The Internet Court is Now In Session
How the "right to be forgotten" looks on this side of the Atlantic.

October 12, 2014

Topics = { Judges + Judges + Privacy + Privacy + Right to Be Forgotten + Right to Be Forgotten }

At the moment, there are 107 messages in the inbox.

It's not my personal inbox, because I make a concerted effort to keep this mailbox separate. The mailbox in question belongs to PlainSite, a legal information service I started as a side-project three years ago to help explain the 2008 financial crisis. On average, PlainSite receives between five and twenty requests on a daily basis from assorted internet strangers I have never met or heard of.

Some of the strangers who send in requests are polite. Some are most certainly not. More than a few are colorful characters. A small minority are lawyers or search engine optimization workers operating on behalf of law firms. All have been caught up in a paradigm shift that they do not understand, and that no one will fully explain to them. None seem to understand the position that I am in, because until a few years ago, I'm fairly certain that no one had really been in it before.

It comes down to this: I am now a judge. I was not elected, nor was I appointed, nor am I strictly a volunteer. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have a J.D., though I did spend some months at a law school. I have no legally binding power. Nonetheless, it seems very clear that I am filling a judicial role, and what's more, to a certain extent, the internet is my court. The vast majority of "motions" filed read about as clearly and contain roughly as much insight as YouTube comments. Most don't even reference a particular case number or name; forcing the requestor to choose a case on the PlainSite Contact Us page often results in wildly incorrect information.

Like the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which decides upon matters only related to patents, the pseudo-court I run is a specialized kind of court with a narrow purpose (and no actual authority). My court exists to evaluate privacy requests for a single private web site. At this point, every type of person ranging from poor minorities to rich executive vice-presidents has sent in a request at one point or another asking to have their particular case removed from PlainSite, and preferably according to many requests, if I can manage it, "the internet."

From these requests, one quickly discerns that the average person's understanding of the legal system is astoundingly lacking. On top of that, few understand how databases work. Many suspect that their cases appeared on-line as the result of some sort of foul play. I have been accused by a requestor in Florida of falling under the spell of a Haitian witch, on account of PlainSite hosting a case, and then my responding to the request about it. "This is simple and you need to control yourself and not let a Haitian witch with diabetes do witchcraft to put words in your mouth and tell you what to email me. I live in Florida and you live in California, this has no purpose for you," the requestor wrote. Of course, I have also been threatened countless times with lawsuits for defamation, even on occasion by lawyers, who eventually realize that a defamation lawsuit based on court records would effectively stop right at the courthouse door.

It's an understandable desire not to have one's name in the spotlight for being tied up in litigation. I myself have my name associated with a number of lawsuits, so it's an issue I've spent some time considering. While I am perfectly comfortable being known for the cases that I have filed, I am also lucky in a number of ways. Excluding counter-claims, I or my company is always the plaintiff. I have nothing I wish to hide. For me, it's actually in my interest to have information about my cases accessible as widely as possible.

For the recent college graduate arrested for a DUI on federal land, that is not necessarily true. The same goes for a former bank executive who was accused of fraud twenty years ago, or a private person who managed a disputed trust for a deceased relative. Nor do minority immigrants brave enough to sue their employers over discriminatory employment practices get as much leeway in the job market as white Americans who have been in the United States for generations. These are just a few examples, of course, not including bar fight victims, Department of Homeland Security workers, and a former Commissioner of the NBA.

Afer doing some research of my own, I realized that there existed very little precedent to guide me in how to make decisions about the various requests coming in. Actual judges evaluating motions to seal rarely cite any detailed reasoning beyond the general principle that case documents are court records in the public domain. For example, in the Ninth Circuit (which covers California and much of the western United States) there's Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F. 3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing "strong presumption in favor of public access" to court records), and then there's Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’") But I wanted more than "general;" I wanted specifics.

The proper way to rule on privacy in some cases seemed obvious: convicted bank robbers and sexual predators should not get to unilaterally prioritize their personal privacy over the real public interest in their crimes. Nor should public officials accused of wrongdoing, and especially police officers. Other situations were less clear. Should a private person who owed another $100,000, but had not declared bankruptcy, be entitled to have her case removed from search engines? How might the decision impact the next person looking to do business with her?

From the start, I decided not to actually delete information from the PlainSite database without a court order instructing as much. Instead, I decided to instruct search engines such as Google and Bing to suppress links to particular PlainSite pages, even if those cases could still be found by searching PlainSite directly. Eventually, I decided to write up a serious "privacy policy" for PlainSite—not the kind of boilerplate nonsense that most sites have, but one that actually addresses these issues. So far, it's worked out quite well. One way to measure success in this context is with the following fact: despite its existence in a thicket of legal issues and attorney records, and repeated threats, PlainSite has never actually been sued.

Celebration would be premature, however.

In many of these cases, there's no right answer, and there's no way to know what the future will bring. There is even something of a global debate over what Europe has deemed the "right to be forgotten," unsurprisingly stemming from a dispute over debt records in Spain. In the United States, there is no such right, and in fact the First Amendment to the United States Constitution champions the ability of anyone to re-publish anything in the public domain. A few requestors currently residing in Europe have consequently found themselves in the middle of an international legal paradox since PlainSite is based in the United States and is not subject to European Union law, even if Google is when doing business in Europe.

Requestors who do not get their way are often frustrated at the suggestion that they can still petition their respective judge or court for a motion sealing their case. Much like every court process, the process can be expensive (though a lawyer isn't necessarily required) and relatively slow. Nonetheless, there is no better solution because even if information is removed from PlainSite, so long as it is still accessible at the root source, it is inevitable that other sites will come along at some point and find it.

This gets to the real problem: that courts, and the lawyers who are designated as "officers" of courts, do not understand the new, interconnected context in which they operate. Judges seem to believe that court databases such as PACER (on the federal level) will never be freely available. But much of PACER already is open to the public, with more coming on-line every day, and the trend is only going to grow in the direction of transparency, and increasingly quickly at that. What is needed is a radical re-structuring of the way courts evaluate information privacy, and far better education for litigants. Most of the plaintiffs who write into PlainSite are shocked and offended that "their" information has been made public. Few understand the trade-off of privacy for justice, let alone the value of precedent in the legal system, which requires access to information.

Meanwhile, the requests keep coming in, some reasonable, and some absurd. If I take too long to address them, angry requestors occasionally begin sending e-mail to my personal accounts, or send faxes, or call fifty-six times in a single evening. Once, someone actually appeared at my front door. Now, each request generates an auto-reply informing the requestor that PlainSite has limited staffing and a thirty- to sixty-day backlog.

As a result, I do not envy judges. I certainly don't want to be one. Their work is difficult and not particularly rewarding, at least in any direct sense. On the other hand, their stubborn refusal to adopt new technologies clearly results in a far higher workload for themselves—and for other organizations that have sprung up to handle the fallout from their obstuse inability to recognize the digital world in which they function. It would be trivially easy for the courts to automate all kinds of requests. Yet so long as the legal profession thrives on the ineffiency of the status quo, it does not seem likely that such automation will be coming any time soon. And for that reason, the internet will continue to have me and an assortment of other software developers at various legal technology ventures doing the work of government—because for now, nobody else is.


Add your comment in the box below.
Web Site
What is the total when you put 3 and 3 together and add one hundred?


Lisa Brown (
November 15, 2016 at 4:19 PM EST

Attn: Aaron Jacob Greenspan CEO of
I just wanted to let you know you are destroying my life by posting my lawsuit on the Internet for the ENTIRE world to see. Some of the information you are posting is also incorrect, as you are stating that my lawsuit was a (Wrongful Termination) BUT it was a (Sexual Harassment) lawsuit.
You have selectively chosen a small percentage of the lawsuits with the Superior Court of California and are posting private and very personal information. THIS IS HARASSMENT and is preventing me from getting a job!!! Please remove YOUR posting for Case No. BC508193 OR I will be looking forward to seeing you in court. Good day!


September 14, 2016 at 3:10 PM CDT

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. PACER documents are public, on PACER and at the courthouse. But being put on the internet is a different sort of public, having it waived in your face every day.

With your site making so many people unhappy, why not just shut it down altogether. It is missing so many cases and documents that no one would rely on it anyways. When it comes down to it, you are an arrogant, not nice person for putting all this on the internet. Even if technically you are allowed to. Why not get a real job?


Diana Endt
February 22, 2015 at 10:24 PM EST

My court case involving very personal information was only made public around a year ago because of Plainsite. I was a victim of a crime in 2003 and was harassed and dealt with the ramifications of the assault until 2008. I moved forward from this crime in 2004 and was brought back in after my personal information and identification that was stolen was used again in 2008. I've since made sure that my personal information has been kept private in a manner that I'm still able to enjoy the internet as any regular person. Anytime a search brings up a previous address or any information that is directly involved in my still unsolved attack, or i've asked the website to delete the information. I'll never ask any court or official entity to suppress my information because I still want my case to be solved... My question to you is why after multiple pleas for you to remove my personal information after explaining my reasoning have you not only not removed it, but i became your first post to this site when I never meant nor wanted to be. Please respect people who've been victim's of crimes and the other public websites who honer them:)


March 15, 2016 at 7:19 PM CDT

have anyone had their infor removed?


April 25, 2015 at 7:58 PM CDT

I just read your entire so-called "justification" of having your website. I even reached your father reasoning you to remove my information from your website. It is sadden me that with all education and such great family gene, you are not getting why some people are upset at you. I spoke with you in the most heated manner and you still stated "freedom of speech" and "US-Constitution" as your justification.

I have written in my email that I have NEVER had any issue with your site keep my information or making it available upon any request (as PACER). My issue with you site is that anybody by going through "CAPTCHA" would access to my information. Those information could be interpreted wrongly (remind you google case "right to be forgotten"). My beef with your website and I have not dropped my avenues to permanently shut you down (disturbing, clearly invading my privacy) about a case that the plaintiff's intention was to silence me as "whistle blower" pertaining to violation of environmental laws in Texas's Gulf region. The plaintiff has closed their doors many years ago and presiding judge passed away.

My request was that after CAPTCHA, there should not be any access to the information unless a written request to be submitted as "PACER" has done. You have arrogantly refused. It seems that you would NOT believe any of your words as you have stated herein.


Nancy Billings
January 13, 2017 at 5:35 AM EST

You're an absolute jerk. Shame. Shame on you.


Jill Goldstein
October 29, 2017 at 11:35 AM CDT

Under Federal Law you have the obligation to turn over your supposed IRS 501c form 909 to anyone in the public that requests it. I along with other people I have been in contact with have requested this IRS 909 form but your refuse to turn it over as required by Federal Law. Looks like you little SOB you have one set of rules for everyone else and then your create your own set of rules for yourself. You are not transparent at all and hide all of your financial income data under your IRS 501c that you have somehow managed to place under the Think Computer Corporation. You enjoy hiding behind your computer and the First Amendment but you are not complying with Federal IRS 501c law. You need to turn over your income, assets and the salaries you pay to yourself and any Staff. You are being a non-transparent hypocrite and the IRS will be contacting you very soon.


September 19, 2018 at 5:25 PM CDT

Bunch of assholes!!May your company gets liquidated soon!

About | Writing | Technology

Copyright © 2001-2017 Aaron Greenspan. All Rights Reserved.