Hacker News Reader

Comment by heavyset_go | Hacker News Reader

Cool, I guess. I'm not really a fan of anything that can be used to further persecute people who have already paid their debts to society. I know this is public information, but the information itself has been relatively opaque for generations.

Beyond mild curiosity, the only paying customers for a service like this will be groups like employers, schools, creditors, landlords etc. It removes the pain around paid background checks, and it includes data that was already legally expunged.

The fact that it includes data that was legally expunged actually makes this service more valuable than traditional background checks to certain types of people.

View on HN

Legal research services (access to dockets, case text, etc.) tend to be extremely expensive. I think making that more widely available is a good thing for people with limited resources. It's kind of nuts how impenetrable the legal system is if you don't have any resources.

Great point.

It's extremely difficult to represent yourself pro se if you don't have access to information about how cases like yours might unfold, arguments that have been used, how well those arguments have worked, how the cases have been decided, whether a company has settled a similar case as yours, and so on.

Is that really a bad thing? Nobody should be representing themselves because they have no idea beyond Law and Order what all is supposed to be happening around them. That's why you get a complementary attorney if you can't afford one.

It's just too important to risk no?

Like DIY surgery. It's quite expensive and impenetrable to be doing your own appendectomy and I'm not mad about that. In both cases you could if you really had to but a high barrier to entry for me is not a bug but a feature.

Just like surgery, your argument only works given effective public funding.

> That's why you get a complementary attorney if you can't afford one.

Not in US you don't. Leaving aside how you don't have a right to a lawyer when you are on either side of a civil matter, most states will send you a bill should you avail yourself of the "a lawyer will be provided for you" part of the Miranda rights. Now, if you are broke, they'll still provide services to you.

In Canada you actually get free legal advice before any questioning.

To clarify, that's not a bill you only have to pay if you get a windfall. That's a bill that (in some places) will be agressively collected as a part of your fines.

If you're in prison you also have nearly no rights to a lawyer. (For example, if you want to sue the prison system for inhumane conditions)

Edit: For ex you may need to pay fees to be allowed to drive, which you may need to go to work/buy food.

> that's not a bill you only have to pay if you get a windfall

You can't get a windfall as a criminal defendant, just a conviction or not.

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

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

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

So poor people with an interest in surgery should have zero access to medical journals? This is all just taxpayer funded information that you and I pay for every year in taxes.

Our legal system is built on case law. Reading the law as it was passed is not enough - one must consult rulings in the relevant jurisdiction for precedence. I think the benefits of making this type of information widely available outweighs the potential downsides.

Absolutely, but I think the general public tends to completely misinterpret what they’re looking at and will often make faulty conclusions if they’re not given the full context provided through formal training (eg. Dr. Google).

The repercussions of an employer doing their own unqualified background check in someone can be detrimental to a person’s future wellbeing.

What does that have to do with listing the calendar calls of 25 year old divorce proceedings

You and I have no idea but does that mean no one else might and for reasons of which we'd been unaware?

When you say used to persucute, that's not accurate in any legal sense. Many states have statewide repositories of court data. Also, when you say "can be used for", that's extremely broad and as far as a standard for taking a position on something, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. Do you mind clarifying?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com