The rule would create a separate entry attached to each online case docket called "Supplemental Information." It could contain a cooperation agreement - or not. Nobody would know exactly what it contained, because it would not be accessible to the public or to reporters.

Court records, except in rare cases, are open to the public. The right of the press to report on the activities of courts is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the right of the public to view and hear court actions is protected, as well.

This rule would jeopardize those rights. And for what reason?

Some members of a federal court committee charged with studying the proposal argue that the Internet makes cooperation agreements accessible to groups and individuals who might want to retaliate against defendants who testify or provide evidence to police and prosecutors.

Web sites, including one called whosarat.com (who's a rat?) provide lists of cooperating defendants that can be viewed by paying subscribers. That kind of information puts these people at risk, say proponents of the rule.

But there is nothing to indicate that the Web sites have led to any threats or violence against individuals who cooperate with authorities. The proposed rule would limit access to public records based on a so-far nonexistent risk.

These public records are especially important since 95 percent of criminal cases are resolved by a plea bargain between defendants and prosecutors. The plea deal, including the cooperation agreement, substitutes for a trial in those cases and would become, in essence, a secret trial, if this rule were to be imposed. And secret trials for adults are not allowed by American jurisprudence.

Prosecutors rely on evidence they obtain from defendants who provide it under agreements overseen by the courts. But until there is some evidence that making those agreements public has compromised a case or put a defendant in jeopardy, the right of the public to know must trump the concern of the courts.