[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Message 00460: Re: schwartz

I'm happy to go on the record with the times. is there anything we're keeping quiet or is it the full story?

On Dec 29, 2008 7:11 PM, "Carl Malamud" <carl@media.org> wrote:

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 ....


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.