Drone Photos Lead to Indictment For Texas Polluters

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."

Comments

Would have preferred

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Would have preferred

[houbou]

I agree with you, but unfortunately, the right thing to do is not synonymous with the most profitable thing to do.. :(

Re:Would have preferred

[SeaFox]

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:Would have preferred

[TapeCutter]

I would have preferred, "Planning authorities deny application to build pipe from factory to river".

Re:Would have preferred

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it clear? Pigs = Terrorists.

This is for your own good, now move along, citizen.

Re:Would have preferred

[hey!]

Think of anyplace you've worked. Haven't you seen people doing things they probably shouldn't, because nobody is going to hold them accountable? Why should government be any different? It's always much easier to do the right thing when somebody is checking up on you.

I've worked with state and local government agencies around the country, and some are better than others. Some in fact are quite good. But none are perfect, and they all have their share of deadwood, just like any other workplace. The best government agencies are the ones that manage to attract people who are in it for more than a paycheck. Granted that idealism causes some problems, but not nearly so much as the corruption and inertia that rules in certain other places.

I don't have a lot of experience with Texas, but in that experience there was both some unusually good and unusually bad people there. I think that's related to the anti-government attitudes. You get people working for government who are bottom feeders, and you get really dedicated people who are willing to put up with the public's disrespect in order to serve it.

Pig blood, that is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Red gold. Texas tea.

Re:Pig blood, that is.

[LifesABeach]

I looked at the daming imagery, I was half expecting to see unshaven person holding a 6 foot stick wearing their grandma's wash dress by the stream of blood.

Apologies to the estate of Cecil B. Demille.

I believe this is the first

[koan]

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: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hardly wait for the "voyeur drone porno" fetish to become widespread. Imagine being able to see an unknowing woman up close outside her second-story sorority-house bathroom window, with a constant propeller buzz in the background audio, camera shaking just enough for effect but stabilized just enough to see that college coed stepping out of the shower and drying herself off. Mmmm, I bet that pink towel smells good after a straight week of use.

The really cool videos of this genre will have the drone spy on a woman until she sees it and shrieks, then the drone will move to another bathroom window down the street to spy again.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re: I believe this is the first

[Charliemopps]

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: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm inclined to think the same.

I hate the idea that people won't be able to fly their own UAV's, if only because I'm interested in it myself and I think there's great utility there. But the idea of everyone being able to easily photograph/record whatever they want from above is genuinely creepy. It used to be you could put up a fence, and anyone photographing into a home from the street would get their ass kicked, but the only privacy available now is living in a concrete box with no windows or view of the sky.

But either way, police are using them now, so there's little expectation of privacy from above anyways. :/

Re: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is legislation preventing photos from being taken of farmlands. I am sure that it applies to UAVs as well.

Re: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're afraid of technology? Got it.

Please turn over your geek card on the way out.

Re: I believe this is the first

[tompaulco]

new regulations pushed forth by corporate lobbies will restrict drone use or create "air space" restrictions over corporate land.
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 something, you can't unsee it, and so as soon as they saw it and launched an investigation, they pretty much had all the evidence they needed. The fact that it was kicked off by somebody else doing something illegal is overlooked. It is the court of public opinion, which is all well and good, unless the public doesn't like something YOU are doing.
This is like a burglar breaking into your house and notices you have some marijuana and calls the cops on you.

Re: I believe this is the first

[tompaulco]

So... you're afraid of technology? Got it. Please turn over your geek card on the way out.
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: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're afraid of technology? Got it.

Some technologies, yes. So are you.

But let's be clear, I'm not "afraid" of hobby UAV's so much as I'm bothered by the total lack of privacy, anywhere, ever.

Re: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes!!! you mean we can't use our UAVs to scope out women who like to sunbath naked in their back yards in our neighborhoods!! Arrgh!!... what next!!

Re: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, the police are only in the business of making arrests and gathering evidence of crimes. A criminal reporting a crime is still a criminal, but his evidence can still be used against other criminals. It's only if the police used the UAV that the evidence would be inadmissible.

Re: I believe this is the first

[AK Marc]

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: I believe this is the first

[GameboyRMH]

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

[GameboyRMH]

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: I believe this is the first

[GameboyRMH]

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: I believe this is the first

[tompaulco]

A criminal reporting a crime is still a criminal, but his evidence can still be used against other criminals.
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: I believe this is the first

[tompaulco]

Getting on a ladder is "extraordinary means"?
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 tell anything incriminating. Well, maybe you can depending on the activity, but it shouldn't be admissable as evidence or used as cause for an investigation. Frankly, I am not real happy that people can tell how many cars I have outside or weather I have a pool or not from Google Earth. That ought to be considered invasion of privacy.

Re: I believe this is the first

[Anonymous Coward]

Cloud data private? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Oh I needed that kind of good laugh after being sick the last few days.

Yeah, no chance of that happening. Any digitized data you want to keep private, better had not leave your physical possession, ever. This has no bearing at all on open or closed source software. It has to do with the fact unless you control it all times, someone other than you can access it. And if you bring up encryption, just remember that they've just been bypassing that now for years by taking RAM dumps of running machines to extract the keys. Then we have countries and other jurisdictions that require key escrow, etc and it all ends up being a delaying game and nothing more (current minimum key length: 4096 bits, anything less is totally worthless and broken within hours, days at the outside). There's also timing attacks and many other methods I am quite sure you can Google on your own.

"Cloud data" is especially vulnerable. Google found this out the hard way, and had to re-design their server farms because of it. Amazon is also learning those same lessons, and had to change many of their procedures and hardware configurations as well.

And again, the difference is almost moot between open and closed source in this situation. I can bet you rather large amounts of money that no proper software audit is done on the vast majority of FOSS software (one of the reasons very few Linux distros or other FOSS software gets approved for government use anywhere). There are far, FAR fewer people qualified to audit software top to bottom than there is to actually design or program it to begin with. And no, just because you can write software, does not mean in any way that you are qualified to audit it for security. Some of the best software auditors actually had no ties to the industry, nor any "programming experience".

No, they shouldn't fear closed source software. What they need to fear, is people. Greedy people. That is all it boils down to.

Well, that and bored teenagers who think it is fun times to social-engineer their way into all of your data (as was the case rather recently in a report in Wired).

Re: I believe this is the first

[GameboyRMH]

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: I believe this is the first

[HornWumpus]

[Paranoid]They will keep a copy until the encryption is weak.[/Paranoid]

Re: I believe this is the first

[AK Marc]

I am not real happy that people can tell how many cars I have outside or weather I have a pool or not from Google Earth. That ought to be considered invasion of privacy.

Ah, ok. So you are arguing that "It is already illegal to take pictures that one would have to take extraordinary means to take." is based on your opinion of whatever invades your privacy, as defined by you, should be illegal, whether or not it currently is.

I can't argue with your opinion, but the facts don't agree with your opinion.

Joy at the suffering of others.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet this made some rich people very angry! Rich people really, really hate being forced to follow the same rules as everyone else.

The first

[Anonymous Coward]

Farmer to shoot down one of these terror drones will be a national hero.

Re:The first

[hack slash]

Already happened:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/11/19/213223/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time

legal stuff

[slashmydots]

You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning and use it as evidence 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.

Re:legal stuff

[geekoid]

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:legal stuff

[YrWrstNtmr]

The rules were written for audio. Not inexpensive consumer grade video taken from your personal helicopter.

Re:legal stuff

[couchslug]

"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

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"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 you could stand on a ladder to talk to me over the back fence, but you could not stand on a ladder in order to SEE over my back fence. The same applies to drones, civilian and law enforcement... even if they are not OVER the property in question. The only thing that matters is that they are where they are IN ORDER TO see onto that property.

Of course, intent can sometimes be hard to prove, so these issues have to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"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:legal stuff

[tompaulco]

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.
Yes, my state is one party consent, and that party can be the one doing the recording. Kind of pointless.

Re:legal stuff

[jockm]

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 normally be visible. So did the sUAV in question violate their airspace? Did it have an out of the ordinary zoom lens, was it flying in areas planes aren't allowed to fly? Was it violating FAA regulations?

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"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 conversation without notice to anybody because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Re:legal stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy with one-party consent. I've called places to deal with disputes, and had I told them I was recording, I would get hung up on immediately. Instead, I was able to record obvious lies and malfeasance and present it for legal action.

Case settled out of court.

The big guys record all shit anyway, might as well be able to yourself.

Re:legal stuff

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:legal stuff

[AK Marc]

Why is it ridiculous to make it legal to record what people say to me? If you don't want it on record, don't say it.

Re:legal stuff

[wierd_w]

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:legal stuff

[greenbird]

You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning

You can in Texas (and most other states for that matter) if you are part of the conversation.

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"Why is it ridiculous to make it legal to record what people say to me? If you don't want it on record, don't say it."

So... you don't believe private conversations should even exist? I should not be able to say something to you confidentially?

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"They call, you press record."

You can do that in an "all-party" consent state too. You just can't use it in court.

I agree that it does present some problems, but in my opinion they are fewer problems than a "1-party consent" rule does.

With 1-party consent, there is no such thing as a private conversation. Ever. You NEVER know when some other party might be recording your conversation.

Doesn't the total abolition of privacy -- the complete inability to ensure you are saying something confidentially to someone -- bother you?

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"Naturally, a debt collector would *NEVER* consent to being so recorded, EXACTLY because of this potential liability."

Many legitimate debt collectors actually record the conversation themselves. But I admit this could be a problem with an agency that intends to break the law.

Still, I maintain that "1-party consent" creates more problems than it solves.

Re:legal stuff

[AK Marc]

Sure. Why not ask if you are being recorded? I'm also a firm believer that all lies that benefit you or harm others should be considered fraud. If he says "no, you aren't being recorded" but he is, then it should be an illegal recording.

I'm a libertarian (but with priorities that leave me as a near-opposite of the Libertarian Party), so I look to the force. Why do you get to force me to never record for documentation purposes? I'm not forcing you to talk to me, that's your choice, but for that choice, you'd force me to behave how you prefer. If you consider recording someone "force" I'm still not using any force against you unless you object. You are arguing that the objection is implied. I'm just saying that I agree you shouldn't be recorded id you object, but that the objection must be stated.

Do you also believe I'm breaking the law (or doing something wrong) when I set all my email clients to reject email recall notices so they only get deleted when I delete them, or I don't delete voicemails immediately upon hearing them the first time?

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sure. Why not ask if you are being recorded? I'm also a firm believer that all lies that benefit you or harm others should be considered fraud. If he says "no, you aren't being recorded" but he is, then it should be an illegal recording."

I would have a hard time disagreeing with that... except that it's NOT the law. At this time anyway, it's just wishful thinking.

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"Do you also believe I'm breaking the law (or doing something wrong) when I set all my email clients to reject email recall notices so they only get deleted when I delete them, or I don't delete voicemails immediately upon hearing them the first time?"

These are a very different scenarios. I do not agree that they apply here. In the cases you describe here, someone is communicating with you, knowing full well that there will be a record of it. So they behave accordingly. (Usually, anyway.)

But with 1-party consent, you can NEVER be sure that something is not being recorded. As I stated earlier, in effect you have eliminated private conversations. That is to say: you have eliminated the ability of anyone to know that their conversation is private.

I assert that this is a very great loss of freedom. Sure, as I stated before, it does afford some protection from abusive people. But there is still the classic tradeoff of freedom for security. As a libertarian, I don't see how you can defend it from any angle.

Re:legal stuff

[AK Marc]

The great thing about a democracy is that you need to deal with it. Move to a 2-party state, or change the law in yours. There is no problem, and I'd rather live in one-party than 2-party states. I don't say things I'd have an issue with them being recorded, and I'd rather be free to record if I'm talking to someone else who I have some issue with.

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

"... 'd rather be free to record if I'm talking to someone else who I have some issue with."

Like I said earlier: freedom for security. I don't see how you can reconcile that with being a Libertarian, but it's your choice. It's definitely not a choice I would make.

Re:legal stuff

[AK Marc]

The security is never there. Illegal recordings can be used against you, so having a law label it "illegal" doesn't do you any good, unless revenge is the single most important thing in your life. Better is to not say anything that can be used against you. Or hold the conversation in person and sweep them for bugs. Phones aren't secure, so why would you incorrectly presume security if there was a law that slightly increased the security of the insecure media?

Re:legal stuff

[Jane Q. Public]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

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:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

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 do you choose? This can be extended into to political choices, simply because a single decisions aren't about black and white. The problem really is the political system we use.

A world that should be would be a Direct Democracy that would give more voting power to people who vote on decisions that improve the society, and penalize the wrong vote (to a degree). This however has so many technical and political problems it's thousands of years off.

Re:You are so naive

[icebike]

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

[NewtonsLaw]

"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

[icebike]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition, the rich posses much more stuff that other people wish to take, and therefore are more threatened by a significant larger number of people who want to take their stuff from them, no matter who stands in the way. Therefore, it's quite natural that security forces invest more resources in protecting those who are bigger targets, because they would guarantee a more lucrative return on their investment in crime.

Case in point: third world countries like Brazil. How many times do you hear about gangs kidnapping the offspring of poor homeless peasants? How many times do you hear about gangs kidnapping the offspring of rich people? QED.

If the police's job is to protect those who need protecting then it's rather obvious that they tend to help the rich, because they need much more protection than those who have nothing to be robbed off them.

Re:You are so naive

[TapeCutter]

Realize that most of them were born in the 80' and 90's, the civil right movement is history to them in the same way WW1 was history to "boomers" like me who grew up in the sixties. However that doesn't mean there aren't any problems today, the political paralysis in the US over climate change is one such example. It's a constant struggle, someone points out something "inconvenient", (wish Al Gore hadn't stolen that word), and those who are inconvenienced start pumping out the most outrageous (and surprisingly effective) propaganda. Actually they hire others to do it, who have no qualms about assassinating the charter of the genuine "Galileo's" for a meager $100k/yr. A sound and broad scientific education seems to be the best defense for the average punter and the only way to obtain that is through humility and self skepticism.

Re:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely it was the first time someone brought them proof sufficient to obtain a warrant to search over private lands.

What the hell are we paying the police for if we the people must perform the investigations ourselves!

Re:You are so naive

[Concerned Onlooker]

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:You are so naive

[icebike]

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:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Like people tell me, and I will put out there as a devil's advocate:

You can't eat ethics.

Re:You are so naive

[sjames]

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

[davester666]

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:You are so naive

[sjames]

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 dichotomy, just a continuum. Many people would like to move closer to the not-corrupt pole.

Re:You are so naive

[Marxdot]

But here you are practicing the exact opposite of humility and skepticism.

Re:You are so naive

[sjames]

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:You are so naive

[icebike]

Lapsed time is about on par for this type of crime. Actually 12 months is pretty short, after all once the story hit the mainstream, you can bet they stopped dumping. And pig blood is not exactly a toxic substance leading to fish die offs.

Further, all the prior complaints were about smell. What packing plant DOESN'T smell.

Re:You are so naive

[icebike]

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:You are so naive

[sjames]

It's not as deserted as you might think from the photo. Look at the Google map.

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:You are so naive

[icebike]

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:You are so naive

[sjames]

See also this. 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:You are so naive

[sjames]

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:You are so naive

[icebike]

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:You are so naive

[icebike]

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:You are so naive

[trevelyon]

I would agree those were cherry picked so how about we look at a few of the major trends:

Trust of politicians and government in general: http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/18/public-trust-in-government-1958-2010/

Income disparity (who is getting all the new wealth): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

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:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. There is always someone who says that everything is ok to balance when someone says it's not.

Re:You are so naive

[richlv]

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

[SumterLiving]

Actually lawmakers make laws. And lawmakers make laws so the enforcers can prosecute the criminals. But if it makes you feel better thinking politicians make laws just to cover their asses then I feel sorry for your deep, dark view of life and people in general.

Re:You are so naive

[hoboroadie]

*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 attitude, a sweet old German Guy, who I suspected had an iron fist holding onto quality. All it takes is a little self-respect and pride in one's work. Their product is universally lauded by customers, too.

Re:You are so naive

[hoboroadie]

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:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more people that will behave in evil ways than those that behave like saints. But don't forget that one good person can offset several bad people in this world.
                                I see those that allow greed to steer them as being totally inferior. I do not accept their excuses either.

Re:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Underneath the problem resides the fact that Congress can only pass laws. They are a one trick pony. They either pass a law or they do not. Very little thought is applied to how laws will act in concert with each other and the real consequences of a law are hard to measure. As far as crime is concerned, most criminals could care less whether an act is illegal or not. Many have no awareness of consequences unless they are instantaneous. Many are not even concerned with whether they are caught or not. In other words the effect of congressmen passing laws on these people is next to zero. Many criminals are so unaware that they believe that if a judge likes them they will be set free and if a judge doesn't like them they will receive long sentences. Everything is reduced to people liking them or not and rules, laws and morality just are not part of their thought process.

Re:You are so naive

[sjames]

Yes, I can, can you see those little house looking things that show they aren't in a deserted area like you claimed?

Re:You are so naive

[sjames]

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?

Re:You are so naive

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:You are so naive

[wierd_w]

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:You are so naive

[icebike]

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. What kind of crack are you smoking anyway?

Re:You are so naive

[HornWumpus]

*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.

Re:You are so naive

[HornWumpus]

Policing is 90% a local (city or county) government function. So things already work more or less as you describe.

Policing in rich neighborhoods is well funded and the cops are mostly polite. Policing in poor neighborhoods is for shit and the cops have shit attitudes.

Property tax bills reflect this reality. Criminals don't rob other poor people _only_ because they are lazy morons. They do it because the other poor people don't have effective local police.

Re:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a phrase I don't hear often enough: Corporate Death Penalty.

They need to eliminate all the "country club" prisons for those convicted of financial crimes. If the crime is financial, the penalty should be financial. Instead of prison sentences or simply fining them and then letting them go back to being corrupt greedy scum, they and their family should be temporarily stripped of their assets and forced to live on minimum wage for the period of their sentence. That would create more fear and deterrence than any other penalty.

Re:You are so naive

[sjames]

Look RIGHT BEHIND THE PLANT.

Re:You are so naive

[icebike]

There is nothing but open field and forest behind the plant.

There are houses and a softball field next to the plant but these are not along the portion of the creek downstream of the plant. All there is out there is power lines. You do realize that water flows towards the river right? It won't flow upstream.

Re:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

no one needs to bully the nz govt led by john key. key is an arsehole entirely capable of crawling up the arse of the cia all by himself

Re:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

Madoff is not in jail for doing a ponzi-scheme. He is in jail for lying about creating a ponzi scheme (to the securities and exchange commission, the justice department and many others) about it. He is in jail for systematic, organized fraud that he ran long-term because he had two things. First, he was high up in the system (always a problem) and he managed to get everyone below him to cooperate (enough to keep things hidden from the government for quite some time).

There's 2 problems that you could describe the way you do. This is not a criminal proceeding, until the fraud was uncovered. For violating civil law you can never go to jail, especially in America (in Europe, not paying bills results in fines, not paying the fines will -eventually- land you in jail).

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.

Well, yes. Assuming "the little people" are people that won't sue the ponzi scheme author, then that's exactly how our justice system works. As long as it's civil law, if no-one complains, no-one is guilty of anything. This is a *very* good thing.

Contrast this with muslim law, where this principle doesn't exist. Technically, under sharia, if you steal a bread from a bakery 1000 miles away, every muslim (including your neighbor) has the right -and duty- to cut of your hand for it. How that law system works can be described by how their prophet handled "justice". Someone would come to him, and complain. If he agreed with the complainant (without any way to verify if he heard the truth other than "allah would have told me"), he'd send out a mob to kill the "guilty". He encouraged muslims to do the same, and so they did. If they think you've committed a crime (these days that would mostly be a woman "reputed" to have, say, been with a boy), they will openly attack you in groups.

You should be very glad our justice system doesn't work like that.

, or he might have had to pay a fine.

If he hadn't submitted falsified statements under oath - knowingly, willingly and with full faculties - that's exactly what would have happened.

Again this is a very good thing. In American law this didn't use to be the case. A mere 2 centuries ago, you were criminally liable for all debts. In case it's not clear what that means, that means that if somebody claims he sold something to you under credit, without proof, just convincingly enough (civil law does not require proof) you'd be thrown into jail until someone would satisfy your debt to this person (you couldn't do it yourself, obviously, and people abused this situation).

Today, thankfully, there is no way you can get thrown in jail for commercial acts, as long as you don't lie about them to the justice department.

By the way, it's called a "Ponzi" scheme, named after Charles Ponzi.

Re:You are so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll take off our tin foil hats when you take off your blinders...COW.

I know I shouldn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

Re:I know I shouldn't RTFA

[Ogi_UnixNut]

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?

Re:I know I shouldn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC from a previous topic, you only own the airspace to a certain heigh above your land. That height is based on the range of an average rifle from when the laws were made (but I could be getting quite wrong on that point). So basically past a certain point is considered public property which is why the cops can get away with it.

Re:I know I shouldn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Just because something is on your land does not mean you have the right to shoot or otherwise harm it. I have personal xperience with this principle - my neighbors shot my cat with their BB gun, they claimed it was in their backyard. We took them to court for the veterinary bills to fix him up (broke one of his legs). We won.

Re:I know I shouldn't RTFA

[cusco]

Are there any legal issues with shooting...

You'd best not use a rifle to shoot up in the air, since you're endangering the life of everyone within range (three miles for a .30-.30 deer rifle). And yes, you are legally liable for anyone downrange that you might inadvertently hit (kill).

Re:I know I shouldn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that firing bullets into the air would be considered reckless in most cases. If you piss off the wrong people, they have enough to drag you through the legal system.

Small steps

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Small steps

[icebike]

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.

They had to act because of the attention?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err I thought they would have had to act because you know laws where been broken not because it got publicity. But hay I guess that's how laws are enforced nowaways who knew?

Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[theodp]

Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers : 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:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[tompaulco]

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."
Yay google! Way to fight those criminals by becoming criminals yourself. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, I guess.

Re:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[NotQuiteReal]

I'll bet for 5 million dollars, you could, with more certainty, cause rhinos to go extinct.

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:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really see how Google becomes criminals by doing this ; but I salute you for your desperate efforts to make Google look evil in any situation.

Re:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[hoboroadie]

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:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[GameboyRMH]

In related news, if Mother Jones wants a new graphics guy, they can send me an email.

Re:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[tompaulco]

Are rhino poachers constitutionally protected in Africa?
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:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[tompaulco]

I don't really see how Google becomes criminals by doing this ; but I salute you for your desperate efforts to make Google look evil in any situation.
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:Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers

[Maxmin]

How did you determine it's illegal? Flying aerial surveillance drones over what is very likely public land? It's clear you don't know anything about the law.

In the U.S. and many other countries, public photography is permitted where there's "no expectation of privacy." You have no control over whether others take your picture in public. That goes for drones, CCTV, and photo joes with digital cameras.

I can't imagine that taking pictures of poachers killing rhinos on public land is illegal. And if it is, the government(s) in question would probably look the other way, given this project is helping them solve a very real problem.

Scandal that isn't

[Attila Dimedici]

The story is self-congratulatory and implies that the authorities only did their job because of the publicity on the issue. While it is true that the authorities only acted because of the original story, there is no evidence that once they were made aware of the story that they did not move at a deliberate pace in order to determine how widespread the infraction was and to prosecute it. 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. That is the only reason that they needed the original story in order to act. They had to know there was something to act on.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[icebike]

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:Scandal that isn't

[PlusFiveTroll]

>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 deaths that have resulted, some people expect it.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[fermion]

Pretty much this is the case. There are inspectors in texas, but they seem to only give warnings if the do anything at all. And then the situation is set up so the owners are not responsible. For instance in 2005, 15 workers were killed at BP in Texas City A year later another worker was killed. None of these were BP related, because these were contract workers. There were many safety citation which were never enforced. And BP does not care because they contractors, who have no control over the safety, are the one's responsible for the workers.

So no, it is not reasonable to say that they did not know and should not have known and really had no reason to know. In fact it is reasonable to assume that they did not, in some file somewhere is a warning and many even a promise form the owners to fix it. But without real fines and even criminal penalty, there is no incentive to make changes that are only going to make a plant unprofitable.

So, BP has some of the most dangerous plants in the world, and over the past 5 years because of publicity they seem to be safer. This is the way things change in Texas. To shame the people who are only cared about profits. There is a lot of money in Texas, and most believe that it is uncool to kill people to save a buck. There are people who are paid a lot for semi skilled work, but that is because the work is dangerous, though no one is paid to die.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[drinkypoo]

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 because they derive revenue from it in the form of fines, it's not like they typically use the money to clean up the problem. But they don't. Could it be because someone somewhere is deriving more revenue from it on a personal level? And under a system of capitalism, is there indeed any other good explanation?

They had to know there was something to act on.

If you serve people food and have a license for serving food you may receive a surprise inspection to determine whether you are in compliance, because you may cause people harm. The same thing is true of all food processors of any kind. The government reserves the right to run up in your business and find out if you're doing anything they don't like. They do this to small food processors all day every day, shutting them down on specious evidence of contamination like evidence of rodents outside the facility and the like, so there is more than a little evidence that they are willing to do this when the money is right — and lobbyists are a dime a dozen. And since Monsanto is now literally in charge of what food you are now permitted to eat, it's trivial to see not just who's applying the dimes, but where.

They had to know there was something to act on.

Yes, and they could have found that out by performing a random inspection like they allegedly are doing with the producers of raw milk cheeses and so on, and discovered the abuses that way, but they didn't. And meanwhile, they continue to discover dramatically less obvious faults in smaller facilities on a weekly if not daily basis, which should be harder and not easier, which implies to me that they're not actually that interested in doing their actual job unless forced to. Which is what happened here.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[Attila Dimedici]

I do not have a problem with people reading about a prosecution like this and wondering if it was only investigated because of all of the publicity. However, it is quite another thing for a "journalist" to report that it was only investigated because of the publicity when they provide no evidence that such is the case. This story is a perfect example of why people no longer trust "journalists".

Re:Scandal that isn't

[Attila Dimedici]

It is one thing for you to read the article and conclude that the authorities only acted because of the publicity. It is a quite different thing for the reporter to say in the article that the authorities only acted because of the publicity, when they provide no evidence supporting that claim. The claim that the authorities only acted because of the publicity is opinion. That means it belongs on the opinion page, not in the news article, unless there are some facts presented in the article to support that opinion (even then it probably belongs on the opinion page, but that would make it more of a judgment call). This is why people no longer trust "journalists", because they do not clearly separate their opinions from the facts they present.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[hawkinspeter]

I didn't realise that businesses are allowed privacy. Surely businesses can be inspected to ensure that they abide by fire regulations and follow health and safety law. If they're discharging waste into a stream it's not unreasonable for them to be checked on from time to time.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[Attila Dimedici]

If the opinion that the authorities had only acted because of the publicity had been expressed in an opinion piece, I would have been fine with that. However, it was presented as part of a news story, with no evidence to back it up. 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.

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:Scandal that isn't

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[icebike]

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.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[Attila Dimedici]

It is still conjecture and there are no facts presented to support that conjecture.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

And this folks, is why it is so difficult to protect the environment and lives of workers. The shills for the polluters are very well paid, and aggressive. Right now in shale, a it was in the coal industry, many kids are graduating how school and pulled into a dangerous and dead end industry by short term high pay. They are forgoing skilled training and allowing their future to be stolen by false promises. I provide no evidence of this claim, other than the hundred of deaths in the coal industry, stacks of records indicating safety violations in both industries, and a track record of both industries of doing nothing. But since we evidently need a court case to provide proof, I suppose none of the pollution of deaths are actually anyone fault other than the victim.

Re:Scandal that isn't

[kinohead]

And, I think I'll just wade through all the speculation and theories to decide for myself, rather than allow opinions like your to take away that option.

Your stance is just as rote and predictable as those you oppose.

For me, I prefer tin hat and all, rather than a outright dismissal of things that are improbable or even impossible.

A positive use for drones

[MrKaos]

This will soon come to the attention of legislators through corporate lobby groups who seek to undermine the power of people to be able to conduct affairs that protect the public good and limit profit.

Re:A positive use for drones

[GameboyRMH]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Propaganda by the Meat Packers

[Anonymous Coward]

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 installed to bypass the City’s monitoring device in the sanitary sewer line. The installation of that bypass allowed the discharge of pig blood and other unsanitary waste materials without City oversight. Columbia Packing has failed to document when and how this bypass was installed. The bypass pipe appeared to be of recent vintage.

The search warrant and associated affidavit speak for themselves and clearly outline daily investigatory activities on the part of the City and other investigators from the day the situation was brought to the City’s attention."

Re:Propaganda by the Meat Packers

[icebike]

Yeah, so what?

You do know what the word "indictment" means don't you? It means it didn't work.

Re:Propaganda by the Meat Packers

[GameboyRMH]

Wow what a bunch of shitsacks, I hope they get their asses fined off.

Re:Propaganda by the Meat Packers

[hawkinspeter]

They should just get shut down. If a business is blatantly ignoring and bypassing a law, why should it be allowed to continue doing business? Shut it down and throw the owners/board into prison.

Ah, no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Money is an abstract representation of how much influence one has over others. Once upon a time, it might have been an abstract representation of an in-demand raw material, but no longer.

The reason wealth and power always go hand-in-hand is precisely because they are fundamentally the same thing. If you cannot see this, then perhaps it is YOU who are naive.

Re:Slashdot Repeat

[Anonymous Coward]

If by repeat you mean follow up, then yes. The indictment is a new development.

Even Better

[caspy7]

"Authorities had to act because it was THEIR FRICKIN' JOB"

Re:blood is a pollutant?

[tompaulco]

What next? They'll be claiming the breath you exhale is pollution too!
Any naturally occurring substance, if present due to the action or lack of action of a human being, is apparently a pollutant.

It sounded like news from China

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone found some ugly truth about an corp and report on it. The public becomes enraged, then the official "react".

Fewer discretionary laws

[Revek]

We need to make the laws more ironclad. So many laws are at the discretion of the officials. If they choose not to fine or arrest someone for wrong doing its okay. They are not disciplined and do not face termination for choosing to ignore crimes. In this case the local powers that be tried to ignore it until they had no choice but to act. Their plan A was to wait for it to blow over.

Re:Fewer discretionary laws

[sjames]

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 little brother leaves a cap gun in the car and other such idiocy.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

"Authorities had to act because of the attention the story was receiving."

'Authorities' ... 'had' ... 'to act' .... 'because of [] attention'?! This is mindless !

Authorities never need to 'act' on any account regardless of 'attention' and not
ever a point of ethics, law or heavens forbid ... morality.

'Authorities' never act by ethics, law or morality !

'Authorities' act by greed, jealously, insanity, and all the other sins.

'Authorities' ARE sin.

Never trust ... 'Authority'; that ... will be your error, ... if you do.

Re:WTF

[inode_buddha]

And yet, you trust - YOURSELF
are you an authority?

Illegal in Iowa

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, this would have been illegal in Iowa since you're not allowed to take photographs of farms without permission of the owner of the farm.

Good start. Now: more & better drone-cam's, pl

[Anonymous Coward]

Great story!

Now, let's add drone-cam's to our Internet Journo go kits (along with small MP3 recorders & pocket digi.cam's/video, & - sometimes - scanners).

Drone-cam's seem -much- safer than other kinds of cameras (ie, if your control signals aren't triangulated)... buzz the bad guys' eco or animal mistreatment patches, call home the drone(s), upload the photos / videos - along with patch location details & crowd-source some justifiable crowd-outrage.

We need CHEAP, long-fly-time drones, with encrypted control signaling (if not already the norm), so we won't lose 'em to control signal hackers... better cameras, etc.

Sorry, this guy should be in prison.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Sorry, this guy should be in prison.

[kinohead]

Wow. A double, super whammy, reverse psychology AC posting on Slashdot! Can someone cast a bronze plaque real quick?

I highly doubt it has EVER happened before!

Re:Sorry, this guy should be in prison.

[strikethree]

lol?

Truthiness

[hoboroadie]

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:Your List

[hoboroadie]

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:blood is a pollutant?

[xaxa]

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.)

Warrentless surveillance coming to a home near you

[randomErr]

If they'll do this to coperate entity that is paying million in bribes, what to stop them from watching you?

In defense of Bureaucrats

[rsilvergun]

If they're spending their all their time covering their asses instead of doing their jobs there's a reason, and it's because someone's out to get them. At least in the States the powers that be are doing a major push to put working class Americans at the throats of gov't workers that happen to still make a living wage. It's classic divide and conquer tactics. They do the same thing with race baiting.

The key to keeping the poor down is to keep pointing at someone else as the problem. The problem isn't that the rich have 80% of everything, it's those darn Bureaucrats/Unions/Negroes holdin' you back.

Put another way: A Bureaucrat, a Union guy and a Rich man are setting at a table with 10 apples. The Rich Man pulls 8 apples off the table, turns to the Union guy and says "Hey, that guy's gonna steal your apple".

If you're a meat eater

[rsilvergun]

this is a scary time. They just massively cut funding to chicken inspectors. If I remember right you get something like 3 seconds to decide if a chicken is fit to eat or not.

Re:If you're a meat eater

[HornWumpus]

You bet 3 seconds to decide? Eat slower.

They already had plenty of evidence

[mathmathrevolution]

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 the authorities never listen to them. Pork producers just bullshit the public claiming, assault the science, and write checks behind the scenes to keep business as usual.

Yes, it was very much the case that public officials were actively trying to protect industrial pig farmers and they succeeded for years. If it wasn't for the activists galvanizing the public and shaming the government then nothing would have happened and everybody would still be drinking hormone-injected pig's blood.

Re:They already had plenty of evidence

[icebike]

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.

Yet more anecdotes.

[hoboroadie]

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.

Reminds me of what happened to all the loud nightclubs and light industry in San Francisco after they invented Live/Work condos to circumvent the zoning and deindustrialize the town.

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.

Any ethical developer would do no less, IMO, if he wanted to site customers next to a shitpile. The fact that it was apparently the threat of lawsuits that motivated them just shows the state of ethics in the Real Estate Development game. I suppose they built it below one of those levees. (Haw-haw.)

That doesn't change the fact that your factory shouldn't shit in the creek.

Re:Yet more anecdotes.

[HornWumpus]

How would an unethical developer ever sell his lots? Only show when the delta breeze is blowing? Write a non-disclosure into the closing papers?

What the bastard wanted to do was put the cost onto the slaughter house or close it.

Gross

[gravis777]

I missed the original news story, but wow! The Trinity River is dirty enough without adding pollutants to it. The Trinity River feeds lakes throughout the state that many communities use as drinking water. I hope this company and the owners get the high end of the fines and prision time.

Uh, it's still private.

[Anonymous Coward]

The recording is still between the two people involved in the conversation.

Therefore it is still private.

If it goes to court, it can remain sealed evidence and STILL remain private.

If it gets to assertions you can share it with your and their legal counsel and it STILL remains private.

If you share it with your family this is no different from speakerphone and STILL private.

Only if you put it on Youtube or blast it out the window does it become a public performance and therefore not private.

Then again, in the original conversaion, you could have it piped on speakerphone to a PA system in which case it was NEVER a private conversation in the first place.

Really, it can boil basically down to "did you ask for the conversation to be private? if not, then this is a commercial conversation and unless marked in confidence is not between two private individuals but between a private individual and a public body (the corporation)".

If the company wants to keep it all private, then the court case would be pretty thin:

Shark: We asked several times that they pay the debt
Citizen: No they did not.
Shark: We did, here is the log of our calls with time attached.
Citizen: No, you did not in those conversations talk to me or raise the issue of debt.
Shark: We have recordings.
Citizen: Illegal evidence.
Shark: D'Oh!

Try it.

[Anonymous Coward]

" I presume you can shoot all you want on your land, what about above it?"

Try shooting the police when they come on your land.

Try shooting the postman.

Try shooting the lawyer who wishes to serve you a notice for damage to property.

Then try shooting the SWAT team.

ending the year on a note of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Real trade happens between parties that are voluntary exchanging fruits of their labour

Which is undoubtedly not something that you embrace whole-heartedly. You have instead on many occasions embraced fully giving no compensation whatsoever to workers for their labor. At that point you know longer have "real trade" or "parties that are voluntary [sic] exchanging fruits of their labour", instead you have a massive imbalance of power as one party sadistically oppresses the other.

In other words, roman_mir, you are a fucking hypocrite. You, and your sock puppets, can all go to hell. Why on earth you expect to win believers here on slashdot when you can't even write a comment without openly contradicting your stated core beliefs is beyond comprehension.