 So we're going to do the National Inventory of Legal Materials next, and we've got five people who are going to be speaking. Who wants to start? I've got Matt Novak listed. First, Matt, you want to start? Sure. Come on up here. Who's going to have computers? We have Matt, Susanna, Sarah, Stephanie, and Andrew. Anybody have presentations? I have a little one. Okay, so what I'm going to ask is that we keep this short and snappy, right, that we do five minutes on your chosen jurisdiction. Just give us a quick overview of what you got there, and hopefully there'll be some time left over for more general discussion. Okay, so we're going to start with Matt, University of Nebraska. Correct, Carl, he introduced this as five prominent librarians. I'll say it's four prominent librarians than myself. We had, I think, Rich Leiter, the director at our University of Nebraska, who was kind of constantly being here, but last minute he appointed me to be here, so he got me. I can keep this real snappy. Carl asked us to address what's interesting about your state, and I would say, really, there's not a whole lot of anything interesting going on in Nebraska in terms of putting stuff online, that sort of thing. Anything that's online is, you know, PDF don't sort of thing, so there's no big digital download like that.gov type of content out there. We just download the XML file and go to town with that. Nothing is authenticated. Nothing online is considered the official version. What other topics I had to see here? Coverage is very sparse for Supreme Court, and, of course, appeals and material is strictly slip opinions, last 90 days, pull that off, and then it's gone. So there's, again, not official, not authenticated in any way, shape, or form. Disclaimers are pretty uniform, but it's all useless claimers. There's no kind of click-through contract to use. It's just, you know, use it at your own risk, sort of thing. I'll answer any questions afterwards, but again, I guess quick summations. Nothing really super exciting going on. It's just pretty run-of-the-mill, online stuff. Okay. Thank you very much. For each of our five presenters, we've made up some national inventory of legal materials, plain cards, that have each of the 50 states on them, so that this is for you. So who's next? Shuzanna? I'm here. I want you to come up. So I want to say, Shuzanna is coming up, this is part of a national effort that was started by Stanford Law Library, follow me on airplane and the law librarians there. The American Association of Law Libraries has been instrumental in helping get this effort off the ground. They've been very helpful in using many of their 50 state organizations. They're right there. And the 1.0 meter PGA board. There you go. And this is an effort that's also been going on through the AALL, Marielle Spacious in organizing it in each state. I believe that has a committee of law librarians who are working on trying to gather the law for each state. I'm on the committee for Pennsylvania, although I'm not the chairman of the committee, and I was just going to go for Pennsylvania real quickly, even though I served in the county. Pennsylvania is fine. I'm not from Illinois. Pennsylvania. And if you want to read all about where Pennsylvania law can be found, my boss wrote this fabulous essay that he updates all the time that gives you, like, low by low details about every possible sort of law in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is basically the setup like the U.S. with the judiciary, legislative and administrative. This is our judiciary system. Those minor courts at the bottom are the ones that are decided by magistrates who aren't necessarily lawyers or judges. They're just sort of guys elected. And they handle two million cases a year, but they don't publish anything. Our common police courts are the basic courts that people start out in, and they're just starting to go on the bottom of their information. And it's sort of like a county by county basis. Some of the counties have a lot of information. Some of them don't have any. This is the Magisterial Courts. Terms and conditions seem to get more and more dire as you go into the smaller courts. I mean, this one is like, if we use our systems, this is the Magisterial Courts. You know, you can like blow up your computer. Just forget about it. We have no responsibility for anything at all, ever. Was it revenues? This is how you get to the common police sites, but then they quickly go to these local sites that each county has put together, and they're all different. Most of them don't have anything that you can actually cite to an authoritative. This is another one. Then the appellate courts, the three appellate courts on the top are the Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, and the Supreme Court. And they are all now coasting authoritative PDFs of their communities quite rapidly online. So that's good news. Our legislature is putting some stuff online. They have bills. You can now get emails every day about bill progress as it goes through the houses, which I think is a good thing. Bill information. And then our codification. For a number of years, the only codification we had was done by this retired lawyer who was like in Philadelphia or something. And it wasn't authoritative at all. And finally, the state talked West that publishes Perth and Pennsylvania statutes to let them link to their unannotated Pennsylvania statutes. So that's provided by West. But again, I think they have a disclaimer. And as for our administrative branch, our code is online, which is just the rules and rules. And it's not very searchable, not very accessible. Hopefully they can approve that. Any questions about Pennsylvania? Let me know. Great, thanks. And are there copyright assertions on the administrative regulations? I didn't see any copyright assertions. Your official blank card. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Jared last night from Valparaiso. Indiana, Kentucky. Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, state level. I just looked at the big six from these three states. So a complication of legislation acts. Three court cases, appellate court cases, administrative code and administrative register. And also, I am now the Indiana chair for the double-edible national inventory of the materials. I just, my co-worker, Sally Holgerhoff was the chair and I went out asking her just for some basic information. So I didn't have to do too much research for this, for the Indiana. Turns out we haven't done anything. And then, I don't know, one thing led to another and I'm going to call Marielle, she said, now you're in charge. So, if you would like to participate with the Indiana, please see me and I will gladly accept your call. Just in general, this is the first time I've used these materials, especially the Kentucky ones. I'm recently from the University of Kentucky. And so I kind of knew what to expect, but I was still stunned. Some general problems. The one there is no one-stop shop in any of these three jurisdictions. You have to go to the, usually the legislatures page for the laws that way. Courts pages for the case law and then the admin codes are hidden. It's an Easter egg hunt, really trying to find these often. And then just kind of faking microproce, which is always a fun adventure. I just Googled, you know, like Kentucky law just to see what would happen. And all these jurisdictions, you often got the legislatures page, but the court pages never appeared on the first page of any Google results. That is a problem. Usability, again, a nightmare. Just the Kentucky court pages, I don't, we can Google it. Great, my friend, just Google it, don't mind it. But the Kentucky courts case searching, they use weird terms like stemming and fuzzy searching and things that I have never heard of before. I may even double check them through my library of colleagues. Like, am I just, just that day in class that we talked about fuzzy searching? They said no, they've never heard of that either. So usability is kind of odd. And again, it's not professional, I'm having trouble. Joe Q. Public is not going to be able to find this. Trying to determine whether or not it's official or authentic, it's very hard to find that. I mean, I've been working on this pretty much, I'm doing my jobs, I don't really have a lot to do. So I've been able to really devote the past two weeks to this. And it took me a really long time to really figure this out. And again, PDFs worked perfect at HTML in the predominant formats of these laws. And then, in many cases, the official version is only obtainable from a commercial publisher. Just some weird specifics. There are copyright assertions in Indiana. The head notes for the codes are copyright assertions by Thompson. Older cases have copyright stated in Indiana. And then we have the official reporters for the Indiana case law on the northeastern reporter. And they just have a blanket at the beginning, copyright Thompson writers. So again, you're not really sure that they just need the key numbers of the head notes or the actual text of the law has never explicitly spelled out. Kentucky does a kind of a weird thing. And this is one of the things that was really funny. I thought basically research for regular research for three years always told my students there are two official versions of the Kentucky Code. One published by West, one published by Lexus. That's actually not true. The only official version of Kentucky Code is electronic. It's in this database that's kept somewhere in Frankfurt. Not only the LRC staff has access to really, but you can purchase a copy. The version on the web is not official. Kentucky was the most explicit about having a disclaimer saying, go with God if you want to use this wheel. But you don't care. So I just thought it was very weird. There's no statements about preservation or anything like that. But also I know it's electronically. And again, Illinois. This one, I expected Illinois people to better just be one of the bigger states in the union. And may Steph explain. I'm still a little unclear about the status of the Indiana or the Illinois Code as far as what's official, what's not. So hopefully any Illinois people, there's an official compilation of that official code. That's my opinion. Most practicing Illinois attorneys think that the Illinois State Bar edition of the Illinois Compound Stat Chiefs is official and it is not. And it's what they will cite too. But it's published by West on behalf of the ISP. That's pretty much just a summary. And there's some things just like the Indiana Register, which are no longer printed at all officially. It's only electronic and we get monthly CD-ROMs for that one. So again, just that's the status of these three states. Thank you very much. There you go, official playing cards. Stephanie, I think you received an Illinois law library. We're doing this very quickly, by the way, but you'll find spreadsheets and other things online. If you did use presentations, I would very much appreciate an email copy of those so we can use that for our record for this law doc process. Stephanie, for yours. Thank you. So I just looked at municipal codes for Illinois. I sort of intended to go through in kind of reverse population order. I wanted to get down around the 5,000 range. I only got down to 10,000. That's about 200 municipalities. And I looked at the main code for each. A lot have separate zoning codes, building codes that are contained in the main codification. And some of them have them unified. So the sort of overview of all of the municipalities in the 10,000 plus population group, 87% have a code online that I can find. So that might be a little bit low, because some of them are really incredibly varied on the city's website. And there's no correlation between size of the city and how easy the code is to find, or whether it's online or whether it's more available and easier to access. So the tiniest villages have really great access to their code and actually make them more available, make them available right on their site. But they're difficult to find sort of across the board. So out of the 180 out of that group that have online codes, a quarter of them are self-hosted. That was a surprise to me. So the city is actually putting them up on their own website. Mostly PDF, some Word Docs, some HTML. Some are actually linking, deep linking, into a publisher's website, but at least they're providing the sort of table of contents on the city's own website. So spread between MCC, Municode, Sterling codifiers, and Amly, or the three big ones that people are using. And that has a big sort of effect connection between that and then whether there's a disclaimer, a general disclaimer, whether there's a copyright assertion that's connected to, in many cases, the publisher or the codifier that they're using. So there's some kind of disclaimer about currency, completeness, authoritativeness, in most of the things that I spot checked. I didn't check every single one. And the language varied. Some of it was there were click-throughs. There were points where you actually got a little pop-up that said, you're agreeing when you click through this that you're not going to hold this liable. This is for informational use only, and that only the print copy kept to the clerk's office is official. A lot of language in the codes themselves about, you know, very 1950s sort of language that the official copy is kept to the clerk's office, and the clerk shall, you know, inter-file the new ordinances as they're passed, and that's the only official copy. And anybody else who has a copy belongs to the city, and you must bring it back in order to get it updated. And, you know, no revision of that sort of language. Not a lot of really specific copyright assertions. A lot of blanket copyright, you know, whatever the publisher or codifier on the site. There are some kind of preparatory chapters before the code starts, where there is language that says copyright of the cop bar and the state in joint. I want to really get in deeper to see how many of those can get that specific. And, but again, with 75% of these codes on a publisher's website, I think it's fair to say there are a lot of copyright assertions on. And then the other random, the only really random, completely random odd thing that I found was that at least three of these, and I know that I was starting to get a little very high, but at least three of these cities have the exact same website. The same header with the same bill of long term, the same person playing the flute, and some whole couple sitting on a bench laughing. It's the same site. It's really bizarre. There's no statement on why. Here you go. Thank you. Thank you. We have Andrew Palmer from Case Western. That's pretty good. I'm going to talk about Ohio, which the other states does have a working group that's contributing to the International Inventory. That group has not really gotten anything yet, and I was just notified by email that that's exactly it. I didn't mean to chair a working group, but it's a member of it. So, you know, this is the beginning of the information that will hopefully go farther. I'm also new to the jurisdiction, I mean, the local community art. So, the knowledge that I have is largely from a couple days of asking a lot of questions from my colleagues in the library and colleagues elsewhere in the state. The short answer is that there is a lot of information in a general sense available publicly on the web, on the outside of the large entry with the research systems. Essentially, none of it is official. Essentially, none of it is authenticated in any fashion. We looked at municipalities and actually, in contrast to Illinois, with the sort of asterisk possible, mysterious exception of Cleveland, none of it is sort of self-hosted or directly provided by the cities. It's really all done through these third-party codification firms and then a third-party hosting the material online. These are rife with copyright assertion, either in the city or in the firm that provides the codification and publishing services in the mix of that. These aren't large or do some strikingness, especially sophisticated health fits. A lot of HTML products that are served up in these frame-based table layout pages, not the kind of thing where I have a lot of confidence that there's a partner there or I do begin with the third parties that are doing codification services to be at the point where, hey, you want a stream of clean, semantically marked up information. We know how to do that. The possible weird asterisk assumption is that the Cleveland codes are actually a lot of fine law, not in the link, you know, the outward links to outside material, serves true in fine law, but on fine law, the city clerk of council, the clerk of the city council, couldn't tell me why they were there, how they got there, referred me to the city attorneys, we'll speak to soon. On the other hand, the publication that is essentially the local law's publication for Cleveland City Record was the one example of the municipal level legal authority in Ohio that I did find actually hosted by the municipality itself on the city website, as a periodic PDF of a retained or significant period back in time. The state, statutory and administrative codes are both available freely on the web through Law Writer, which is the technical partner for a case speaker, that makes a case speaker run. My understanding is that there is an exclusive arrangement so that Law Writer is the exclusive, online, you know, public internet source for, again, both the statutory and administrative code material for the state of Ohio. It's there. It's there. It's again, it's HTML. It's avidly disclaims its official status. The official publication is a West publication, but it's there to be seen. The state administrative register is online again, backfiled PDF dump. This is a publication that's only existed from 2000 and it's online from 2003. I don't know what happened for the intervening year. I suspect you're doing a really very informal, energy-led kind of publication for those years. The legislative service commission, on the other hand, the legislative material does make bill analyses, bill status reports available online. There's actually a relatively deep backfile for those, both in text files and in PDF files, and they're text-based PDFs, so it's incaseable, minable. And the house and senate journals are on the legislative websites, as PDF files. The courts, by cons, are actually relatively sophisticated. Slip opinions are available as PDF files from 1992, and they are also available from the 90s forward with what they call, referred to as a website, and this is a platform-neutral new name identifier for the case. But again, those are the slip opinions. Once again, the Ohio judicial reports is a West publication. And the material from the state Supreme Court, from the state intermediate appellate courts is that there's a pacer-esque electronic case management system that can be used relatively effectively and a number of the county courts, so the major case trial courts, also have online talking systems and in some cases, filing and actual materials are available through those office systems. Great, thank you very much. Again, your official point of view. If you are a certified librarian, we also have buttons for books. Who's the certifying authority? I'll do that for sure. I come out of an engineering world and we used to work for t-shirts, not money. I want to take a step back and explain at least three reasons I think this exercise is important. Now, you'll notice this is not a totally rigorous process and that's actually on purpose, rather than sit down and design the ultimate form and ask people to fill that out. The hope was to do a ground-up assessment of a variety of jurisdictions and that over time this might get more rigorous and more formal, but there's really three reasons that this is useful. Reason number one is aggregate statistics. I went and saw the chief judge of a district court who shall remain unnamed and I explained to this gentleman that several states, eight at last count, asserted copyright over their state statutes and this federal judge is jaw-dropped. He was amazed because he understands the Supreme Court decisions that are very clear. There is no copyright on state statutes and this is not copyright over head notes over page numbers. This is copyright over the statutes themselves. So these aggregate statistics are very, very helpful in convincing policymakers that there's potentially an issue here that needs to be addressed. The second reason is for comparison among jurisdictions. It's real easy if we're in one state or another state to say simply this is the way things are. I was surprised when we were down in Texas where Terry Martin was hosting the workshop and we had a lot of state officials from Texas there, the CIO of the courts and the clerk of the court and they have all their documents online for their courts. I think there's one that is a holdout that doesn't do that but it's a general rule. If you want to go in and get information in a truthful fashion of the level for bulk download, it's there. And that's compared to, for example, California where it's not the case and we think by documenting these issues of is there copyright on municipal codes, are they outsourced or are they in-house? Are they available in bulk? Can you use them? Do they cost money? And being able to compare them on different jurisdictions, that's going to be a very useful lever as we go brief state officials. And then the third reason is to document barriers to entry because one of the primary contentions of law.acca, remember law.acca is not about taking West out. It's not about building the ultimate website. It's not about replacing legal education with some new thing. All those might happen, might not happen, but this is really about issuing documents that have the force of law. And this is about convincing government that if they were to issue those documents, be they executive, legislative, or judicial, they should be available in bulk. And they should be authenticated. And to the extent possible, it should be the full archive. And I understand if we're looking at all congressional hearings or other things, that's not easy to do today. But that over time, one should strive for that goal. And the reason is because you want to be able to get into the business of accessing these documents. And we've given several examples. I've used a number of $10 to $50 million to get into the business of serving case law for the states and the federal government. That's based on some agreements that I had with the major publisher and was offered to sell us the equivalent of that stuff in the federal reporter and the Supreme Court decisions. And I've had that number verified several times. But it's also for nonprofit uses. If you are Cali or public.resource.org or the civil rights clearinghouse of the University of Washington, you cannot afford to download these materials and do things with them. And we've seen time and time again that when those barriers are taken away, in the case of the state of Oregon, for example, which asserted copyright over their revised statutes. All you had was one website and it was the one run by the legislative council and it was pretty bad. And the minute they took their copyright assertion over, a couple months later, a 2L at Lewis and Clark who happened to have a computer science undergrad took the order and revised statutes and built this amazing version that has correct HTML and a UI and you can navigate it and it's available in bulk. And that's one of the things we're trying to document with this national inventory. That if some of these copyright assertions and paywalls and lack of an inventory and official reporters and lack of official reports, if some of these barriers are taken away, that a huge amount of innovation and public interest legal education will happen. So I'm going to turn it over now to other people so we can hear comments starting with the national inventory. If there's any questions or comments on that. I will ask our camera person here to start manning the camera if you will. So as other people are talking, we can get them on film. So do we have any comments on the national inventory to start off with? Any questions for any of our commenters? Any feelings on whether this is a useful exercise or not? We have a lot of librarians here. Hi, Suzanne. One of the things that I noticed is I was kind of looking at all these various websites that it might be helpful if we end up sort of ranking them or giving them a grade, like how good your, how available your law is. I mean, some of the sites are just horrible and they're going to be in the same state where they'll have a good website and a bad website. So they might sort of sit up and take attention more. We started to say, well, you know, you have a D in your, we give you a D in grading or, you know, even rank them like US News or something like that. Sit up and take notice. Yeah, when we did the privacy audit of the district courts, one of the things I did is I graded all the district courts on a curve based on the number of social security numbers per gigabyte and the ones that got Ds and Fs are the ones that got the letters going to the chief judges. That's a good suggestion. Somebody else? Well, I'm following up on that idea. In terms of, you know, once it would be the T's out, what are the, you know, what are the criteria? Is it, you know, depth of the backfile, absence of a copyright assertion, some kind of credentialing quality of the markup? I think this would probably go on for that. Just sitting down something. And that would be a national effort. That's something that we need to go outside of these, you know, if it's different in each of the state committees. It doesn't work. Kevin McClure, I'm from the Chicago County College of Law right here. Somebody, and I can't remember calling out who it was, did a ranking of federal government websites at all three levels of government. And the court sites consistently came out at the bottom. So I don't know what it is about courts, but they seem to have the most trouble. Part of it is staffing. And we do have to remember the courts are very much when they're funded. And again, as has been pointed out several times, remember the clerk of the court and the CIO of the court does not work for us as the public. So we have to remember that we have to remember that we have to do our job as to administer the court workflow process and make it effective. Again, getting back to the privacy on it, one of the things we pointed out to Judge Rosenthal of the Rules Committee was that when the piece of documents were only available to on-pacer for court employees who had no incentive to be searching for social security numbers because it was not their job. And it was also available on the commercial services on West and Lexus, and they had no incentive to search perhaps for data mining purposes for their products. It was only when the public got access to pacer that we were able to find those social security numbers and begin cleaning up the data. So public access and privacy actually come together. Same thing with bulk access. A lot of the innovation and public access requirements, I think, are only going to happen when we solve some of these bulk and access problems. Yeah, actually, in some respects, it's an interesting contrast that some of what I saw, just a couple of days looking at material in my state, in some ways the courts were actually perhaps best of the institutions of government. There was still a lot of headaches just in terms of really interface design things, form validation on crazy entries that had to be there. So it made it very difficult to do searches that were anywhere in the middle ground and I mean a real rough keyword throwing everything and I know exactly the case I'm looking for and I'm going to give you the docket number. But the data being there, being there with a sort of clarity of what it was we were looking for, I mean there were slip opinions, but I could tell that they were slip opinions and I could work with them. It was actually that error I felt in the courts that were some of the other institutions. I mentioned the problem of redaction and a key issue with some of the PACER materials and it seems like nobody wants to take responsibility for it. I guess so that's actually somebody's responsibility to actually accomplish that barrier that's going to be there because it's a valid one. So much personal information, not just social security numbers, but some of those cases and someone has to take their responsibility to clean them up before they're put out generally. We have a long session on privacy at the Berkeley workshop. We had Peter Wendell who's an assistant U.S. attorney and Chris Ufnago. A couple issues on privacy. There actually has begun to be a bit of a change at least in the PACER world because what's beginning to happen is the Judicial Conference has asked the administrative office to proactively scan incoming documents. So they're beginning to actively look at it, not just say it's the role of the lawyer, but it's also the role of the court if there's a particular issue, a particularly rampant number of social security numbers. Lawyers are now being required to affirmatively click every time they log into PACER and some of them really hate that. And it says, you know, I understand my redaction responsibilities and every time they file a document they get a little blinky, heavy redacted. But I think the most important thing that's begun to happen is a lawyer in, I believe the jurisdiction of Wisconsin filed a bunch of social security numbers and was fined several thousand dollars by the judge. And I think if that happens a few more times, I think somebody is responsible and that is the lawyer filing the documents, which is what the rules set. That is in fact what Judge Rosenthal and the Standing Committee on Rules has said is that lawyers are responsible for making sure that happens. Now there's a broader issue, which is that we have not as a society explicitly confronted our privacy obligations. We did privacy by obscurity. The theory was that the documents were inside of a paywall on PACER. And only good people had credit cards so the documents were safe. Now as we know identity keys also have credit cards. In fact, they have more credit cards than we do. They have more credit cards than we do. And I will agree with you that certain documents maybe should not be made available. For example, I had an opportunity to get a lot of bankruptcy court documents out of PACER and put them online. And I said, you know, I don't want that. I'm not convinced that those should necessarily be Google. You know, on Google and available for everyone. And several of us here are on the front lines for that. Tim and Justia, several other folks have these court repeals and PACER docs available. And our phone rings a lot with people getting upset about these documents being there. Now in the past what's happened is these documents have not been private. They've been available on what I call the rich man's Google on West, on Lexus, on Palm PACER. And the courts have simply not decided whether a certain document should be available or should not. And a lot of the arguments of the judges is it is not our job to be deciding what documents should be available and should not. It's society's job through our mechanisms for deciding a privacy. And that means the judicial conference. It means the Congress of the United States. It means the executive branch. And those should be explicit decisions. Not simply saying, we'll throw them out there for people that have money. And I think one of the aims of Law.gov is to explicitly confront the privacy issues and decide are we unsealing documents improperly, right? And if so, should we put in better checks and balances to make sure that doesn't happen? Are we not enforcing the rules about social security numbers or names of minor children or alien numbers, which right now are allowed to be published on a website. There are no privacy rules that say you can't publish an alien number. And so what happens is if you sue the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization Services, if you do an administrative action with them, your dossier, your docket number is the equivalent of your social security number. And if you appeal that decision and it goes to the Court of Appeals, the lower court docket number is listed on there. So I got a call from a lot of folks saying you've got my alien number up on your website. We looked at that and went to the Court website and sure enough, it was just full of alien numbers. And the position of the clerks is that they were not told by the judges not to put those on. So when it came to social security numbers, they removed them immediately. But the alien numbers, they said, you know, I'm going to wait until the judge tells me to do this. Yes, we had several more comments. On the issue of the bottom loads, is there a Law.gov right now that's a decision about what the sort of minimum format or what minimum amount of metadata or anything like that requires that to really be a useful load as opposed to just, you know, not to fill the need by posting it, but it's big amounts. So I'll give you my personal opinion. And my personal opinion is I would love to have this done properly. And we did a two-day workshop that Tom Rooster and Cornell hosted. And a lot of the leading figures that have been working with this data are data requirements and document IDs and digital signatures. But at the end of the day, if the judges want to make a bunch of work-perfect files available through an email gateway, we'll take it because that's better than nothing. And so I think what's going to happen in the Law.gov report, and what I'm going to try to do in that is reflect what I've been hearing in all these workshops, is that there's some things that are really important. Copyright assertions on the data is really important. Paywalls on the dissemination side have a huge effect on the public interest. It's a real problem. Other things, I think there needs to be a mechanism in place for coming up with those standards over time that are adaptable. And while there are a lot of good solutions on the table, I think this is something that needs to be internalized. And there are forums such as the Newly Re-Instituted Administrative Conference of the United States which Paul Vercool is now chairing that might be in a position to come up with those kinds of guidelines and standards as to what is the minimal subset of data. The National Center for the Courts, those are the kinds of bodies that I think should be doing those kinds of decisions with a lot of input from the double A double L and the technical community and some of the other folks that are out there. Dennis and Tim. I have a question for those that worked out in the inventory. Did you come across any examples of good available bulk? Is there any administrators out there that say, oh sure, click here and you can get the whole thing. You don't have to search the inventory. Federal Register. Federal Register is going to federal regulations and is doing an amazing job. They took off their paywall, it's an X amount, it's digitally signed, you can FTP all the data and the result has been a whole series of little spit-offs out there that have been taking this data and working with it. Other examples? Not in the state all of a sudden. Are there municipal codes that are PDF, the whole thing and they say go ahead and take it, but none of them are official? Usually they sell it. Right. I just want to throw out a couple of random things. One is, it'd be nice not to mention this prior to that. If the courts put up the final official version of the text of their page, they always see the full convenience that you'd never find a digital version of the official and the manual. I believe they even like the U.S. federal phone courts. It seems that they can't do it. It sets the tone for the rest of the courts. So that's one of the codes. As we track the codes, it'd be nice to track whether they have multiple years like Florida has to code for every single year back to like 12 years or something like that. A lot of folks like Oregon, when we were sort of discussing things with them, they had the latest version of the code. A lot of times your dispute is about the code two or three years ago and that's taken down so if they can keep up their older versions of the code, there's real value there and obviously, you know, it's to have that as well. And then the final things we're talking to across analysis is security numbers and sort of stuff that you and Peter are talking about. You know, you can't just put it on lawyers to do their filings to predict the social security numbers because most of these errors are actually going from proxy litigants. This is the only time they ever file something. They have enough issues going on when they're much less on the sure of hospital security and a lot of times they're quicker there because they think they have them. So there's something that needs to be done on the court level beyond just saying okay, well we'll put it to lawyers and lots of lawyers and that's what we're going to discuss as we go along. I think that was the message of Professor Stout's presentation on Access to Justice that the dissemination side is important but that's integrally tied with the filing side and access to materials and as Tim so rightly points out that if you're worried about social security numbers on the dissemination side you need to worry about the filing side as well and that's why it's not just a lawyer's problem that it really is a systemic problem in our legal system. Did we have more comments? Any closing statements? Yes? I have a question on the federal registry. There's a disclaimer on the FETSIS version that the XML is not the official version. Is there sort of a tension there between the need to authenticate things and the need to have them in formats that are most easily reusable? Well so here's the thing with authentication. I've been working in the area of XML a long time I don't co-author the the XML offering language used for internet standards a long time ago. We don't know how to sign digitally sign an XML document in line, right? We know how to point to an XML document and do what's called an MD5 or a shawl on a phone print. We do know how to digitally sign a PDF document. And so what the government printing office has decided to do and I actually agree with the strategy is you can download it all in XML and you can repurpose that stuff any way you want. And if you really want to verify the authenticity of three words or five words or a hundred words you can pull down this PDF document and look at the digital signature and make sure it's authentic and you can do your comparison. And I think the issue there is that authentication is not a magic switch that gets flipped. It's like security on the internet. It's an ongoing process that's going to have to keep going over time involving so for example if you have a digital signature on a PDF document that's great. But you probably also want to have an HTTPS connection to that server, right? And you probably want to be using secure DNS if not today at least in the future so that you're not having a man in the middle attack, right? So that you get a valid signature but you're talking to a fake server and that's not going to do you any good at all. And I think one of the messages on security and authentication is it really is an ongoing problem on everything, right? And not one that we're going to somehow solve with one magic standard. It's something that we're going to have to pay attention to a whole bunch of different places in the food chain. But the reason is a simple one that we just don't have a signature, no documents yet. Not effectively in a way that is widely deployable. Whereas a PDF document we do know how to do that pretty effectively. Any more comments? Professor Golan or John do you have any closing words? Thank you all for coming. There's still some muffins and drinks on them so grab something on the way out. Okay. Thank you everybody. We're going to cut the video of this and I'll try to have it up.