Going Through the Garbage

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."

Comments

Anthro

[andyrut]

There's a whole division of physical anthropology dedicated to the study of people's garbage. Basically, a scientist goes door to door and asks people questions about their consumer habits (how many beers do you drink a week?). Later, they go dumpster diving to verify the survey questions.

The lying on these surveys is astounding.

Re:Anthro

[marcelmouse]

As a social anthropologist and veteran Portland dumpster-diver, I'm going to have to take issue with this. It would be relatively easy to design a study (this isn't actually an experiment, of course) to take this into account.

"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...)

Re:They have every right

[nick this]

I have to call foul on this one.

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:They have every right

[DAldredge]

If you are a cop they why do you have the following posted in your Journal?

"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.

Re:They have every right

[BWJones]

Because being a policeman myself, I know that by the time a search warrant is signed off by a judge and executed (around a week), the trash will be long gone. So, the policeman have a perfectly valid argument.

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?

Re:hypocrites

[Saeger]

Beaurocrats often think themselves above the law because they're obviously the "good guys", and in order to do their job they shouldn't be subject to the same inconveniences. It's only the rest of us potential-terrorist peons who should have to prove our innocence by showing we have nothing to hide.

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:Involuntary BLOOD SAMPLE

[Skyshadow]

Folks, this is not a case of stolen "property". This is an involuntary medical examination; an invasion of privacy to the highest degree.

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:If you...

[Dimwit]

Which, incidentially, is about 7 - 10 more than the average pay of Texas schoolteachers.

Not to disparage the work of sanitation engineers, but I think teachers should make at least as much...

Re:Fraud?

[afidel]

two dimensional shredders that make confetti should make it pretty darn impossible to reconstruct any documents, especially if they use the rotating cutter method. Don't think that just burning your receipts is sufficient, the ink can be recovered with chemical processes if the ashes are intact, so you still need to pulverise the results, so why not skip the burning stage and just pulverise them correctly in the first place.