[stickfigure]

There's nothing immoral about charging for content that you've aggregated. People sell dictionaries.

The problem here is that instead of building APIs (or just posting to FTP sites), governments are building offices and funding staff to answer snail mail requests. Or building sophisticated web forms and search engines.

It's obvious how we got to this point (before the internet, you obtained public records by walking into an office) but it's long past time to change. We don't need fancy web forms to search and find data; cut all that out and just provide data in machine readable form to anyone who wants it.

Someone will build a pretty commercial interface to public records data. Chances are, they can do it for less than the 8-figure sum required for UI development in the public sector. Win-win.

[pyrale]

It is not obvious to me that reducing the cost to consult public data is necessarily a good thing. Just because this data is accessible, it should not amways also be accessible inexpensively. Example given: trial records should be public but it would probably not be nice to have all your judicial record displayed in people's glasses.

[cameronbrown]

Disagree. It's inherently in the public interest to have access to this data as easily as possible. If it's too embarrassing then that's a cultural problem.

[z3t4]

Some "public" records are in the gray area as in; should or should they not (black and white) be published. For example salaries, the employer might forbid disclosing salaries, but anyone can just request anyone's salary from the government because its public. But if they could be downloaded from an FTP ...

[BEEdwards]

In the US it is illegal for employers to forbid disclosing salaries.

Discussing salaries is a taboo created by industries to stifle wages.

https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/truth-about-di...

[thekyle]

What government agency allows you to see arbitrary other peoples salaries?

[desas]

Tax records are published in Sweden, Finland and Norway