Going Through the Garbage 730
frankejames writes "This is a very funny piece on how Portland politicians said it was okay for police to seize a citizen's garbage without a search warrant. But when some reporters swiped their garbage (and reported the contents!) they screamed foul play! Read Portland's top brass said it was OK to swipe your garbage--so we grabbed theirs."
Anthro (Score:5, Interesting)
The lying on these surveys is astounding.
Re:They have every right (Score:5, Interesting)
Either the garbage, once placed on the curb, is the private property of the owner (in which case the police must get a warrant) or it is not. If it is not the private property of the owner, then it must be legal for a private citizen to paw through. Period. Those are the only two alternatives. The idea that it's okay for police to paw through it without a warrant but not for private citizens is bullshit.
I really don't give a damn if it makes it difficult for policemen to do their job. Thats how it is. We are supposed to be a freedom-loving country. I'll agree that it would be nice if the job of the police could be made easier without restricting citizens civil rights. But it can't. And I won't give up my liberties to make it easier for police to do their jobs. I just won't.
Its un-American. By doing things like this (Patriot act, anyone?) we devalue the price American citizens paid to secure those liberties. They paid with their lives. Don't be so quick to throw that away.
Grumble.
Re:Sonuvabitch! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They have every right (Score:5, Interesting)
"There is a kid at my school who has a badge on his backpack (attached with a safety pin) with the words "Superjew" on it. What should I do?"
Doesn't sound like much of a cop to me.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They have every right (Score:3, Interesting)
because the police are an investigation bureaucracy devoted to helping people
I am sure that whomevers privacy is being violated could care less which bureaucracy is doing it, and what their intentions are!
Re:They have every right (Score:5, Interesting)
So, your argument is based upon timeframes of achieving due process and getting a warrant? No offense, but I don't think that would stand up in any court of law. In fact, if I recall, precedent has been set by stating anyone who puts their garbage on the sidewalk is relinquishing any ownership.
The councilman have every right to call foul play, because the police are an investigation bureaucracy devoted to helping people (legally),
The problem here is one of giving government authorities more and more access to privacy which some fear may prove to be a problem if governments ever decide they are devoted to self service and not to providing a service to their constituents.
while the reporters are going through garbage in order to report what bills the councilman paid last week (illegally).
And how is this illegal? I agree that it might be irritating, yes, but how is this any different in a legal sense from the police going through garbage? The point of this is that people are trying to illustrate the duplicity of many government policies that are playing off of fear in the current political climate. Total Information Awareness anyone?
Reasoning... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:2600 Mag (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, it doesn't hurt to say you are a college student looking for hardware to practice on. I got a guy to go back in his house and give me to stuff he wasn't planning on trashing.
Re:Small Difference -- NOT (Score:3, Interesting)
believe that courts have routinely ruled that once you put your garbage on the street, it isn't yours anymore. IMHO, anybody -- cops, reporters, garbage collects, dumpster divers -- are be free to go through it. I might not like it, but I threw it out. It ain't mine no more.
You may be correct about what the courts have ruled (I don't know if there's clear case law or precedent set) but that does not mean that the police can use a search of your trash to compile evidence against you. Law enforcement is and must be held to a higher standard; searches of your garbage by police seeking evidence of a crime, is, in my opinion, tantamount to a search of your effects, and should be protected under the 4th Amendment.
And as I stated above, the 4th Amendment does not only apply to things you own yourself. Rented houses, leased cars, and other items you don't own are protected from search by government officials- why not your trash?
Consider this.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well.... you could just claim it wasn't yours.... of course, excuses wont get you far.
About as much as... (Score:2, Interesting)
As a nearing middle age white guy I now see police as an enemy to basic civil order within society. I didn't used to think this way, but seeing many officers abuse their position and responsibility toward citizens has left me disrespectful of police authority. I don't break the law and the police have had little reason to interfere with my life. Thank God I'm not a minority. Racial profiling, unreasonable threats, rudeness, obvious police brutality is ruining what little trust is left of police throughout society. This is only making it harder for the many good cops who walk the beat out there. And yes, I know there are a lot of good cops out there who work a hard and dangerous job in miserable conditions.
BTW: I used to donate to the FOP. NEVER AGAIN!!!
I need to make a living also (Score:2, Interesting)
Also lets not forget about those who have yard sales, a neighbor of mine took a broken down table and a few other items I put on the side of the road and I found them at their yard sale a few months later.
Needless to say, if restrictions were place on trash, there will be those who will have to look for another source of income.
Side note: If you have stuff that can be embarrassing to you and if there is nothing in the garbage that can lead to you, throw the trash into a local dumpster or accidently place it on the curb in front of your neighbors home and blame it on the wild dogs.
Re:hypocrites (Score:4, Interesting)
People despise one-way mirrors for perfectly valid reasons, and I hope the magnifying glass stays focused on those behind it until it's replaced with transparent glass, or brick. (ick... this analogy needs work :)
--
Re:Anthro (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Involuntary BLOOD SAMPLE (Score:5, Interesting)
Liberal nonsense. Obviously, if this lady cop actually wanted to retain her constituational rights, she should have known better than to put her used tampons in the trash. Instead, she should be stockpiling her tampons like all good freedom-loving American women do.
Seriously, though, this is just another example of an alarming trend in American law: The destruction of rights via the control chokepoints.
For example, if a cop pulls you over on the road, you cannot refuse a breathalizer exam without automatically losing your license. As such, you effectively don't have the right *not* to give up evidence (since the punishment for not giving up said evidence is just like the punishment for the crime of drunk driving, it becomes a moot point). This is technically constituational even though it's blatently a jackbooted tactic.
In this case, they're using your garbage against you. Since we all generate refuse which we need to get rid of, this is another effective way to end-run around our rights. You obviously can get astounding amounts of info from the average person's garbage -- no warrent needed.
We (and I mean "We" as in "We the People") put up with this even though we see it's fascist bullshit. We think it's important to make the police's job easier (even when we're just encouraging random searches that can't earn a warrant), or that we're fighting terrorists. Or maybe we're just too lazy and distracted to care, what with all the bread and circuses.
And it sucks.
Re:this has been already laid out (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. People should be able to discard all evidence of wrong doing so that they can maintain their freedom!
Okay, bad time for a joke like that. I half agree. Ever hear of a 'search warrant'? Due process? If the city has a search warrant to go through my garbage, that's fine. The ability to do it willy nilly is wrong. Fortunately, WW proved to the right people why it's wrong. It's nosey.
There are matters of privacy here. What if they found a pair of panties a little too small for the politician's wife? Funny? Yes. Our business? No.
Re:If you... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to disparage the work of sanitation engineers, but I think teachers should make at least as much...
Re:Anthro (Score:5, Interesting)
"When someone in your house reads a porno mag, does s/he toss it when it's soiled, or keep it?"
"... no one in this house reads pornos."
Next garbage day, I find that my informants not only toss the pornos, but toss them when they appear to be unsoiled! Not that I investigate too closely, mind you...
THis is a fictional account of how one might design a simple study that 1) wasn't full of sh1t, and 2) reveals some truths about the consumption patterns of the house in question. It's all about how you ask; good questions are hard to think up, and that's more than 90% of good anthropology.
Now, using dumpster diving to make a point about inconsistent standards in privacy, that doesn't require any good study design standards at all. Moral inconsistencies are really easy to reveal, and even clueless laymen (read: willie week reporters) can pull it off without a sweat.
However, don't write off the truths that can be found in the garbage just because not *every* study that involves trash is done with rigor - good design goes a lot further than nifty jscript menus.
(no, anthro isn't a science. just wanted to get that out of the way. of course, that doesn't mean that it can't establish truths in a rigorous manner...)
Similar thing in Australia... (Score:1, Interesting)
The host of this show certainly didn't cope with being the victim of the same tactics that his reporters use on all sorts of down and out storekeepers. Watch the most amusing video here [chez.com].
Go Aussies!
Re:Involuntary BLOOD SAMPLE (Score:3, Interesting)
You're saying it's legal for police to take a blood sample from a bandaid in my garbage, just because it's set out on the street,
Well, does that make any sense? They can't listen to my "private" conversations but they can take tissue samples any time they want??
Privacy and ownership aren't the same. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm no lawyer, but it looks as if you're going strong. Keep going: a logical extension might be something like this: Your ownership interests and your privacy interests are not identical, and you may have a privacy interest in something which you never owned, or in something which you no longer own.
As a serious dumpster diver, the idea that your trash remains your property bugs me. Does that mean that if I go to the dumpster and grab something good, I'm stealing? When does it STOP being yours? If your trash is spilled on the way to the dump, are YOU the litter-bug?
We shouldn't confuse ownership with privacy. As you were on the verge of pointing out, they are different.
The difference is if we try to assert ownership in order to assert privacy, we have to screw up a lot of existing arrangements which are perfectly satisfactory. If we try to assert privacy without regard to ownership, we might do ourselves some good.
Application to the Internet world... (Score:2, Interesting)
Your direction of thought is good, but I dont quite think you understand the internet if your asking those questions, for example...
What about information on a HTML page - with no links leading to it?
That is BY DEFINITION public. If your running a web SERVER, your intent is obviously to make data accesible. If you cant figure out not to put your PIN number on a web page, you need to do some more reading. You have to EXPLICITLY allow a certain port to be open, and to resond with public data. Why you think this should be private is beyond me. If you spray paint your PIN number on your car in big yellow numbers, isnt it obvious that other people are going to read it, even though its not public because its 'on' your car?
For instance, is unencrypted email now public information?
If you ever thought that unencrytped mail was ever private, umm...Ive got some bad news for you. Think of email as a postcard, yes its addressed to someone else, but anyone who happens to be around in the travels of that postcard really has no problem reading it. Once again, do NOT put your PIN number in an email
The fact that this still needs explaining bothers me a great deal.
Perhaps the "Don't Rape" sign should really go on the Constitution - particularly the Fourth Amendment.
This, however, I agree with
But, whats the reason this happens? Why do they do this? Answer: Because they can! I mean your sitting her postulating in a comfy chair how this applies to the internet, while this crap is probably going on in your home town...go talk to your librarians about it, they will be glad to let you in on all the wonderful stuff that is being done now, oh wait, its a felony [iww.org] for them to tell you.
Re:Fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hypocritical or just pissed off? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Chief of Police was next on the list, and he was never quoted as saying anything legally threatening.
The DA got the point of the 'prank' and even played along a bit.
The Mayor was the only one that hinted at criminal charges, and that was only a threat.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't be pissed off if somebody dives through your garbage, only that it isn't illegal.
This might just be the catalyst that is needed to change the policy.
StarCraft RPG? [netnexus.com]
So go with a private organization. (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, if you're going to use a government organization to dispose of your waste, don't be surprised when they give it a quick glance before shuffling it off to the heap. If you've got something to hide - or just don't like big brother's latex-gloved hand collecting your used kleenex or more "personal" items - find a private alternative.
I guess this idea is similar to the shredding services used by many companies. But does anyone know if a similar service is available for homes for a reasonable price?
Re:They have every right (Score:2, Interesting)
The reporters could indeed get in trouble for taking the recycled objects, but I don't know if tresspassing would apply. Probably more like petty larceny (all the paper material taken is probably worth about five cents).
P.S. Remember, never put anything related to drugs in the recycling, especially needles. It's usually people, not machines, who sort the bottles and stuff at the recycling plant, and you don't want them getting hurt in the process of doing their jobs.
Re:We did this already?I (Score:3, Interesting)
The modern Court does not always rule against the 4th A. (as in the Kyllo thermal imaging case [go.com] -- see this proposal [nasa.gov] to use satellite surveillance!) but it has given it a pretty hard time.
Note even without Greenwood, a workaround would not be difficult. Most trash collection and landfills are handled by the gov't; they could require you to sign off any property rights as a condition of collection or disposal. You also need to draw a line somewhere that abandonment has occurred even without the consent of the owner -- for example, in most places that car of yours if left parked more than a certain amount of time (48 hours in Boston) could be ticketed, towed and impounded as abandoned (no, this doesn't mean you've lost ownership, but they can search it for inventory pursuant to impoundment to guard against claims of theft. They would then notify you, and if you don't claim it your ownership right would lapse.) Do you expect your ownership right in the garbage in the dump to persist forever? That could have some unexpected consequences, like if it becomes a Superfund site.
Oh yeah, they could always try to get a warrant, too... But showing probable cause is a drag.
Your disagreement is not with me but the SC! And perhaps with your state, for not imposing greater privacy standards which would at least restrict state actors.
Re:Fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem doesnt become easy, but it does become a lot easier. And compared to cracking crypto it becomes downright simple.
Not that I've ever seen such a device, but I'd be rather surprised if some government agencies did not have something like that.
Investigative reporting (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm totally on the side of the reporters on this one. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled that access to what used to be private property in public areas is allowed, the police may go fishing in a suspect's garbage for evidence. Boo-hoo, that battle has already been lost.
Conversely, since trash has been put out in public, the Portland politicos have no expectation of privacy either, and have no recourse when the Press turns the tables on them. If I had been one of those reporters, I'd have laughed in the face of the Mayor at her 'summons' to her private chambers.
Folks, this is what a Free Press is all about. Government is by nature expansionist; the Press, when it is doing its job, is an effective tool in beating back that tendency.
I particularly savor this kind of approach when dealing with legislative types who propose yet another overly-invasive policy, such as blanket video surveilance, such as that practiced in Washington DC or in London. If I were a citizen of those places, then I'd very publicly petition the populace to mandate video surveilance of all legislative chambers, and use the same arguments put forth to justify general video spying. How would officials like to be watched, every minute of their day, by the public? A citizen referendum which makes an end-run around legislators would be a powerful message from the populace that spying is not necessarily the best possible way to combat crime.
In general, I am not keen on the idea that police might target me for some reason, and routinely search my garbage. A container in public is far too subject to planting of evidence, in my opinion. But occassionally citizens can and should remind their officials who they work for, and how laws made to ease law enforcement's job may have unintended consequences.
Hypocricy also runs the other way. Here in Denver, it was recently uncovered by the local press that the Denver police had been maintaining files on citizens who participated in protests, seemingly regardless of the issue involved. it seems the press are complaining that Denver has 'no written policy' concerning the collection of intelligence about citizen dissidents, and darn it, there's got to be a state-wide consistent policy established.
Interestingly, at the height of this country's gun control phase a couple years ago, the two biggest local papers, who were shilling for ever-stricter gun control laws, did so under the justification that Colorado is a 'home rule' state, meaning that each jurisdiction has the freedom to determine its own policies concerning the enforcement of gun controls within its own boundaries.
So, while our state constitution clearly states that no person's right to bear arms shall be called into question, the Post and the News argued that Denver City and County had the right under home-rule to abort that constitutional clause within their own borders.
Now that the issue is police surveilance in a public place, these papers have conveniently forgotten about their holy home-rule stance.