Drone Photos Lead to Indictment For Texas Polluters 177
In January of this year, we posted news of a major pollution site in Texas that was the subject of some anonymous amateur sleuths with drones, who used their UAVs to document the release of a "river of blood" (pig blood, that is) into the Trinity River as it flows through Dallas. Now, garymortimer writes, that documentation has resulted in legal action in the form of an indictment from a Dallas grand jury. "The story went viral and continues to receive hits nearly a year later. I believe this is the first environmental crime to be prosecuted on the basis of UA evidence. Authorities had to act because of the attention the story was receiving."
Would have preferred (Score:5, Insightful)
Would have preferred to see: "Authorities had to act because it was the right thing to do". Not because it has become a public spectacle.
You are so naive (Score:5, Insightful)
Morality only applies to commoners. The first casualty of wealth is the soul.
Authorities largely exist to protect the wealth of the rich. Ostensibly they also protect the safety of the poor, but orders of magnitude more law-enforcement money is spent on protecting the rich from threats to their wealth.
I agree that this is not how the world should be. But this state of things is a natural consequence of human behavior. Our only defense against it is eternal vigilance (and that means you).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Morality only applies to commoners. The first casualty of wealth is the soul.
Authorities largely exist to protect the wealth of the rich. Ostensibly they also protect the safety of the poor, but orders of magnitude more law-enforcement money is spent on protecting the rich from threats to their wealth.
I agree that this is not how the world should be. But this state of things is a natural consequence of human behavior. Our only defense against it is eternal vigilance (and that means you).
A rather naive statement aswell. A product of the times I suppose, and appropriate for this time.
The Authority exists to protect the powerful. It could be some madman bent on burinig money and living on bread and water.
It's rather daft when people proclaim that money is power, because it's the opposite that's really true. Money is only power if the people in power allow it to be.
Morality applies to all men, the problem is context. As an extreme example: Your mother's death will save millions of lives, which
Re:You are so naive (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm getting really sick of this tiresome rant popping up on every single Slashdot story. Government is corrupt. Corporations rule the world. We are all slaves. blah blah blah!
Can't you guys give it a rest?
Why do you always post your rants as AC anyway?
And why twist any poorly phrased summary into a soap box?
There is only this one guy, Gary Mortimer, stating that "public pressure forced the government to act". More likely it was the first time someone brought them proof sufficient to obtain a warrant to search over private lands. You clowns would be the first to complain if the government started flying their own drones, or trespassing across private lands to sample the creek.
Take you tinfoil hat off for just a few minutes each day.
Re:You are so naive (Score:5, Interesting)
"I'm getting really sick of this tiresome rant popping up on every single Slashdot story. Government is corrupt. Corporations rule the world. We are all slaves. blah blah blah!
Can't you guys give it a rest?
Why do you always post your rants as AC anyway?"
Sadly, while I might once have agreed with everything you said, I fear that times have changed -- or perhaps it's just that the Net has allowed the truth to be revealed in a way that governments can no longer control.
Everywhere you look these days, there are many and varied examples of government being driven, directed and controlled by industries and those with lots (of money) at stake.
Look at Kim Dotcom for instance -- the MPAA/RIAA may have had plenty of legal justification for some of what they did -- but certainly not all of it and not the way it was done. Hell, the FBI/MPAA/RIAA triad even bullied the New Zealand government in engaging in "unlawful acts" to carry out their dirty deeds.
We've seen the problem of politicians protecting the rich at the cost of the poor grow to become a major problem down in this part of the world (NZL) and it's plainly obvious that the situation is far worse elsewhere.
Bureaucrats (ie: central and local government) spend most of their time simply working to cover it's own ass -- in case things go wrong.
Just look at most of the laws and regulations out there. They're not to improve the safety or to benefit the public nearly so much as they are to ensure that when something goes wrong, some bureaucrat somewhere can say "not my fault, we passed a law/regulation against that and the offender(s) broke those laws/regulations".
Look at gun control for instance...
It's illegal to murder someone with a firearm (or anything else for that matter) -- so the problem of firearms is solved! If someone goes postal or kills innocent pupils/teachers in a rampage -- it's not the fault of any bureaucrat - after all, they've made killing illegal so it's not *their* fault that kids can get their hands on assault rifles so easily.
And they're doing it again with terrorism... they're making just about *everything* illegal -- so when a terrorist does attack and innocent folk are killed, they can turn around and say "not our fault, we made everything illegal -- what more could we do?"
As for drones -- well yes, they're almost certainly going to make them illegal (in the hands of private individuals) too. After all, if there's one thing that bureaucrats *don't* like, it's having their actions spied on by those they're allegedly employed to protect.
Sorry but the "perfect" world never existed and never will.
And look... not posting as an AC! :-o
Re:You are so naive (Score:5, Informative)
Way to Cherry Pick.
Meanwhile:
Madoff is in Jail for life
2 Generals and two different cabinet officials have been forced to resign
Seattle PD is under Justice Department microscope
Book publishers forced to repay customers for price fixing
BP pays huge fine and has Executives indicted
Entire trading firms under indictment
Its a mixed bag. It always is.
Re:You are so naive (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but saying that the world isn't perfect is not a justification for not trying to make it better. It's also in human nature to try to improve things.
Re: (Score:2)
Madoff is in jail for stealing from other very rich people and corporations.
If he had come up with a ponsi-scheme that only defrauded 'the little people', it would either have not been detected, or he might have had to pay a fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Madoff ripped off people who were wealthier than he was. That was a major mistake.
BP made such a thorough mess of things nobody could possibly ignore it.
The trading firms made an even bigger mess. If nothing happened to them, there was a real chance that citizens might have taken their own actions. Meanwhile, the biggest and most powerful financial institutions are still getting off scot-free. They had to come up with a scapegoat.
Like most things in the world, it's not a black and white corrupt/not corrupt
Re:You are so naive (Score:5, Interesting)
Trust of politicians and government in general: http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/18/public-trust-in-government-1958-2010/ [people-press.org]
Income disparity (who is getting all the new wealth): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629 [cbpp.org]
I don't have a particular link to environmtal damage but if you can't see that in just about every news source (even the terrible US ones) then you are working hard not to see it.
I will say that not everything is gloom and doom butpeople commenting on corruption, corporate greed and increase in power seems to me just being perceptive not overly negative. Most statistics I've seen and real world experience for the average person seem to support this. I would also point out there is strong evidence that government control is increasing and "rule of law" is decreasing. Again I don't have specific metrics for these but I certainly can point to several pieces of legislation as well as personal experience dealing with governmental institutions (border crossings, airports, traffic stops, tax assessment, building departments). Apparently you do not see this trend but the large number of comments about this just might be from people who see these trends or have experienced them first hand.
Finally, the impetus behind pointing this out just might be a desire to fix some of these issues. The first step in fixing a problem is to identify the problem. Refusing to acknowledge real problems does no service to people facing them or to resolving the problem itself. Just a few things you might want to consider. Hope this helps,
Re:Your List (Score:3)
Way to Cherry Pick.
Reports on Madoff were disregarded by the SEC for nearly a decade, similar to this story.
Do your other examples illustrate my point as well? I frankly don't have time to do the research.
Good Night.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to Cherry Pick.
Meanwhile: Madoff is in Jail for life 2 Generals and two different cabinet officials have been forced to resign Seattle PD is under Justice Department microscope Book publishers forced to repay customers for price fixing BP pays huge fine and has Executives indicted Entire trading firms under indictment
Its a mixed bag. It always is.
1. Madoff ripped off rich people, nobody cared until he then.
2. Sex scandals don't count. They make such great news that everyone gets taken down by them.
3. It's a gov't agency. The rest of us are busy complaining about how private companies get away with murder (HSBC anyone?)
4. And the fine was still significantly less than the profits from the price fixing.
5. See above.
6. See above.
There's a phrase I don't hear often enough: Corporate Death Penalty.
In defense of Bureaucrats (Score:2)
The key to keeping the poor down is to keep pointing at someone else as the problem. The problem isn't th
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you have never actually been personally placed into a situation where youmust interact with government officials and law makers on a candid basis.
It really is as bad as advertised. The one suffering from being niave, I fear, is yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There had been complaints for years. Are you saying that the government couldn't possibly have investigated in any way at all including use of a helicopter like the one the cops around here use routinely to look for pot growers or an airplane like they use in Florida to catch speeders?
Given the time laps between the citizen gathered evidence going viral and actual action being taken, it does indeed look like the government was perfectly content to ignore it until they were shamed into action.
Re:You are so naive (Score:5, Informative)
See also this [nbcdfw.com]. It has a better description of how much blood and where it ran.
And yes, that much blood IS toxic to the environment and can lead to fish die-offs in the same way that fertilizer runoff can. It can also create an awful stench as it decays on the banks.
And it's 12 months after a citizen presented rock solid evidence of wrongdoing. It was years since the complaints started.
Re: (Score:3)
*Anecdote Warning*
The Farmer John plant in Los Angeles does not appear to share any noxious smells with their neighbors. I've only been walking around there a few dozen times and lived several miles away so I might have just missed out on Toxic Discharge Tuesday. I've been in butcher shops where I could smell blood, and don't buy meat from them. I used to deliver parts to a place in San Leandro called Weber Quality Meats, and the place was distinctly clean with no blood odor.
I attributed it to the boss's at
Re: (Score:2)
*Anecdote Warning*
Developers who wanted to build a subdivision near a slaughter house in south Sacramento county had to pay for a catalytic odor control system before they were allowed to start construction, cost was in millions. Then the subdivision sits empty and half built. [Nelson] HaaHaa.
In many cases the slaughter house/airport/racetrack/nudie bar/homeless shelter was there first. People buy cheap houses, knowing the issue. Then start complaining and hiring shysters.
Truthiness (Score:2)
I think the point of the summary is valid. The neighbors have been complaining about the stench, the relevant public servants did nothing. The internet buzzed with the truth, embarrassing said public servants into performing their duties.
All of this is very familiar to me, except for the publicity and the public servants doing their jobs part, I've only heard about that.
Put on the tinfoil once in a while, and don't believe everything you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you want to live in a society where police could go anywhere and do anything just because there might be a crime happening some day in that location?
Would you like to be taxed enough to pay for all the cops that would require?
Will you change your tune the minute they kick down your door?
Re: (Score:2)
All they had to do here is look at a blood red river. Any one of their neighbors would likely have welcomed police to use their back yard to do the looking from.
If I am doing something that harmful and it is plainly visible from my neighbor's yard, shame on me.
I would love for police to spend more time looking for crimes visible from public spaces and less time kicking doors in.
Re: (Score:2)
Go look a the aerial photos. Nobody lives near that Creek. It's farm land. No houses.
When was the last time you walked out to some random Creek across farm land with no reason to do so?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not as deserted as you might think from the photo. Look at the Google map [google.com].
According to TFA:
Neighbors near the plant on 11th Street had long complained about noxious fumes and other problems from the meat packers. But investigators didn’t get involved until a remote-controlled toy enthusiast happened to affix a video camera to an RC aircraft and videotape gallons of what appeared to be blood gushing down the river.
So there are neighbors, and they did want something done.
Re: (Score:2)
Find anyone down wind of any packing plant. They all complain. Yet there wasn't a single complaint of blood in the creek on record until these drone enthusiasts ACCIDENTALLY photographed this stream. They didn't go looking for it. Nobody had any clue.
Re: (Score:2)
You can read a map can't you?
The stream that ran red was that little stream that runs past the plant, and wanders around in fields before emptying into the river. You couldn't even detect the blood in the river because it was so diluted. You could only see it in that half mile of deserted stream.
Re: (Score:2)
don't they have vampires around there ? they could have used the byproduct as an extra income, and avoided polluting the river.
as a bonus, vampires wouldn't kill off as many innocent people. win-win-win !
Re:You are so naive (Score:4, Informative)
That's a far cry from "what neighbors". And evidently, this wasn't the first time there were problems since the packing plant went so far as to bypass another pipe that was monitored by the county in order to keep dumping. Meanwhile, they are supposed to be regularly inspected anyway, so there was no need for probable cause to inspect the operation carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
What neighbors was exactly correct. No one lived along the banks of the polluted portion of the stream. Go look at a map and stop being so argumentative.
Down wind is not the same as down stream. There are no neighbors down stream along the Creek before it joins the river.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can, can you see those little house looking things that show they aren't in a deserted area like you claimed?
Re: (Score:3)
Are we REALLY going to have to keep this up until you say "yeah, but there were ABSOLUTELY NO hermaphroditic cab drivers wearing pink and purple checkered pants with a pet monkey named bobo within a 15.2 km radius of the teakettle in the 2nd breakroom"?
You don't imagine all that blood drying and decaylin on the banks might possibly have raised the stench a notch or two?
If you're a meat eater (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You bet 3 seconds to decide? Eat slower.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can, can you see those little house looking things that show they aren't in a deserted area like you claimed?
There are no houses near the half mile of stream between the plant and the river [google.com]. What kind of crack are you smoking anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to have "Implied Consent" laws passed so that certain types of operations are subject to full access and inspections by qualified and interested agents at least, and possibly the general public, in the cases of liquid discharge onto soil or into water. Your right to privacy is over before you infect my planet with your toxic waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Would have preferred (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously.
Folks lambaste the "Court of Public Opinion" for subverting the justice system, but that seems to be the only one that works sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Pig blood, that is. (Score:3, Funny)
Red gold. Texas tea.
I believe this is the first (Score:5, Insightful)
And most likely one of the last as new regulations pushed forth by corporate lobbies will restrict drone use or create "air space" restrictions over corporate land.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps, but what little good drones over corporate lands would do would likely be far outweighed by the good a law that prevents the pervert down the street from doing the same to you. I welcome any law that stops this nonsense before it gets out of hand. One good deed does not make drones a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think these laws would stop government and corporate drones as well? We already have Google Street View vans & drones and others used for mapping, police drones, and the DHS and three-letter spook agencies will have them soon if they don't already. If laws won't be put in place to stop those as well then I say leave the playing field level.
Re: I believe this is the first (Score:4, Insightful)
Geeks love and fear technology. Gotta get me a GPS, gotta get me an iphone, gotta get me an internet enabled car, gotta put my data in the cloud. Oh noes! The GPS knows where I am! My Iphone is collecting my data! My car is broadcasting my bad driving habits to my insurance company! The cloud is selling off my private data!
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that in every case the fear part boils down to a problem of closed-source software working against the user (except cell phone tower-based tracking. Even "cloud" data can be private.)
Re: (Score:2)
If I make an encrypted container and upload it, then mount it on my local machine, please tell me how that will be accessible to anyone else (any more than a local encrypted container).
Re: (Score:2)
It is already illegal to take pictures that one would have to take extraordinary means to take. Taking a photo from the street is fine. Getting up on a ladder and taking a photo would be illegal. Taking a photo from a drone would be similarly illegal. It would be illegal to use a photo taken from a UAV to launch an investigation such as was done here. However, once you see somet
Re: (Score:3)
It is already illegal to take pictures that one would have to take extraordinary means to take. Taking a photo from the street is fine. Getting up on a ladder and taking a photo would be illegal.
Getting on a ladder is "extraordinary means"?
Taking a photo from a drone would be similarly illegal.
Aircraft were arguably invented for scouting, photos have been taken from them for as long as photos have existed. Taking a photo from an aircraft is not illegal, what do you think "satellite" view in Google Earth is?
Re: (Score:2)
Not for most activities, but if you take a picture of your neighbor's house from a ladder then you have invaded their privacy.
Aircraft were arguably invented for scouting, photos have been taken from them for as long as photos have existed. Taking a photo from an aircraft is not illegal, what do you think "satellite" view in Google Earth is?
Yes, but they are not used to spy on people, and at the resolutions available from Google Earth and whatnot, you can't
Re: (Score:2)
Well consider this, what if someone with a UAV, whether a cop or just "some dude," illegally records illegal activity with a UAV and anonymously leaks it to the media or police directly?
Re: (Score:2)
If illegally obtained evidence can be used in evidence of another crime, then all the cops have to do is pay somebody else to illegally obtain the evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it's way to time consuming (ie: expensive) to find the right shots, so it will just be a bunch of porn actresses pretending they had no idea they left their curtains open for the hovering drone. You know, just like all the movies where that chick has never really thought about kissing a girl before, but... what they heck....oh, hey, turns out that first-timer eats pussy like a pro.
legal stuff (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's view able from anybody flying buy..walking by even if it isn't fenced,.
You don't really have a right to privacy in your backyard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning and use it as evidence"
That depends there is a consenting party to that conversation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"That depends there is a consenting party to that conversation:"
It also depends on what state you are in. Only twelve states (according to that Wikipedia article) have all-party consent laws. A sad minority, if you ask me. I think "one-party consent" is a completely ridiculous standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my state is one party consent, and that party can be the one doing the recording. Kind of pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, my state is one party consent, and that party can be the one doing the recording. Kind of pointless."
Yes, exactly. It seems to me, if you were having a conversation with someone (in person or via telephone or whatever), and you said "Let's keep this confidential", and they agreed... that you would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
And most such laws are based on "a reasonable expectation of privacy".
The good news (only a little bit related) is that if you ever get or make a telephone call, and the other side says "calls may be recorded for [whatever reason]", you can safely record that conve
Re:legal stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, let's look at the one party consent with a different viewpoint:
You really DO pay all your bills, and make use of automatic bill payments via your banking institution.
One day, you get a call from a collections agency. They inform you that they are calling on behalf of some organization that you have never heard of before, and that they are authorized to collect an obscenely large debt. (The exact mechanism of how this has come about is insubstantial. Could have been identity theft. Could have been straight up wire fraud. Does not matter. A debt was created, it wasn't created by you, it has gone to collections, and the collections people have your number.)
You politely inform them that they must be mistaken, that you did not create said debt, and further do not have ay relationship whatsoever with their client.
They become beligerent, and make demands. Start telephone harrassment.
You live in a 1 party consent state, so you elect to capture their abusive telephone practices as evidence.
They call, you press record.
They continue their beligerence, insisting upon your culpability for the debt. You inform them that you are going to seek the services of an attourney, if they continue to harrass you. They rudely assert that their telephone activities are not harrassment, and persist on the hardliner of your owing a debt, and demand to know when you will be making payment. You tell them to stop calling you, and to please send all correspondence by mail, say goodbye, and hang up.
They call back immediately. You press record.
For the next few days, as they continue their nonstop harrassment, you repeatedly tell them to cease telephone communications, and to correspond by mail, until they tell you that they don't have to comply with that request, until they have received a letter from you making that request in writing. Thank them for the information, and ask why they didn't reveal it sooner. They get beligerent again, and hang up rudely.
You will have by this time contacted an attourney, and established a legal relationship. You also mail them the written letter stating that they are to preform all contact via writing with your attourney, the address of his office, and the case number, with postal service reciept confirmation.
They call you. You press record.
You inform them that the letter to cease telphone collections has been mailed, and inform them about the attourney. They become beligerent, and essentially call you a deadbeat debt holding liar.
Harrassing telephone calls continue. You record them.
The postal service mails you deliery confirmation on your written letter.
The call you. You press record.
They demand to know when you will pay, and state that they are considering legal action. You inform them that they are in violation of consumer protection laws by contacting you directly, after having received written instructions to preform all collections by mail via your attourney. They assert no such letter has arrived. You inform them that you have delivery confirmation from the postal service asserting that it most certainly did, along with the tracking number, then demand the contact information for their attourney and the case number, concerning their threatened legal action. They become beligerent, call you a liar again, and hang up.
Harrassing telephone calls continue.
You present your collected telephone conversations to your attourney.
He sues the living fuck out of the collections agency on your behalf.
Without the one party consent recordings, you would have no documentation or evidence of the abusive practices of the collections agency, and would not have a case.
With them, you nail their testicles to the wall as a monument against abusive practices.
Naturally, a debt collector would *NEVER* consent to being so recorded, EXACTLY because of this potential liability. This is why 2 party consent for telephone recordings is very bad for average citizens, seeking legal remedies, and very good for abusive institutions. One party consent allows either end to record telephone calls for illegal and abusive behaviors, and to seek legal remedies as appropriate.
One party consent makes a shitton of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning and use it as evidence..."
In many states you can do exactly that: only one party (that would be you here) has to consent to the recording. In fact, and unfortunately, I think the majority of states have this ridiculous law.
"... but guess what, past a thousand feet above your property or whatever the hell it is, you don't own a damn thing so say cheese and see you in court."
Again it depends on the state. I know of at least one state in which any measures taken in order to see what's on a property beyond what can be seen by a casual passerby can be considered "illegal surveillance", and can only be done with a judicial warrant.
So, if I were a resident of that state, theoretically y
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So by the logic the fleets of planes used by Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other mapping companies would need the prior consent of the property owners. The same would be — potentially, depending where you live — of commercial flights over your house as well.
It is legal to look in though someone's window as well. The right of privacy varies between states and country's but as a kind of general rule, the issues becomes when one goes to extraordinary effort to look at something that would not nor
Re: (Score:2)
You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning and use it as evidence
You may live in one of the few places where that's true, but most everyone else doesn't.
I know I shouldn't RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
But I did, and then browsed around and ran across this totally offtopic but rather cool project. A range finding radar project using tin cans, candar?
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20299/build-a-small-radar-system-capable-of-sensing-range-doppler-and-synthetic-aperture-radar-imaging/ [suasnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up! This is quite awesome (I actually found it more interesting than this topic). I do wonder if it will ever come to a point when people will start shooting drones down that cross over to their property. Most likely to occur in America or Russia/Eastern Europe, due to the general population being more pro-gun then in the EU nations.
Are there any legal issues with shooting down drones over your territorry in the USA? I presume you can shoot all you want on your land, what about above it?
Small steps (Score:2, Insightful)
Authorities need probable cause and a warrant to search your home. But, neither is required to recruit your neighbor to tell them what they see in your home.
See something, say something is just another small step toward tyranny, and we will all be the culprits.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, they don't own the creek, we do. So why can't we sic our elected officials on them?
See something say something is democracy in action you clown.
Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers (Score:4, Interesting)
Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers [motherjones.com]: Thanks to a five million dollar grant awarded by Google on Tuesday, the organization is expanding its use of unmanned aerial vehicles to track and deter criminals who illegally hunt endangered animal species around the world. WWF spokesman Lee Poston is not calling these vehicles drones, because he doesn't want people to confuse them with the military kind. According to Poston, they are "sophisticated radio-controlled devices like hobbyists use" that can be "controlled from your iPad or other device." But the WWF website does call them "conservation drones."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers (Score:4, Funny)
Yay google! Way to fight those criminals by becoming criminals yourself. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, I guess.
Are rhino poachers constitutionally protected in Africa? Slashdot is so informative.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the laws in Africa, but I would guess that they probably are constitutionally protected until they have been proven guilty. And if not, is Google going through the trouble to determine if they are poaching rhinos or merely out driving in the savannah before they illegally invade their privacy?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, I don't know the law in Africa. It may be perfectly acceptable there to invade the privacy of people. It is not legal here in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Just sayin... extinction of rhinos is attainable... stopping all rhino poachers is somewhat more nebulous. Hope the rhinos win, but I really don't care,
Re: (Score:2)
In related news, if Mother Jones wants a new graphics guy, they can send me an email.
Scandal that isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scandal that isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
Had the authorities demanded to search the plant for no reason, the same conspiratorial whack jobs posting as AC here would have condemned them for that. Had they flown their own drone it would have been government invasion of privacy. Had government posted stream guards at every stream and river it would be a run away gestapo police state.
When made aware of a crime with clear evidence they took action. Yet virtually every AC posting here twists it into some shallow victory of a hundred citizens standing up to city hall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the meat packing inspectors were in that plant regularly. But prior to this accidental drone photograph there wasn't a clue that they were discharging into a stream. Apparently only a few company execs knew where that drain line went. Those are the ones that got indicted.
They already had plenty of evidence (Score:2)
Are you so naive as to think this was the first time a pork producer illegally disposed massive quantities of waste into public waterways? Do you think it was just some random coincidence that an activist group happened upon this pollution? Everybody who paid any attention to the problem already knew do this was going on regularly and on a massive scale. When you dump a river of pig blood into a public waterway you leave plenty of evidence. Neighbors have been trying for over a decade to stop this, but
Re: (Score:3)
Get your facts right. They weren't an activist group. They were drone enthusiasts.
Activists would have just walked across the field, or paddled a canoe across the river into the stream mouth.
Neighbors were complaining about the smell. Any time you bring in live animals for slaughter it stinks. There were zero complaints about blood in the creek.
USDA inspectors were visiting that plant regularly, as were Texas Meat Safety Assurance Unit inspectors.
There were no activists. Stop making things up.
Re: (Score:3)
>The story is self-congratulatory and implies that the authorities only did their job because of the publicity on the issue
The court of public opinion is an amazing thing, and it definitely affects who our elected officials choose to investigate and prosecute. With 'scandals' like the warrantless wiretaps and retroactive forgiveness for large corporations it's not surprising that some people would automatically assume the worst in a situation. Given the lax prosecution on past environmental disasters and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The fact of the matter is that depending on how the plant was set up, there would have been no reason for a government official to observe the pollution
The fact of the matter is that there is every reason for a government official to observe the pollution, and you are prevaricating for no apparent reason. Do you have an interest in keeping the entrenched media elite in their position of power over The People? The cops do us for speeding because they derive revenue from it. Sometimes you can bribe your way out of it because they personally derive more revenue from a bribe than from writing one more ticket. They should be doing the corporations for polluting
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have an interest in keeping the entrenched media elite in their position of power... I love that. You accuse me of wanting to keep the media elite in a position of power when I accuse the media of taking credit for action without providing evidence. The post you base your accusation on was one where I was critical of the media elite, yet it causes you to ask if I have an interest in keeping the media elite in a position of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen your posts before, I am aware that you think that "journalists" should present opinions which you agree with as facts, however, this is why people do not trust "journalists", because they present opinions as facts.
Nothing which has come in my posts before suggests that I believe that journalists should present opinions with which I agree as facts unless they are facts. However, the most plausible conjecture in this case is what was stated in the article, and I have clearly explained why this is true.
A positive use for drones (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately like just about every positive use of drones, it's not a profitable one. Who's going to pay for drone-enforced environmental laws?
Propaganda by the Meat Packers (Score:2, Informative)
Let's not forget they posted this cynical video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-SGE5AHlns
Then instructed all their employees to like and put positive comments.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2012/03/in-letter-and-video-joe-ondrus.html/
"The City will use all legal means possible to ensure that Columbia Packing, or any company in the City, is not allowed to continue to discharge illicit waste and potentially harm the public and the environment.
Columbia Packing officials, on video, focus on a hidden pipe on their property that they claim was clogged with brick and other material. What company officials do not address is another hidden pipe discovered that was ins
Re: (Score:2)
Wow what a bunch of shitsacks, I hope they get their asses fined off.
Re:Propaganda by the Meat Packers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so what?
You do know what the word "indictment" means don't you? It means it didn't work.
Sorry, this guy should be in prison. (Score:2)
He purposely flew high enough to see on private property and is now giving the business a bad name, endangering countless jobs. This should not be celebrated, he should be condemned to prison for a lengthy term for interrupting domestic commerce in a time of war. Life in prison would be a gift, given the circumstances.
Besides that, I doubt there was ever a regulation about dumping that specific substance into that specific river. Who are we, communists?
Warrentless surveillance coming to a home near you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Any naturally occurring substance, if present due to the action or lack of action of a human being, is apparently a pollutant.
Re: (Score:2)
What next? They'll be claiming the breath you exhale is pollution too!
Too much fertilizer in the river will kill all the fish, as algae will grow so much they Jude all the oxygen when they decay.
(IIRC from age ~15at school. Eutrophication.)
Re: (Score:2)
I can sympathize with your intent, but unfortunately, that doesn't work very well either. There are way too many things that are technically illegal that nobody takes seriously (and enforcement never happens). There are way too many extenuating circumstances for most anything to possibly list them all in a law, but nevertheless, most agree that they ARE extenuating and should lessen the penalty or even render the act legal.
Zero tolerance is what brings us things like honor students suspended when their litt
Re: (Score:2)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/11/19/213223/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time [slashdot.org]