|
|
|
|
|
|
by eagleal
47 days ago
|
|
|
Do not know about the US, but some countries publish some type of high profile cases but _only_ after anonimization for obvious privacy reasons. To access the DB through the modern archive (well modern as new rules) you'd have to be an accredited professional passing through a few legal hardles and digital chancellor's office for each copy. It's like going to a bureaucracy^bureaucracy office. Some early companies given their initial foothold were not required these checks so they were able to get hold of bigger archives (it's also important to remember often legislation or conformity is done through consulting or lobbying done by these entrenched players). They can also build on the Data professionals themselves submit. |
|
|
It doesn't work that way in the US. Legal judgements are documents of public record, and they are normally published in full - it's not uncommon to search for someone's name and see legal cases pop up that they have been involved in.
There are specific instances where a judge can seal a judicial record (and records for minors are sealed automatically), someone may petition for their own records to be expunged, and parties may ask for some information to be redacted, but these are normally (except in the case of minors) not done automatically. As I understand it, the US has much more lax rules around the publicity of legal proceedings than other jurisdictions. For example, even though someone is deemed "innocent until proven guilty", arrest records and mugshots are reported all the time in the media even though this would be illegal in many other areas of the world.