schwartz

[Carl Malamud <xxxx@media.org>]

so, you are willing to go on record about what you did on pacer?

the real issue, natch, is not whether or not we violated any aup that  
didn't exist, but public access to the law, the audit process on  
ssn's, the better stamping of metadata, the awful ui that they have on  
pacer, the pdf validity issues, their broken perl, etc.

I've told John Schwartz the true story, he told his editor, and the  
times has said they'd like the story.  But, have not named names.

If we do this, you'll have to be patient.  He starts work 1/5 and  
these things take time ... perhaps all month.  Under no circumstances  
do we want to spoil his exclusive, which means none of us can talk  
about the fact that John is doing the story.

Sent a similar note to Stephen.

Let me know if I should give him your name ....

Carl

FYA, not for redistribution, here is a third and final notice that  
went out today.  The court of federal claims just wrote to me today  
and said they would have answers for me starting 1/5 and apologizing  
for the delay.  Mass. has removed all their docs.

Attachment: letter_to_clerks.dcd.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document