 1 actual incident of work place violence since January 1990.  An additional 33% reported at
least one threatened incident.

One hundred billion dollars are lost annually to employee theft and embezzlement.
One-third of business bankruptcies are caused by employee theft and embezzlement, this
according to the US Chamber of Commerce.

The statistics go on and on, not to mention the number of drunk drivers arrested each year or the
number of deaths caused on the highways by drunk drivers, some of whom were working at the
time.  These issues are certainly a public safety issue.  The private security consulting industry
and, specifically, the pre-employment screening industry, serves a vital role in public safety.  We
serve a role that law enforcement can not logistically and legally fill.  The background screening
industry utilizes public record retrievers on a nationwide level.  Access to this data electronically
is not necessarily of vital importance in order for us to get the work accomplished.  From a
business standpoint, my firm, in fact, would stand to gain from restricting such access to lawyers
and other individuals via an electronic means.  Lawyers, as well as the general public, would be
forced to use services such as ours who employ a nationwide network of court retrievers who
physically verify records at the clerks office in both the federal county and state levels.

The problem lies in the turn-around time and cost of such services.  Limiting access forces our
company and our industry to raise prices.  Turn-around time can be reduced from 24 hours to as
much as a week or more in some instances to accurately check court records on a nationwide
level.  This restriction of information can cause employers who should be screening to not do so
because of the lag time involved in getting an answer in a timely fashion regarding an applicant's
background.  Thus, increasing the liability risk to both the employer and the general public at
large.  Individuals with felony records, histories of violence, poor driving records or no driving
privileges at all can be hired and put into dangerous positions to both their fellow employees and
the general public at large. 

In essence, restricting electronic access serves to hurt the general public more than help it.  The
very few documented incidences of individuals using such records for unscrupulous purposes are
far outweighed by the risks created by hiring a violent employee or an individual with a criminal
record.  The risk to the public safety and the US economy in general is at stake.  I urge you to
consider these facts when deliberating on these restrictions that are proposed.  Should you have
any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at any time.

Freedom or Privacy?

An article by Ted L. Moss
President of The Background Network, Inc.

What is privacy? Is it a right or a privilege? The Bill of rights claims that, "Men are endowed by
their creator with certain inalienable rights", that "among these are life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness".  The authors might have meant freedom from fear of oppression. It may have
included a right to be secure in ones property and home. Mostly it meant the right to govern ones
self through a government, "Of the People, By the People and For the People."

Recently The Director of The Maryland department of Motor vehicles, Anne S. Ferro
commented, "This is another example of the general public not knowing what's good for it!"
She was referring to legislation known as the DPPA or The Driver Privacy Protection Act during
hearings on the matter. The Chairman of the Hearings, The Honorable Senator Richard Shelby of
Alabama (R) may have been absent in law school when they covered The Bill of Rights and other
aspects of The Constitution.

The DPPA is legislation, which was recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court
(Reno Vs.Condon). Public law 106-69, which originally enacted in 1994, says that driving
records are not public records and that the state motor vehicle departments can be barred from
disclosing or selling personal information. This would be a noble law if in fact it served the true
interests of "The People" and wasn't the latest hot button for politicians trying to score points in
the Personal Privacy feeding frenzy in Washington.

The fact is that the DPPA only restricts sales to marketing lists, databases and casual requestors.
It requires the states to adopt certain components of the Federal law so that drivers are
automatically excluded from their personal information being re sold to these types of
companies.  This is known as the mandatory opt out. Prior to this drivers had the option in most
states to "opt out" or exclude themselves if so desired. In fact in Maryland when the State
conducted a huge advertising campaign by Mail, Television, Radio and at the DMV itself to
notify drivers of this right; A large majority of drivers were not concerned.

The concern has been raised that by making drivers personal information for sale it creates the
opportunity for stalkers and other criminal elements to prey upon the general public. As in the
case of a California woman who was murdered several years ago. A tragedy to be sure but there
is a much larger and more determined tragedy looming on the horizon:

In 1997 1.4 Million people were arrested for D.U.I. (Driving Under The Influence) or related
offenses----more than all other reported criminal offenses except larceny and theft. (NHTSA,
1999)  Despite a 2% decline in the National Crime Rate the number of arrests for Driving Under
the Influence increased from 1.2 Million in 1993 to 1.4 million in 1994. This is an arrest rate of
one for every 127 licensed drivers in the United States. (NHTSA, 1996)
In 1997 an estimated 513,200 offenders were on probation or in jail or prison for driving while
intoxicated by alcohol (DWI). (BJS, 1999)  In 1998 one out of nine intoxicated drivers in fatal
crashes have had a prior DWI conviction within the past three years? (NHTSA, 1999)

According to The Department of Labor there are 140 million people currently employed in this
country. With American Businesses losing 100 Billion dollars annually to employee theft and
embezzlement and over 1 million users of illegal drugs in the workplace employers routinely
conduct background checks on their prospective applicants. The background screening industry
is a 5 billion dollar a year business. The private security field provides an essential service to the
U.S. economy by screening applicants who may be convicted drug dealers, violent individuals or
incompetent or dangerous drivers.

The Security industries role fills a gap that law enforcement can't begin to meet. With an
estimated 20 to 30 million background checks performed nationwide each year the private
security industry is meeting and fulfilling a vital public safety need. Keeping the workplace
productive, providing a safe work environment and protecting companies profits are important
reasons for conducting background checks. In addition the liability to the company, which arises
when hiring an employee who will be driving on company business, is immense. Hiring a truck
driver, salesman, delivery person or other employee without a driving record check is not only a
potential problem to the company but also a potential threat to public safety.

The risks of an unlicenced driver on the road or a multiple D.U.I. offender driving for any
company are obvious. Background screening firms rely on access to public records, driving
records, credit reports and other information to assess an applicant's reliability, criminal history
and potential for drug or alcohol abuse on the job. The DPPA has severely hampered this
process.

Although employment screening is a permissible purpose under the act access to such records are
being granted only to a couple of select companies.

This David vs., Goliath situation has created an unfair competitive advantage for these large
information brokers. Choice Point and DAC Services have had existing agreements with the
individual states for years. Their re-sale of driving records has come under scrutiny due to a
mistake originally created by Choice Point in Pennsylvania. Both these companies have sold
driver information to Insurance companies, Marketing companies, Background Screening firms
and Private Investigators in the past. The majority of these companies have used the information
responsibly in the performance of their duties. A few have not and as a consequence caused a
panic in state and federal legislatures. With little concern for the bigger picture the threat of
misuse of personal identifiers has left this country with a much greater risk. The threat to public
safety is far outweighed by a dangerous driver than by a possible misuse of what essentially
should be a public record.

The issue for the more than 5000 background screening agencies and 10,000 plus private
investigators is access. These records are still available but not easily. The states are providing
the "Goliath" companies with electronic and automated access in many cases. These large
providers are receiving preferred pricing as well. While the smaller companies are forced to set
up accounts with each state, submit signed releases, notarized forms, pay high fees and wait in
some cases 10 to 14 days. This creates the problem for the employer who was used to a 2 to 3
day delivery of driving information at a reasonable price. The large companies suspiciously seem
to be in a unique position to solve this problem, as they just happen to also conduct criminal
background checks and other screening services. If these companies can have what appears to be
unrestricted or at least preferential access then so should the rest of the industry.
 

In the interest of public safety as well as business economic security access to these records must
be made uniformly available to all permissible users. Choice point and DAC services should be
responsible with their unique business advantage. Legislation such as this and other recent laws
restricting use of credit header information are ill conceived and politically motivated. They prey
upon people's fear of the Internet and unknown. In this day of the information superhighway
politicians and governments alike would have you believe that they should be the keepers of your
personal information. It is only through open government that we are truly free. When we are all
informed and each of us has the ability to stand behind our accomplishments and take
responsibility for our mistakes that we act as our fore fathers intended. Public openness means
public records.

When the judicial process is available for public scrutiny then the government cannot hide its
mistakes. This is one of the true principles of freedom of speech or rather freedom of
information! You voluntarily give your personal information out every day. Your grocer, doctor,
library, car dealership, accountant, magazine subscriptions all share sell and resell your
information. At last check we were all the better for it.

Our economy thrives on information; to stifle it is cutting off our nose to spite our face. To let the
government control it is at the least dangerous and at worst oppression. Freedom of information
and unrestricted access to public proceedings is the best way to watch what our leaders are doing.
There is a trade off between privacy and freedom. We have access to known sex offenders then
why not drunk drivers or thieves? That's acceptable until were the one who goes to court. Then
we want privacy. If we let the government fool us into thinking that closed public records and
secret files are good for us the we are no longer a democracy we will be the property of the
STATE. Personal responsibility is the true issue at hand not personal privacy!

No. 12
11/14/00
Washington, DC
I understand this issue to be one of on-line privacy. There is no reason not to provide the same
level of privacy on-line as we do at the Court. No more privacy, or security, should be had simply
by reason of the increased accessibility. If the question is one of privacy, regardless of venue,
then our case law should provide the answer. The internet should simply provide greater and
better access to those documents already in the public domain. Care should be taken to ensure
that all persons still have at least the same access as they do now. Whether that means retention
of paper documents, or provision of free computer services, I do not mean to decide. I only state
that the internet should make access easier for all persons, not just those with home or office
computers. Standards of privacy do not alter because of new technology. Technology must
change to meet our standards of privacy.  The judiciary should beware a double standard for
paper and electronic documents. Companies are even now photocopying or scanning court files
to fill up their commercial databases (see, for example, Juritas.com).  If we give access to paper
but not electronic copies, we are increasing the cost of public access, with minimal effect on
safeguarding privacy.

No. 13
11/14/00
Sanford Meltzer, JD
Keep current service. We protect the rights of the people and the proposal would hamper our
efforts in this age of computers and need for instant information

No.14
11/14/00
Abilene, TX
Would be helpful in avoiding travel and copying expense.  Would be helpful in multiparty
lawsuits if, under local rules, files could be downloaded and discovery, under appropriate
protections, could be made accessible without the necessity of multiple duplication and mailing.
Care should be exercised to avoid publication of confidential information, which could be
addressed in local rules and protective orders.

No. 15
11/15/00
Joe Kolman
Reporter, Omaha World-Herald
Omaha, NE
What is public record in paper files should be public record in electronic files. However, as
someone who deals with information daily, I can understand the fears of providing mass amounts
of seemingly personal data electronically.

The options mentioned giving attorneys and members of the courts unlimited access. I would
recommend extending that provision to research entities, such as, individuals, academics and
members of the press. A provision could be written into the policy that would exclude gathering
of the data for commercial services, such as mailing lists. This sort of provision already exists in
some federal laws regarding public information.

Thank you for allowing me to comment.

No. 16
11/15/00
Richard Wilstatter
Criminal Defense Attorney
White Plains, NY
As a criminal defense attorney, I object to the proposed restrictions to PACER for criminal cases.
Federal criminal cases often involve prosecutions in more than one district. Frequently, we might
have a case in a district far from home. It is crucial to have continued access to PACER to keep
track of litigation on our cases. If I am representing a cooperator, I can move to have the record
sealed if that is necessary. Defense counsel are already at a tremendous disadvantage compared
to the government lawyers. We need to be able to find out what's going on in related cases in
other districts. Access to this information is a big time saver. Counsel can avoid hiring
investigators or other lawyers just to find out basic information from another district. If the
information is public, the public ought to have access.

No. 17
11/15/00
College student
Lexington, KY
In response to your request on what the public thinks about internet access to public documents: I
don't think that any document available for public viewing should receive any more protection
from such viewing just because it is being requested via the internet.  After all, if any John Doe
can walk in off the street and get a copy of a public document, a student 1,000 miles away should
also be allowed the same access via their desktop computer.  Any "sensitive" material, which
parties may want to keep private, should either be sealed or censored from public access, while
the main document remains a matter of public record.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a student trying to do a research project on the Metallica
vs. Napster issue.  I wanted to be able to refer to the actual lawsuit itself, but cannot even find
that it exists.  All I have to go on is news articles, the Metallica website, etc.  But I really wanted
to have a copy of the actual lawsuit so that I would be sure to get a correct idea of the issues
involved.  The lawsuit was supposed to have been filed in the U.S. District Court - Central
California Division.
I don't suppose you could help me?  It would be greatly appreciated.

No. 18
11/15/00
Rebecca Lynn Woodward
Legal Assistant, Moyer and Bergman
Palo, IA
As a legal assistant at Moyer & Bergman, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, I am often asked to obtain case
information from both the Federal Courts and the Iowa District Courts.  The Iowa District Courts
have a policy wherein they will not even look up a docket number if given a case name.  The
Federal Courts, on the other hand, have excellent web sites where decisions can be obtained on
line, and the Clerk of the Federal Courts are willing to assist in searches.  All case information
that is available to us on-line just makes our job easier and less expensive for the client because
we would obtain the information no matter which way we have to go about it. Thanks.

No. 19
11/15/00
Newtonville, MA
Please note that notwithstanding the special interests of various groups that would
like to see the restriction of court information on the internet, I suggest that the "original intent"
of the framers of the constitution be reviewed on this matter. 

I believe that the "original intent" of the founders of this nation desired a free and open form of
government, particularly in respect to the operation of the court system.  In this regard, with
today's use of the internet as the growing primary form of research and communication, the
restriction of information in the court system on the aforementioned media constitutes a form of
obstruction to the public to free and open access to our court system.

I strongly believe that movement toward restriction of access to our courts in this regard
constitutes a overt disregard for the "original intent" in the establishment of our system of
government, the greater good of the public and movement towards the decay of the
integrity of our system and subsequently the decline of the public's confidence in said system.  I
strongly urge you to promote the free and open access of the court system on the internet to the
fullest extent possible allowed by current and future technology.

No. 20
11/15/00
Judith Christie
Federal Court Employee
Detroit,  MI
As a court employee and as a records manager, I would favor option 2 for criminal cases.  Option
2 for criminal cases protects individuals from possible intimidation by keeping certain materials
out of the public eye.  In the court for whom I work, very little of the named documents are
maintained in the court file, plea agreements being the ones that are kept in the case file but they
are sealed if ordered by the judge.  If plea agreements were kept completely out of case files, that
would be most desirable.

The existence of social security numbers on civil documents is also a concern because of identity
theft.  I think the judiciary should ban the routine use of these numbers in student loan cases and
the like.

No. 21
11/16/00
Coeur d'Alene, IO
The ability of the public to access the courts, both as litigants as well as observers has been a
right of the people since the inception of our country.  That is why our courts are open, except for
special issues, instead of the other way around. 

I certainly agree that medical information should remain private.  I believe that a simple rule of
thumb will be that if the information would be public if I were to be in court or go to the court
house to view a file, then it should be public on the internet.  If you opt to file bankruptcy, then
you must expect your financial dealings to become public. 

On another topic... What is this 17 cents a page thing.  If it is already computerized, it is not
costing any 17 cents a page for me to view a document on my own computer.  You cannot recoup
the costs of entering the information, particularly if you would be entering the information
anyway.  This is why we pay taxes!
 

No. 22
11/16/00
Julie Titone
Staff Writer, The Spokesman Review
Coeur d'Alene, IO
I'm writing to give my strongest possible support to continuation of, indeed enhancement of,
public electronic access to this nation's court records.

Full awareness of judicial actions is an underpinning of our freedoms.  As a U.S. citizen, and as a
journalist, I see only bad things coming from efforts to restrict access.  Only minor,
non-significant deletions to protect privacy -- such as shortening of social security or credit card
numbers -- should be considered.

No. 23
11/17/00
Columbia, MO
I fully support online access to records and dockets of the federal court system. I believe that the
current unified system, PACER, is antiquated and does not serve the needs of the general public.

By online access, I mean both access through dedicated machines and through the Internet.

No. 24
11/17/00
San Anselmo, CA
Any sensitive personal information should be blocked out ("xxxxx"), all else in transcript should
be made public on the Internet.
Thank you for your attention.

No. 25
11/17/00
Norman Mayer
Clerk of Court, EDVA
Fairfax, VA
(Personal views-not those of the court)
This is a very difficult public policy issue. Although I am the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, my comments reflect my own personal views and are not
intended, and should not be used, as an official position of the court.

It is my belief that privacy protections should be put in place on electronic court records,
restricting public access where the privacy interests outweigh the public's interests in openness.
Sensitive personal and business data need to be protected before electronic records are made
accessible.
This can be done via built-in restrictions in the automated systems to keep pre-defined data
confidential; renewed scrutiny by the litigants and judges to seal material on a case-by-case basis;
and only allowing wide access to all data to the litigants and parties to the cases.
Further, it may also be time to make the same restrictions on the paper records, so that access is
consistent no matter what format the records are in.  This would be very difficult for the records
custodians to implement, however.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

No. 26
11/19/00
Milwaukee, WI
I think it is rather simple. If court cases are to be open to the public, then the
public should have easy access to those records. Making access hard to obtain for
the public, when internet access can be made, only makes a opening of such records
to those who are able to go to the records office and get them. Else limiting
such access to those who are not well versed in how to apply for such information.
The last reason one might see for not allowing internet public access is for the
government to simply try to charge for copies or even access in order to
discourage the public from obtaining such information, all for the sake of making a buck!

Milwaukee for example, already allows internet access to their Circuit Court files.
People use this information many times for protection. Women who begin dating someone new
check to see if the man has a record that they need to be concerned about, for
their children and/or just for themselves. Landlords also use this service to see if someone
they might rent to has a history of violence or bill problems etc...This also works in reverse for
renters. There are so many reasons why people should have easy access to all court records. After
all, if someone is guilty of any kind of a crime, and as long as that person deals with people in
any manner, then those people should by all means, have the right to know the person they
might have to deal with! It is for their protection. Leaving the public in the dark
leaves them to danger, danger that they could very well avoid.
Please note that my name and address above is fake. I am sorry to do that, but
I am not sure if this site is suppose to be for Lawyers only. Since I am NOT
a lawyer, and since I felt you might really need to hear from a member of the
general public on this matter, I took the liberty to write this. The only thing that is real is my
email address should you wish to comment back to me or simply tell me to get lost!
I do thank you for your time and for reading my comments. 

No. 27
11/20/00
Kent, WA
Electronic records should only be reviewable at the courthouse, not across the Internet.

No. 28
11/20/00
Renton, WA
While most paper documents filed today are available for viewing as public record, individuals
wishing to view them are constrained by court hours and viewing procedures.  These procedures
often require individuals to document who they are before they are allowed a copy.  Only copies
of documents are provided at the requesting individual's expense.  Unlimited Internet access
would eliminate these few privacy safeguards now in place.  If courts DO go to an open access
system, not only should the viewing hours be limited to court hours, but also some sort of system
for monitoring access should be in place to deter fraud.  Charges should be similar to those
required for hard copies, and, of course, "read only" copies should be provided. 

No. 29
11/20/00
Jim Sweeney
James M. Sweeney and Associates (Private Investigator)
Davenport, IA
I am the owner of a private investigation firm in Davenport, Iowa.  I also have a division that
does extensive pre-employment screening for a variety of companies.  My investigation company
specializes in prevention of criminal activity in the workplace and investigation of employee
misconduct.  I consider myself and m y agency very professional.

For the past eleven years I have accessed both civil and criminal records on a variety cases.
These records were searched for legitimate reasons and often time s have been invaluable in
helping to protect the assets of companies and individuals.

I also know that as in any profession, there are those that take liberty with in formation that
should be kept confidential and therefore ruin it for all of us.  I personally believe that there are
documents involved in certain criminal cases and civil cases that are and should remain private.
This would include tax returns, medical records, treatment results and other such documents.  To
my knowledge, the court has always been just in deciding what documents should and should not
be seen by the public.  For that reason, I would like to see the option that would treat paper and
electronic access equally and assumes that specific sensitive information would be excluded from
public view or presumptively sealed. 

I believe that it serves the purpose of the public and provides adequate protect ion to all parties
that electronic access be gained to obtain sufficient to secure understanding of what a case is
about and the determination made in the case.  This has always been sufficient although at times
it would have been nice to have more. 

I do believe that it is extremely important to have access to identifiers such a s a date of birth or
social security number.  There must be a way to verify that the information in the file does relate
directly to the subject of inquiry.  This may require different levels of access allowing certain
parties to obtain documents containing this information. 

I would suggest that there be a provision in the software that allows the person seeking access to
enter the social security number or date of birth and receiving a positive or negative response as
to whether it is the correct subject.  This prevents  the court from providing those identifiers.
Typically, anyone seeking records has one or the other or both of the identifiers.  That way the
record is confirmed.                                   

Thank you for allowing for public comments.

No. 30
11/21/00
Norway, ME
I feel that the proposals are fair, but there has to be extreme security in the matter of
criminal cases, as noted in the outlines-defendants and their families would be at risk
for possible retaliation from absolute strangers should they be allowed free and easy access to
material that is only intended for court use and disposition. The status of a case, and other
"public" information should be readily available, but other material, such as pleas and past
personal history of the defendant should be kept off line. As one involved in a case at this time, I
feel my privacy outweighs any public interest in the case, and would be very concerned
to have absolute strangers reading material that even I would rather they not.  If it were not for
the Internet, indeed, I would not have found information regarding the case I'm concerned with
more readily, as the briefs for proceedings and rulings were found on several useful legal
sites-which is all I would grant should be available to the general public at this time. Anything
more would be opening the door to abuse and possible harassment for the people concerned in
criminal cases.

No. 31
11/21/00
San Francisco, CA
The data provides very useful insights into the causes of bankruptcy, which is not
available anywhere else, and therefore should be made public for the purpose of study
and education.   However, there is no reason to provide the social security number of filers,
which can be mis-used, and the street address of filers could also be blocked if necessary. City or
zip code is sufficient information for most studies.  I believe long term that creditor information
should be downloadable, perhaps on a subscription basis, and anything the courts could provide
that help further explain the cause of
bankruptcy would also be helpful.

No. 32
11/22/00
Beaumont, TX
Request for Comment includes the following:
"Individuals who seek a particular document or case file will need to open a PACER account and
obtain a login and password. After obtaining these, an individual may access case files ? whether
those files were created by imaging paper files or through CM/ECF ? over the Internet. Public
access through PACER will involve a fee of $.07 per page of a case file document or docket
viewed, downloaded or printed. This compares favorably to the current $.50 per page photocopy
charge. Electronic case files also will be available at public computer terminals at courthouses
free of charge."

My comment:

In order to make electronic files available to the public and/or interested parties and attorneys via
internet on the same basis as they shall be available at the courthouse, the cost to the person
seeking those records ought to be the same, in my opinion.

At present, I may go to the courthouse and view files for free, may I not? So why not let me view
them online for free?

If I need to see a hundred pages to select the one that applies to my need, then at the courthouse,
using paper files, I would pay fifty cents for a photocopy of that one page, would I not?  But with
the proposal above, I would pay seven dollars to see all hundred pages, then download the one to
my computer.  Yet, if I went to the courthouse to see the electronic pages, I would look at all of
them for free, then print one out for how much? Free? Fifty cents?  Seven cents?

My suggestion is that you make all the records available for free to all the public.  To charge
anything - even a few pennies - for a document says on its face that access ought to be rationed
by wealth; that citizens with money are somehow deemed "more equal" than those without.  I'm
sure this is not what you intend, but it is what would happen.

Also, in this same vein, I propose that it will be far cheaper to pay court bureaucrats to perform
all the necessary computer functions for this facility, than to pay private bureaucrats plus profits
for their employers. Provision of services like this is a proper government function, and ought to
be handled by the government, not the private sector.

Thank you for allowing me to comment.  I may choose to comment further on this or other points
at another time, before the established deadline.

No 33
11/22/00
Cheyenne, WY
The phrase "public record" implies the information contained therein is available to the public.  It
does not seem fair to limit public disclosure to those with enough time, money, or physical ability
to produce themselves in person at the District Clerk's Office.  Such a policy unfairly
disadvantages those who may need the record, but find it impractical to get the information if a
personal visit is required.

There are many problems with electronic filings containing sensitive information.  Perhaps the
worst would be information concerning the cooperation to the  government provided by a
defendant in a drug case.  Such information could result in bodily injury or death if made public
in certain populations, such as prisons.  Documents containing such records should be sealed, but
sometimes mistakes are made.
The burden must be upon the filing party to insure the information in a public record is safe for
public consumption.  To hold clerks liable would be impractical due to the sheer volume of
documents filed each day.  Still, clerks can be asked to keep an inquiring mind when scanning in
documents to look for information that obviously should not be available to the general public.

No. 34
11/22/00
Gary, IN
I believe public information should be listed on the internet.  The World Wide Web is the future. 
Soon, most homes will have computers--maybe not in the foreseeable future, but computers will
be required in order to exist in the world.  Having this information on line is a tremendous step
for mankind.  We can do away with paper.  Staff will able to be cut because information is
available at your finger tips.  Even if someone were to visit an office for a document.  They could
have access to the computer to look the document up.  No need for someone to search through
the mounds of paper to get to a file.

No. 35
11/22/00
Seattle, WA
If it is public record, then I believe it should be as easily accessible via internet as paper. Thanks.

No. 36
11/23/00
Mineola, NY
Please do not eliminate electronic access to criminal cases.  Doing so would represent an
abridgement of the free access to public information.

No. 37
Kent Morlan, Esq.
Internet Publisher
Tulsa, OK
I am an attorney and the editor of MoreLaw.Com.  Among other things, MoreLaw collects and
publishes information about civil cases including jury verdict and settlement reports and
information about the judges, lawyers and experts involved in the litigation process.  It is my
opinion and the position of MoreLaw that access to public records should be free to the public in
all instances and that access via the Internet should be free.  For all practical purposes, the public
does not have access to the records of the Federal District Courts because an account is required
and there is a charge for accessing the information. 

From personal experience, I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of attorneys don't even
know about PACER and have never used the service.  Given the fact that Federal Courts handle a
small fraction of the cases handled by the state courts of general jurisdiction, the number of
people who would have any interest in the information you are concerned about will be very
small.  Also, since most discovery is no longer filed with the clerks, there isn't much to see on
most sites, e.g., the United States District Court of New Mexico, that currently make some of
their records available for viewing.

In my opinion, you need to make access to judicial information easier rather than harder.  The
calendars of the courts and the dockets need to be available via the Internet for free!

No. 38
11/24/00
Thomas Lincoln
Criminal Defense Attorney
San Juan, PR
The following are my comments to the proposals regarding electronic public access to criminal
case files:
Proposals:                                            
Criminal Case Files

1. Do not provide electronic public access to criminal case files. This approach advocates the
position that the ECF component of the new CM/ECF system should not be expanded to include
criminal case files. Due to the very different nature of criminal case files, there may be much less
of a legitimate need to provide electronic access to these files. The files are usually not that
extensive and do not present the type of storage problems presented by civil files. Prosecution
and defense attorneys are usually located near the courthouse. Those with a true need for the
information can still access it at the courthouse. Further, any legitimate need for electronic access
to criminal case information is outweighed by safety and security concerns. The electronic
availability of criminal information would allow co-defendants to have easy access to
information regarding cooperation and other activities of defendants. This information could then
be used to intimidate and harass the defendant and the defendant's family. Additionally, the
availability of certain preliminary criminal information, such as warrants and indictments, could
severely hamper law enforcement and prosecution efforts.

Comment:  I am a criminal defense attorney in the District of Puerto Rico. Although I would
personally find it very convenient to be able to have electronic access to criminal case files, I find
that --at least for the time being-- such information should not be available online.  If such access
were to be granted, it should be on a limited basis, automatically excluding all sorts of categories
such as motions for change of plea, plea agreements, motions dealing with any sentencing issues,
to name but a few. CJA Vouchers should also not be available online.  Moreover, if electronic
access to case files is to be implemented in criminal cases, procedures should be provided for
attorneys to be able to assure that any document they so request to be kept sealed and/or off-line,
be kept sealed and/or off-line, or that it otherwise be returned to counsel, thus guaranteeing that
information counsel and/or his client do not want to be made public, is not compromised.  Note:
The reason(s) for counsel and/or the client to wish certain information be kept sealed and/or
off-line may sometimes be obvious, but such is not always the case, and the benefit should be
given to the attorney's determination.

2.. Provide limited electronic public access to criminal case files. This alternative would allow
the general public access to some, but not all, documents routinely contained in criminal files.
Access to documents such as plea agreements, unexecuted warrants, certain pre-indictment
information and presentence reports would be restricted to parties, counsel, essential court
employees, and the judge.

Comment:  See Comment to previous proposal.

No. 39
11/24/00
Chehalis, WA
Internet access to court documents and cases is the best thing which has happened to the
American
public. It is necessary for a person to be fully informed.

No. 40
11/24/00
Andrew U.D. Straw,Esq.
Bloomington, IN
Civil: I strongly support maximum public access, with a recommendation to the legislature to
increase criminal penalties for misuse of such information and enhanced civil remedies as well
for those who are harmed by misuse.  *All* records should be available over the Internet if they
are available for public perusal in the courthouse.  Just as no one stands at the door of the
courthouse and keeps certain people out, so should no one be discriminated against simply
because they do not have the means or desire to travel to the courthouse to view public
records.  I also oppose charging for public documents provided over the Internet.  Taxpayer
money has already been expended to make these documents available, so they should be
available to anyone for free.  There is a distinct difference between printing at the
courthouse on the court's copy machine and printing from one's own computer at home.  The
upkeep of one's own printer should not be used as a basis for charging when the clerk does not
have to expend money to do the printing.  Public documents should not be a cash cow.  Tax
money should be expended to make the system open, and then the system should be open and
free for the public to use.

Criminal: I can understand law enforcement reasons for wanting to keep certain documents
private, but I disagree with the starchamber approach that prevents the public from being able to
see what happens in the courts taxpayers pay for.  Plea agreements should be public so that
taxpayers can evaluate the performance of prosecutors and judges.  Any documents that a judge
does not have a compelling reason to seal should remain open and available on the Internet.

Personal information in Bankruptcy and other similar cases: social security numbers and credit
card numbers should be excised or "virtually sealed" to prevent obvious likelihood
of abuse.  Whole documents, however, should not be sealed simply because certain specific
information needs to be excised or protected.  As XML begins to invade the e-filing business, it
will be exceedingly easy to simply ensure that certain criminal abuse-prone information gets
"private tags" -- precluding even the need for a clerk to make that determination.

The Courts should not be cajoled into a mode of secrecy simply because there is a risk of privacy
invasion due to electronic dissemination of public information.  If there are rights of privacy
either under the Constitution or other statute, the person whose rights are at risk needs to take the
initiative to protect those rights. 

Courts should not backpedal on their commitment to openness simply because new technology
has come along.  This result would be the equivalent of sealing all order books and case files in
1960 because the new copy and fax machines made it easier to copy and transmit a document
from the courthouse than re-writing or re-typing it by hand.

No. 41
11/24/00
J. Stephen Ryan, Esq.
Katy, TX
Mechanisms, Rules, and law already exist to protect litigants' sensitive information.
Trade secrets, tax returns, medical information, and other information legally recognized
as private or "sensitive" may always be protected by motion to seal, etc.

The default policy choice should always be resolved in favor of openness of the Courts
and their records, as recognized by present law. The perceived difficulty of obtaining
physical access to Court records has never deterred credit bureaus, private investigators, and the
monied and powerful from accessing these public records at will; to impose artificial restrictions
against full public Internet-mediated electronic access would operate only to disenfranchise the
general public of their right to conveniently view the records and operations of the Courts for
which their taxes pay, and continue to ensure that the full records are available only to those
powerful, knowledgeable or advantaged enough to physically seek them out.
By its nature, the litigation process exposes normally nonpublic information to public view, but
there is no rationale for keeping the information only physically available to those willing to go
to the Courthouse, and burdening the public with such antiquated methods of accessing the
records of their hitherto fully open Courts.                              

In addition, many benefits to our society have been realized from the historic doctrine of
openness of the Courts, and attempts to conceal or burden the right of the public to view Court
records should be closely and stringently scrutinized.

All records of the Courts, saving only those recognized by law as appropriate subjects
for potion and Order to seal, should be available online. Privacy decisions making
certain information sealable should, as has been the case so far, be made on a case
by case basis, and the Offices of the Courts should not here make new law and policy
regarding what would be effectively a "sealing" of court records for 99.9% of the public
who cannot go to the Courthouse in person.

Additionally, great benefits for litigants, the Bench, and attorneys are realized by making all
Court documents in a case readily accessible online. Full Internet access to Court records will
benefit the administration of justice and our legal system as a whole.

No. 42
11/25/00
In the Toysmart case, customers submitted this info to Toysmart. From what I have read, it seems
like you (the government) wants to allow at least some of these customer lists to be sold to
similar companies, to appease the creditors in bankruptcy trials. This, to me, is a blatant invasion
of privacy. These customers submitted this info to Toysmart, not a similar e-toy company or any
other business entity. It appears as if the government is allowing anyone with enough money to
access huge amounts of private information. Now, the companies that purchased this info have
significant power.

Identity theft is only one of the many possible intrusions of individuals privacy that could occur.
Toysmart's customers should not be punished because Toysmart went bankrupt, Toysmart should
be punished. DO NOT allow this blatant invasion of privacy to occur.

No. 43
11/26/00
Alexandria, VA
Personal data--credit information, address, social security number, photographs, etc., whether on
paper or electronic copies accessed via the Internet--should be blacked out from court documents
released to the general public in order to protect our Constitutional right to privacy.  If the
personal data are to be released to the general public, permission should first be sought from the
individual, who's right to privacy may be violated.  By not following my recommended course of
action, the Courts place all of us at risk of "identity theft" and other crimes, not to mention a
serious loss of privacy.

I am not a lawyer and I do not represent any special interest groups.  I am a federal employee for
a US foreign intelligence agency.

No. 44
11/26/00
Seattle, WA
I am a probate administration paralegal.  I am in favor of treating unsealed electronic court files
the same as unsealed court files have been in the past--they should be available for public review
and subject to photocopying/downloading.  The availability via Internet will reduce costs to our
clients as an alternative to having a messenger or attorneys' service employee copy documents at
the courthouse.   As a hobby genealogist, I believe it will be a boon to future researchers.

No. 45
11/27/00

To whom it may concern:
Public access to court records is necessary and required in an information-based economy such as
we have.  Making court records available over the Internet is necessary to ensure public and
corporate safety and security. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

No. 46
11/27/00
Alan Schroder
Law Librarian
Costa Mesa, CA
I am supporting full and open access to all court records filed electronically and in print.
Furthermore, I would strongly urge the court systems to maintain both electronic and print
filings.  So-called private or personal information in court filings is frequently used to further
investigate a claimant.  Such use is lawful and been practiced for decades.

The transient nature of information technology makes print versions of court filings imperative.
Until a reliable and predictable electronic standard is created and agreed upon, electronic filings
are tenuous at best. The AOUSC must determine what the electronic archive standard will be
(e.g. 20 years?), software and browser considerations, form and format of filings, adaptability of
current filing requirements to the electronic world, staffing considerations, funding, and point of
service considerations including speed of delivery and conduit.

I believe the courts should function as servants for the people and not as research and
development entities for third party commercial online service providers unless a substantial
licensing agreement is reached beforehand that benefits the court systems in general.  Finally, the
lawful use of court records and filings has been ongoing for decades without privacy concerns.
There are numerous laws on the "books", both criminal and civil, that protect individuals from
harm.  No need to start further restricting access to court filings on account of increased
electronic filing.  In this age of ADR and sealed court documents AOUSC needs to manage this
new technology effectively, much as it has the more familiar print filings in the past and present.

If you require and further comment or considerations please don't hesitate to contact me.  Thank
you.
 

No. 47
11/27/00
I believe that the privacy policy should be confined to access via courthouse only.  The
information should not be available to just stumble over when searching for something else
entirely.  The person accessing this information should want it specifically  and going to the
courthouse to get it, is not onerous. It just weeds out the undedicated.

I also believe that the cameras should not be allowed in courtrooms. We all saw the mugging and
entertainment play to the cameras during the OJ Simpson trail. This was not serious court. This
was strictly entertainment. Our courtrooms should not be viewed as entertainment. They should
be business and that does not include media business

No. 48
11/27/00
Linden, IN
I believe that all court records should be accessible through the internet. I can go to the
courthouse to obtain the information; however, it makes life much easier and I miss a lot less
work by being able to obtain the information over the internet. If the courthouse had hours that
were more flexible it might be different.
                                

No. 49
11/27/00
Cordova, TN
I work in health information management and would be very concerned if patient medical
records became open to public review via the internet.  I am now employed by an integrated
delivery network in an ambulatory setting.  A significant part of our business is related to
occupational health and worksite injuries.  For example:  If a healthcare worker experienced an
exposure to HIV and then sued the organization for negligence, would that employee's records
related to HIV status be open to review on the internet??  This is very troubling legislation.

No. 50
11/27/00
Birmingham, AL
I feel the internet opens this type of data to eyes that have no business seeing this data.  Please
keep access the way it is at present.  As citizens, we have already lost more of our privacy and
freedom than we should have ever given up with out a fight.

No. 51
11/28/00
Rennsalaer, NJ
That the Courts should go to a computer filing system is ok .  However , The intrusion into all
aspects of our private information is to great now and is being miss used by many different types
of individuals - many times in ways that provide no benefit  to the individual and many times to
his or her detriment. I believe that viewing of all public court documents should be restricted to
the respective Courthouse only .  Further , that the Courts should move to protect the non-court
personal information on individuals from computer dissemination because this type of
information is already being abused and needs to be curbed , restricted , or stopped .
The potential for abuse is much greater than the potential for benefit in making court documents
available in this manner.

No. 52
11/28/00
Alexandria, VA
The Internet is the means by which all people will have full access to information.  It is inevitable
that one day all court cases will be available in electronic form just as all court cases are available
today in paper format.  This is simply the way society will grow.  The issue of privacy is an
important one, but if documents are available to the public through other means currently why
restrict access to those few who can make it to the courthouse.  As long as every reasonable effort
is made to protect those who are relying upon the courts for protection this medium should and
will be used.  It is inevitable.

No. 53
11/28/00
Alpharetta, GA
If a document, whether used in court proceedings or otherwise, is considered to be a public
document then immediacy of access should have no bearing on the dissemination of the material
in question. The concept of restricting electronic access to public documents, because of the
possibility of mass dissemination, treads perilously close to restriction of first amendment rights.
Would we be willing to pronounce publication of public documents off limits to traditional press
outlets? Doubtful. If it is in the public interest for a document to be deemed a public document
then it is in the public interest to encourage the widest dissemination possible. To do less makes
a mockery of the very concept of "public."

No. 54
11/28/00
Clyde Hill, WA
Civil Cases: a blend of options 1 & 2 is to be preferred; private and sensitive information would
be sealed on application of an attorney representing the party whose information is in the record;
this is an application, not a motion, and presumptively should be granted absent just cause; such
information could then be available on application to the hearing judge (or, another justice if the
trial judge is not available); such applications for disclosure would have to state the reason or
purpose for which the information is needed; commercial use of disclosed information must be
prohibited (this includes not only commercial sale but also media use/disclosure) violations must
be subject to exemplary sanctions & fines.

Criminal Cases: maintain the status quo (at least for the near future), i.e., no disclosure
electronically, no electronic record.

Bankruptcy : electronic case files should be opened and available, as at present for paper files,
using the guidelines of Sec. 107.

Thank you for your attention.
    

No. 55
11/29/00
Chicago, IL
I am concerned about the erosion of privacy for sensitive information.  Public access to the
sensitive information can lead to great harm, including unwarranted discrimination, identity theft,
and other physical, financial, and mental harms.  Accordingly, court records should have
some protection from unrestricted, widespread public access.              

I submit below IN ALL CAPS a response to each proposal regarding security / privacy of court
files.

Civil Case Files

1.Maintain the presumption that all filed documents that are not sealed are available both at the
courthouse and electronically.
                   

This approach would rely upon counsel and pro se litigants to protect their interests on a
case-by-case basis through motions to seal specific documents or motions to exclude specific
documents from electronic availability.

It would also rely on judges' discretion to protect privacy and security interests on a case-by-case
basis through orders to seal or to exclude certain information from remote electronic public
access.

THIS OPTION DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT LEGITIMATE PRIVACY
CONCERNS.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF A COURT RECORD HAPPENS TO INCLUDE A SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER OR OTHER SENSITIVE FINANCIAL AND PERSONAL
INFORMATION, ANONYMOUS THIRD PARTIES COULD USE THIS INFORMATION TO
ACCESS PERSONAL FINANCIAL, MEDICAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND OTHER RECORDS
NOT NORMALLY GIVEN TO INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES IN THE PUBLIC AT
LARGE.
THIS OPTION DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PRIVACY PROTECTION.

2.Define what documents should be included in the "public file" and, thereby, available to the
public either at the courthouse or electronically.

This option would treat paper and electronic access equally and assumes that specific sensitive
information would be excluded from public review or presumptively
sealed. It assumes that the entire public file would be available electronically without restriction
and would promote uniformity among district courts as to case file content. The
challenge of this alternative is to define what information should be included in the public file
and what information does not need to be in the file because it is not necessary to an
understanding of the determination of the case or because it implicates privacy and security
interests.

THIS OPTION ENABLES PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE PRIVACY INTERESTS BUT
WOULD REQUIRE MORE WORK ON THE PART OF COURTS,
ATTORNEYS, AND LITIGANTS.  ADDITIONALLY, THE LACK OF CLEAR STANDARDS
THIS PROPOSAL SEEMS TO PRESENT COULD LEAD TO EXTENSIVE LITIGATION,
AND THEREFORE CREATE MORE DEMAND FOR OVER DEMANDED, LIMITED
COURT RESOURCES.  IT IS BETTER THAN NO PROTECTION AT ALL BUT NOT THE
IDEAL METHOD.

3.Establish "levels of access" to certain electronic case file information.

This contemplates use of software with features to restrict electronic access to certain documents
either by the identity of the individual seeking access or the nature of the document to which
access is sought, or both. Judges, court staff, parties and counsel would have unlimited remote
access to all electronic case files.

This approach assumes that the complete electronic case file would be available for public
review at the courthouse, just as the entire paper file is available for inspection in person. It is
important to recognize that this approach would not limit how case files may be copied or
disseminated once obtained at the courthouse.

THIS OPTION IS FLAWED TO THE EXTENT THAT VISITORS TO A COURT CAN STILL
OBTAIN POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR WHICH THE
PUBLIC HAS NO LEGITIMATE NEED AND THAT MAY BE USED TO CAUSE
FINANCIAL OR HARM TO A PARTY.  PARTIES TO LITIGATION OFTEN HAVE NO
CHOICE IN THE MATTER.  A LITIGANT MAY BE FORCED TO DEFEND A LAWSUIT,
WIN, AND STILL END UP RECEIVING HARM BY BEING FORCED TO HAVE
INFORMATION MADE PUBLIC THAT WOULD OTHERWISE REMAIN PRIVATE
SIMPLY BECAUSE ANOTHER PARTY ELECTED TO FILE A FRIVOLOUS OR A WEAK
LAWSUIT.

4.Seek an amendment to one or more of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to account for
privacy and security interests.

PRIVACY AND SECURITY INTERESTS SHOULD BE A KEY PART OF THE HANDLING
OF COURT RECORDS.  THE INTERNET AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY TODAY
GREATLY EXPAND THE ABILITY OF MALICIOUS AND ILL-INTENTIONED ACTORS
TO USE SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO CAUSE PERSONAL OR FINANCIAL HARM AT
ANOTHER'S EXPENSE.  LITIGANTS SHOULD HAVE SOME RIGHT TO PROTECT
SENSITIVE INFORMATION NOT NORMALLY AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THE FAILURE TO PROTECT INFORMATION IN WHICH INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE
LEGITIMATE PRIVACY INTERESTS CAN ACT AS A DETERRENT ON LEGITIMATE
LITIGATION.

Criminal Case Files

1.Do not provide electronic public access to criminal case files.

This approach advocates the position that the ECF component of the new CM/ECF system
should not be expanded to include criminal case files. Due to the very
different nature of criminal case files, there may be much less of a legitimate need to provide
electronic access to these files. The files are usually not that extensive and do not
present the type of storage problems presented by civil files. Prosecution and defense attorneys
are usually located near the courthouse. Those with a true need for the information can still
access it at the courthouse. Further, any legitimate need for electronic access to criminal case
information is outweighed by safety and security concerns.

The electronic availability of criminal information would allow co-defendants to have easy
access to information regarding cooperation and other activities of defendants. This information
could then be used to intimidate and harass the defendant and the defendant's family.
Additionally, the availability of certain preliminary criminal information, such as warrants and
indictments, could severely hamper law enforcement and prosecution efforts.

THIS OPTION PROVIDES THE GREATEST PROTECTION TO PERSONS INVOLVED IN
CRIMINAL LITIGATION, INCLUDING WITNESSES AND JURORS, AND BEST ENSURES
THE EFFICACY OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS.

2.Provide limited electronic public access to criminal case files.

This alternative would allow the general public access to some, but not all, documents routinely
contained in criminal files. Access to documents such as plea agreements, unexecuted warrants,
certain pre-indictment information and presentence reports would be restricted to parties,
counsel, essential court employees, and the judge.

THIS OPTION MAY NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION OF ALL LEGITIMATE
PRIVACY AND SECURITY CONCERNS.

Bankruptcy Case Files

1.Seek an amendment to section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Section 107 currently requires public access to all material filed with bankruptcy courts and gives
judges limited sealing authority. Recognized issues in this area would be addressed by amending
this provision as follows: 1)specifying that only "parties in interest" may obtain access to certain
types of information; and (2) enhancing the 107(b) sealing provisions to clarify that judges may
provide protection from disclosures based upon privacy and security concerns.

THIS OPTION PROVIDES NEEDED REFORM TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE
INFORMATION THAT MIGHT LEAD TO IMPROPER DAMAGE AND HARM TO
LITIGANTS AND PARTIES SEEKING BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION.

2.Require less information on petitions or schedules and statements filed in bankruptcy cases.

THIS OPTION MAY NOT PROVIDE DEBTORS ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO
ASSURE THE FULL AND MEANINGFUL ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEBTORS' RIGHTS.

3.Restrict use of  Social Security, credit card, and other account numbers to only the last four
digits to protect privacy and security interests.

AT A MINIMUM, THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT THIS OPTION AND PROVIDE SOME
PROTECTION FOR LEGITIMATE PRIVACY INTERESTS, ALTHOUGH A GREATER
DEGREE OF PROTECTION IS PREFERABLE.

4.Segregate certain sensitive information from the public file by collecting it on separate forms
that will be protected from unlimited public access and made available only to the courts, the
U.S. Trustee, and to parties in interest.

THIS OPTION MAY PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE PRIVACY
INTERESTS.  A BETTER APPROACH, THOUGH, MIGHT BE TO ASSURE PROTECTION
UNLESS A LEGITIMATE NEED IS PROVEN AFTER APPLYING  A BALANCING TEST
OF INFORMATION SOUGHT AND REASON FOR THE REQUEST COMPARED TO
INFORMATION SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED AND REASONS TO PROTECT THE
INFORMATION.  THUS, MUCH LIKE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE ISSUES AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL, A COURT WOULD FIRST ALLOW THE PERSON TO WHOM A
COURT FILE RELATES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO RECORD RELEASE.
THEN, IF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE INFORMATION RELATES CAN SHOW
LEGITIMATE PRIVACY OR SECURITY CONCERNS IN SOME OR ALL OF IT, THE
SEEKING PARTY CAN ATTEMPT TO PROVE A NEED THAT OUTWEIGHS
LEGITIMATE PRIVACY CONCERNS.  SOME INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE
PRESUMPTIVE PROTECTION, SUCH AS SOCIAL SECURITY INFORMATION,
MEDICAL RECORDS, AND THE LIKE.                                     

Appellate Cases

1.Apply the same access rules to appellate courts that apply at the trial court level.

COURTS SHOULD ADOPT AN ACROSS THE BOARD RULE APPLYING TO ALL
FEDERAL COURTS.

2.Treat any document that is sealed or subject to public access restrictions at the trial court level
with the same protections at the appellate level unless and until a party challenges the restriction
in the appellate court.

THIS OPTION DOES NOT ASSURE UNIFORMITY OF TREATMENT.  THE PRIOR
OPTION SHOULD BE ADOPTED, NOT THIS ONE.

No. 56
11/29/00
Chesapeake, VA
The accessibility of files from a particular website from anyone on the Internet is not a simple
on-off function. Through judicious use of farewells and IP address controls it is possible to
achieve the benefits of electronic transfers without providing instant access to every citizen
in the world. In the interests of protecting serious information about people's lives from
becoming fodder for gossip, we must make sure that gaining requires a level of effort and cost
similar to that associated with traveling to the courthouse. I would recommend a registration
process with a subscription fee (which would become a customary cost in bona fide legal work).
This is not to say that there should be additional controls placed upon the information once it has
been accessed, but there should be a requirement to identify who is responsible for the posting
(analogous to paid political  advertising). While there may be adventurous individuals who
would go to lengths to find and post information at more public sites on the web, their
traceability would at least allow motives to be exposed for public review.

More important than easing access to information for those who have the resources to use the
Internet, I believe there must be rules which require each courthouse to ensure that all records are
open to the degree of "free" inspection which paper documents have traditionally been subjected.
That is, if electronic files are acceptable to the  court, then one or more workstations allow the
public to access these files at the courthouse. Additionally, since search engines relieve the work
load of attorneys using web  access (thus giving them advantage), search engines should be
available to those accessing files at the courthouse.

No. 57
11/29/00
Lyman, SC
Anonymity is the problem w/ unrestricted internet access to stuff.  If the person wanting
information were as visible on the net as s/he is when going into a courthouse, there would be no
problem.  The people who violate privilege on the internet are the same who'd TRY to do it
out in the real world; most often they're too cowardly to try, or too inept to succeed.  The problem
with the internet is the bad guys have a cloak of invisibility more through than an ordinary
disguise would offer.  And, as for catching those who violate reference privilege, the cost would
prohibit the search:  there's enough money to track down someone who steals from a corporation
or threatens a person in a position of political power, but no money to hunt down violators of
personal information, since protected rights are primarily those of  PROPERTY, not the
reputations or privacy of ordinary people.  It's a terrible dilemma, and no single answer will
suffice.  I'd say the same restrictions must govern internet access to personal information as
govern in-person access.  Surely the technology exists so I'd HAVE to leave a cookie when I'd
looked at a person's file.  And if I don't want my presence known, I'd better not be there . . .
Skulking around is a tacky way to conduct life!  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify
my thoughts on this matter.

No. 58
11/29/00
Prescott, AZ
The importance of the Internet is the providing of information.  If one may access information by
directly requesting photocopies of it, it makes little sense to say that one can not get the very
same information from the Internet, if available.  You should be able to get exactly the same
information, no more and no less.  The manner in which you get it makes no difference.

No. 59
11/29/00
Stanley D. Helsinki, Esq.
Boston, MA
I am certainly for unfettered access.  The standard should be the same standard as is applied in
allowing cameras into courtrooms.  The issue is not of privacy, but accessability.  A document is
either public or private--no shades of grey.  It also further spreads the nations resources to those
who may not have access.

No. 60
11/29/00
Los Angeles, CA
I would like to urge you to keep court records, for all types of cases, from being made available
electronically to the general public.  I believe the current system sufficiently addresses the
concern for public access while making it substantially burdensome for ill-intentioned people to
access this personal and potentially harmful information.  The posting of this information on
the Internet would make it increasingly easier for criminals to commit their crimes, by providing
social security numbers, personal contact information, employment, and financial information at
the click of a button. The files now exist on paper in courthouses to provide a check on these
types of nefarious individuals, to dissuade them from obtaining this information by requiring
them to interact with gatekeepers at the courthouse.  With the court cases on available on the
internet, however, there is no longer a deterrent to accessing this information.  Please respect the
privacy of those who place their trust in the United States Justice System, and keep court records
filed safely in the courthouse.
                   

No. 61
11/29/00
Peter Nikitas
State Bar of Wisconsin Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section Board Member
I believe that one should analyze individual privacy data different from corporate data.  Starting
with individual data, one may see great harm in disclosure of medical records and SSN's.  A U.S.
statute prohibits unauthorized SSN disclosure.  The ADA prohibits disclosure of worker's
medical information beyond strictly circumscribed exceptions, whether or not the worker is
disabled.  See 42 U.S.C. secs. 12112(d)(3)(B - C) and 12112(d)(4)(C), and Cossette v. Minnesota
Power and Light, 188 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 1999).  Given that, and given that the Rehabilitation Act
reads along parallel lines with the ADA, it would appear that the Judicial Conference proposal
runs hard aground on legal shoals. 

The IR & R should oppose broad disclosure of individual private data by federal courts.  It
should oppose any effort to condition suit on waiver of privacy rights.  In fact, it should support
efforts to provide open-eyed, Miranda-like warnings to federal court litigants of the use of the
data they file in court.  See Minn. Stat. sec. 13.04 subd. 2 for an example of such a warning, and
sec. 13.08 subd. 1 - 4 for remedies.

No. 62
11/29/00
J.C. Desmond
Career Law Clerk to Federal Judge
Savannah, GA
I've been a lawyer for 17 years, 8 spent in private practice and 9 as a law clerk at the U.S. District
and Appeals Court levels.  I'm currently the career law clerk for a federal district judge in
Savannah, Georgia.  So, I know something about this topic. I've also seen enough to be
convinced that an open government is a healthy government and that when private parties use the
judicial branch to resolve their disputes they rightly make their "private" papers public
documents. "Sunshine is the best disinfectant," and far too much evil, public and private, is
concealed by "privacy" and "secrecy" concerns. Example: Ever try and find the opinion
dismissing the government's case against Daniel Ellsberg because Nixon's "plumbers" broke into
Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office?   Have you read the "Abuse of Power" tape transcripts that Nixon
spent 20 years and $2 million trying to suppress? 

Unlimited access to public court records also advances "citational accountability," a concept
explored in J.C. Desmond, "Zen and the Art of Law Clerk Maintenance," 4 Ga.Bar.J. 65 (June
1999) (if judges were compelled cite to the record document on which they rely to construct the
"facts" portion of their opinions, less "smoke" would support judicial conclusions, and the public
would be better able to monitor judges who'd otherwise smuggle their personal politics into
cases).  Without unfettered access to court documents, "judicial legislation" and judicial
politicking would be more difficult to detect. 

I'm therefore in favor of the following proposals as listed on your web site:

Civil Case Files:
No. 1 (place burden on litigants to partially or fully seal records, but promulgate a national rule --
hence, option 4 -- allowing partial (e.g., last four-digit) tax and credit card (etc.) numbers, but
keep this exception narrowly defined.  As for options 2 and 3 -- NO! Also, don't nickel and dime
people - skip the 7 cents/page access charge.  It'll cost too much to bill and collect and will
be a huge nuisance.  I want a free and open government, not yet another layer of  wasteful
bureaucracy. 

Criminal Case Files:
No. 2 makes sense and is well worded.

Bankruptcy Case Files:
Bankruptcy has lost its stigma, and is abused by many. 

Illumination of debtor data assists those who'd otherwise detect and illuminate fraud, not to
mention serial filers, liars and cheats.  "Honest" debtors lose here, but that pain's far outweighed
by society's gain.  Other than the truncated social security and credit card measure, I'm opposed
to expanding Rule 107 authority.

Appellate Cases:
I support options 1 and 2 and find them well-worded.
    

No. 63
11/30/00
Healdsurg,CA
Civil Case Files:
Establish "levels of access" to certain electronic case file information

Criminal Case
Files: Provide limited electronic public access to criminal case files

Bankruptcy Case Files:
Restrict use of Social Security, credit card, and other account numbers to only the last four digits
to protect privacy and security interests.
-and-
Segregate certain sensitive information from the public file by collecting it on separate forms that
will be protected from unlimited public access and made available only to the courts, the U.S.
Trustee, and to parties in interest.

Appellate Cases:
Treat any document that is sealed or subject to public access restrictions at the trial court level
with the same protections at the appellate level unless and until a party challenges the restriction
in the appellate court.
                                

No. 64
11/30/00
I think that we must categorize the various pieces of information found in case files.  Anything
that would normally be protected under existing laws should still be protected if it is found in a
case file.  A few examples of such information would include trade secrets, proprietary
information, and medical records.  However, it is also essential to the successful functioning of
our court system t o be able to research and examine rulings and other legal precedents.  Thus,
the kind of information that relates directly to the charges, the verdicts, and the legal and logical
basis behind those verdicts should be publicly available. 

On the issue of use of the internet to disseminate the public access portions of case files, I see no
legal concerns here--it is merely a matter of methodology. If something is public, it's public.  The
internet is simply a more efficient means to make it so.  Protected information, on the other hand,
should not even be stored in a computer that might be connected to the internet (for security
reasons), let alone be purposefully disseminated therein.

Thanks for seeking public comment on these issues.

No. 65
Walnut Creek, CA
All court records that are deemed to be subject to public access should be available on-line.  It
should not be required that the requesting individual physically visit the corresponding court.

If the information is a matter of public record, the ease with which the information may be
obtained should not change the classification of the information.

Additionally, if records are made available at the court via computer without charge they should
also be available remotely without charge.

In the interest of protecting and preserving the legal process it may be desirable to not post the
information until the conclusion of the case and the parties have had an opportunity to request all
or part of the record be sealed.

This should not be deemed as approval to conceal plea agreements that may impact the due
process of other defendants.

It would be reasonable for certain information to be deemed not subject to public access, but this
should be consistent between paper and electronic documents.

No. 66
11/30/00
Santa Rosa, CA
The contents of civil cases should be completely available.  These issues and their resolutions
provide data for research into the impacts of laws and the courts on the economy, the individuals,
and society as a whole.  It also provides the background needed to create models to predict the
possible effects of proposed laws and regulations or identify social trends.

In the area of criminal records this should become more restrictive due to privacy considerations
and the possibility of violations of the public peace in publishing names and addresses.  For this
my opinion would be to publish the court records but to strip them of names, addresses, tax and
financial information.  The problem is that some records will be rendered useless for any purpose
by removing this data but it is better for our society to err on the side of over protection of
privacy than it would be to under protect an individual's privacy.

I would also tend towards over protection for the simple reason that mistakes are made.  People
are arrested for crimes they did not commit (and hopefully released) and published records can
contain mistakes in the form of the wrong person's name being associated with a case that they
were never involved with.  This has happened with the publication of the names and addresses of
child molesters, some times with tragic results for that person.

Thank you for your time.

No. 67
11/30/00
Vidalia, GA   
Records of trials etc. are a matter of public record and should be made available to the public
on-line.

Where there are matters that the trial court or appellate court has deemed confidential, for what
ever reason, limited access should be applied, but these documents should be available for
legitimate use and by legitimate parties, excluding the curious.

No. 68
12/01/00
Binghamton, NY
As an information security professional with specialization in electronic information security, I
would like to caution the Government against making 'user-friendly' access to this particular
subset of the public record. The age-old tendency of persons of low character to use a little
knowledge about an individual to gain trust and control over that person has gained new
practitioners in the age of electronic commerce. There will be tragedies.  Make people go to the
files, or at least a viewer at a Government office. It will, in some small degree, discourage the
laziest who are also sometimes the least ethically scrupulous.

No. 69
12/01/00
La Verne, CA
No one should have access to credit card numbers, social security numbers, bank account
numbers, or any personal or financial information such as creditors without a court order.

No 70
12/01/00
Who would have guessed that the electronic version of public records could or would be treated
any different than the paper equivalents? Why should these records be treated different? The only
reason I can come up with is arrogance. Arrogance may lead some people to believe that these
public records, albeit "public", should only be truly available to those that either have the
intricate knowledge of when and where these records can be obtained, or have the will to
research this subject to find out.

No. 71
12/01/00
Milwaukee, WI
I support full and open exposure of all case files. But penalties against those who discriminate or
otherwise use that info to the ill of those covered. I would go so far as to say "eyes only" with the
data--it can be read, but not used.

No.72
12/01/00
San Francisco, CA
I've given this sort of thing some time. The problem as I see it is that public records, in electronic
form, give a person who intends to violate privacy of persons mentioned in the records a new
found technical ability to abuse a mass audience of persons from these records. Given my
understanding of the problem, a simple solution would be to simply limit the number of public
records that an individual or corporation could access over a given time period. There are a
number of technical ways this could be done. Likewise, there are a number of ways that someone
could skirt around this. I don't claim to think that this is a complete solution, however I think it
could quite possibly be a partial solution.

No.73
12/01/00
I have read that this is about releasing court documents to the web. Since such documents may
contain info such as names, addresses, social security numbers or even, in bankruptcy cases, bank
account numbers, I would like to point out that identity theft is becoming increasingly common.
As long as info like this is a principle means of personal identification, it behooves you to
recognize that releasing such info to the general public simply makes identity theft that much
easier. Until biological (fingerprints, voice analysis, retinal patterns) info becomes the principle
means of identification, it seems to me that go slow is the order of the day. Otherwise you are
simply handing thieves, sharpsters and ne'erdowells the keys to people's bank accounts. With the
worldwide reach of the internet, such malcontents do not even need to be in the same country.
This vastly increases the pool of prospects for such identity theft.

No. 74
12/01/00
Palo Alto, CA
All this data should be sealed, and not accessible to the public. In many court cases, there is a lot
of data which would normally be private, and which should not be freely "published". The only
exception should be where public safety and welfare are at risk if data are sealed. For example, if
someone is convicted of fraud, their identity should be public, so that the truth can be discovered
later by anyone who searches for information about that person. This would help people conduct
due diligence prior to making various business and personal decisions.

No. 75
12/01/00
Boulder Creek, CA
My recent experience with jury duty convinced me that the court had absolutely no concept of
data security. I stood near the name-tag-printing machine and could have easily written down
many valid name/SSN/driver's license number combinations. My concern increased when a
questionnaire was given the jury pool, consisting of a number of personal questions ('have you
ever seen a psychiatrist?') The same sheet asked personal questions about me and my girlfriend,
whose answers I refused to write on the same questionnaire or link to my own. Given my
experience with the jury pool information above I conclude data security in the court is
appallingly lax, and the court's attitude of benign neglect shows they are not interested in any
juror's rights. A mechanism to protect jurors' personal data, obscuring any and all address,
telephone, SSN and driver's license data is urgently needed. Further, a law holding judges
personally responsible and liable in tort for data security in their courts is needed: if the judge is
not personally responsible for data security, data security will not happen.

No. 76
12/01/00
Plano, TX
This is a really tough question. These records need to remain open to the public. At the same
time a computers ability to download these records in bulk and then compile lists of data allow
for several type of misuse.  The problem the internet imposes is the access to very large numbers
of cases from long distances. If physical access is required, discrimination is limited to what one
person can carry away, thus providing a physical limit the degree of discrimination of this
information. Since both objections cannot be fully met, I suggest a form of unsatisfactory
compromise. Make the court records available on the internet, but limit download to (say) 2 cases
per IP address in any 24 hour period. I realize that this can be circumvented but that requires
effort. This would allow public access to a case where interest is high. It would also inhibit mass
compilation and cross referencing of this data. Also logging the requestor's IP address of each
download and possibly (also) his MAC address could help in the case of criminal abuse resulting
from access to these files. I wish I had a better idea.

No.77
12/01/00
San Jose, CA
Electronic dissemination of court documents should be limited in all cases where any harm may
befall an individual if the information is widely available. Court documents are made public such
that an interested party can investigate a particular trial proceeding. Through the use of
computers, the process of gathering information can be vastly simplified, and damaging
information can quickly be harvested on a large number of people.
An individual can be harmed by dissemination of personal information, such as Social Security
numbers. Anyone reasonably proficient with data searching will quickly be able to find such
information, and combine it with other freely available information that could be used to commit
crimes against an individual. Credit card fraud is a prime example of persons being harmed
through wide dissemination of information, that, although it is not confidential, should not be
widely available.

No. 78
12/01/00
San Angelo, TX
I believe that this is a matter of grave importance in our nation's future. By making these records
available on the Internet, we are allowing full access to documents that all citizens are currently
allowed. By placing them in a downloadable, platform-neutral format, we would be empowering
those who would normally be unable to access them. Technology that functions as such a great
equalizer as the Internet, should be embraced wholeheartedly by our government. Doing so
would demonstrate to our country's citizens that they ARE a part of our great republic.

No.  79
12/01/00
Brian Lee Corber, Esq.
Panorama City, CA
Court filings are generally public record unless otherwise made confidential via court order. All
such filings should be made easily accessible. Using the Internet to make files easily accessible is
a wise plan. Why? It gives easier access (1) less expensive access because one need not travel to
the court house to view the files which could be great inconvenience if a Los Angeles resident
wanted to view a file in the Southern District of New York (2) if only access is physical, in
person, then only one person can access the files at a time--via internet multiple parties can
access simultaneously (3) less use of non-renewable resources, like gasoline, to travel to and
from court (4) less expense to a member of the public who might want to make copies of a file--
court's generally charge 50 cents and up per page for copies (5) greater ability to do research
because you can access files from one location more swiftly than doing an in-person access (6)
would help with determination, by individual seeking access, of existence of particular files
rather than running to each district court (7) decreased personnel costs--i.e.: less need for in-court
clerks to just retrieve and hand out files (but more need for those skilled enough to maintain the
system) (8) might lead way to electronic filing system which would be more immediate than the
old way of filing papers, pleadings and documents (9) GREATER ACCESS TO FILES MEANS
GREATER ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, EASIER ACCESS TO SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE MAKES LAY PUBLIC MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT SYSTEM, WHICH
IS THEIR SYSTEM

No.80
12/01/00
Lancaster, Ca
I believe that both civil and criminal records should be made available to the public.  But I
believe that any information contained in those files that would identify a specific individual
should be removed. The records should not contain addresses beyond the resolution of a state.
They should not contain social security numbers, drivers license numbers, telephone numbers, or
as I said any other piece of information that could be used to identify an individual.  Where this
information is applicable to a business I believe that it should be included. I believe that a
business operates as a public entity and should be open to public scrutiny. Additionally I believe
that the personal information removed from public record should only be made available upon
approval of a request to a court.

No. 81
12/01/00
Nashua, NH
Given that the same information would be made available in both electronic and paper forms,
there should be no reason to restrict access to the electronic version. It would allow research
without the danger of damage to documents, and by more people than paper copies would allow.
The law has always been in place for helping people; restricting electronic access in no way helps
people and, in fact, could harm them if they need immediate access to documentation that has
been restricted.

No. 82
12/01/00
Manassas, VA
"Should electronic case files be protected from unlimited public disclosure, or should they be
treated the same as paper files?" Electronic records of court cases should not be openly available.
Currently multiple corporations keeps profiles about millions of Americans. These profiles track
things such as race, sex, age, credit history, lists of purchases, familial statistics, hobbies and
interests, even tracking use of the world wide web. By allowing unlimited access to these files at
a low cost, said corporations will be able to assimilate court records into their already vast
databases. The data kept in these databases will become far more personal than ever before.
Corporations will be able to target consumers at a depth never before imagined, and it is unlikely
that any of this targeting will be in any way beneficial to the people. The myriad of categories of
information that can be gleaned from court records could create a host of new kinds of
discrimination, as companies look for new reasons to exclude those that they find undesirable.
Keep these records open to the courts and law enforcement only. Anything else could lead to a
gross destruction on America's collective privacy.

No. 83
12/01/00
Menlo Park, CA
Please do NOT allowing web-publishing of personal records, even if those records on paper are
considered public. At present, paper records are effectively protected by the inconvenience of
making physical copies in person, and physical copies are inconvenient to redistribute. If the
same information is available on the web, it will be far easier to obtain, to organize and cross-
reference with other information, and to copy at will...there will be no more privacy at all.  The
courts must distinguish between information which can be obtained somehow (with sufficient
motivation and cause) and information which is effectively cost-free, available to marketers,
scam-artists, overseas companies, and anyone else w