On 11/16/00, the Judicial Conference's Subcommittee on Privacy and Electronic Access to Case Files of the Court Administration and the Case Management Committee issued a request for comments regarding policy options for electronic and online access to federal court records. By the 1/26/01 deadline, some 240 comments were received. The resulting report drew considerable attention, in part, for its recommendations with respect to criminal case files. While it was suggested that criminal docket sheets continue to be made available to the public through individual courthouses, certain court websites, and the federal Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, the report also called for no remote (non-courthouse facility) electronic public access to be provided to documents in criminal cases, out of concern for privacy and safety of the parties involved in such matters. The Conference was asked, however, to reconsider the policy within two years. However, in a 5/7/02 news release through the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, one federal appellate and ten federal circut courts were announced as participants in a Judicial Conference pilot program to make their criminal case files available via the Internet through the PACER system (accessible in many courthouses) for $0.07 per page. While this is not fully remote on-demand access, it will be used to study the feasibility of such a move, within the controllled confines of courthous facilities. As Graeme Browning writes in the 5/13/02 Federal Computer Week, however, the pilot was decided upon in March, and in effect, is a turnaround from the recommendations set out in the 2001 Conference committee reports-- which were criticized for putting forth a false delineation between access to paper and electronic records. The reports also overlooked privacy concerns around scenarios in which personal information is released, regardless of the record format. Despite a high level of public access to court records, federal rules and procedures do not cover exactly how information is to be accessed at individual courthouses, nor how judges are guided with respect to information that is sealed or unsealed to the public. The pilot will be closely monitored by privacy interests, and those interested in greater access to court information for their advocacy in and around the judicial arena.