AOH :: PT-1079.HTM

Trash privacy replies: a business plan, and has 1984 really arrived?

Trash privacy replies: a business plan, and has 1984 really arrived?
Trash privacy replies: a business plan, and has 1984 really arrived?



Previous Politech messages on trash privacy:
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/08/08/local-paper-digs/ 
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/08/05/jonaathan-weinberg-on/ 
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/08/05/montana-supreme-court/ 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: right to privacy in your trash - money to be made
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:16:20 -0400
From: scmurley@mac.com 
To: Declan McCullagh  
References: <42F3CA7C.4060804@well.com> 

I think someone could come up with a business plan around this: truly
private garbage collection. You don't put the trash out at the corner,
but contract with the garbage collector to pick up the garbage in your
yard, with some sort of contract that the garbage is still yours until
properly incinerated, and the collector would dispose of it in a way
that guarantees privacy - incineration.

I suspect this garbage company could charge a pretty penny. After all,
just because people are disposing of something (because it has outlived
its usefulness or is taking up too much space) doesn't mean they want
it ending up in the hands of others who wish them harm.

Bryan Murley



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: REMOVEEMAIL Re: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns 
Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:49:11 -0500
From: Jeff Bachtel
To: Declan McCullagh  
References: <42F3BC02.6090602@well.com> 

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 12:20:34PM -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
 >
 >
> http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-5820618.html 
 >
 > Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived
 > August 5, 2005 12:13 PM PDT
 >
 > Believe it or not, it's perfectly legal for police to rummage through
 > your garbage for incriminating stuff on you -- even if they don't have a
 > warrant or court approval.

Declan, I admit to some curiousity at Nelson's histrionics.
Warrantless trash diving by police was affirmed by SCOTUS in
California vs Greenwood in 1988
(http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/shred_supreme_court.html) . 

But far beyond that, I'm confused at Nelson's reference to George
Orwell's _1984_. Is it absolutely necessary for anyone with privacy
concerns to mention this book? Perhaps Nelson isn't aware of this, but
most of his stated examples are those of corporations, not the
government, invading his privacy; and almost always the choice to
avoid this invasion lies with him.

I submit that when we live in a country with unrestricted, encrypted
communications among its citizens, in a country where websites like
http://www.thememoryhole.org/ and http://www.archive.org/ are freely 
allowed to exist, that Orwell's warning of the immutability of the
past is somewhat faint. When we live in a country that permits one to
be a bum or a technical luddite, where it is permitted to live an
entire life without photographic identification and live in places no
surveillance camera could record you, that George Orwell's warnings on
the prevalence and abuse of surveillance by a government are also
somewhat less than pressing.

It might not be impossible for Orwell's dystopian vision to ever come
true, but as far as I can see it would require moving backwards in
time 20 years, technologically... and I somehow don't see our new
corporate masters allowing that to happen.




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 
1984 has	arrived [priv]
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:58:31 +0200
From: Ivo Vegter  
To: Declan McCullagh  
References: <42F3BC02.6090602@well.com> 

Declan McCullagh wrote:

 > What's remarkable is the concurring opinion of Montana Supreme Court
 > Justice James C. Nelson, who reluctantly went along with his colleagues
 > but warned that George Orwell's 1984 had arrived.

Apropos:

1984 posited not only a world in which the minutiae of personal and
private life were accessible to anyone with suitable interest and
technology - i.e. the government of Oceania. That indeed is a world in
which we live today, and I cannot disagree with Justice Nelson's view on
this count.

But 1984 also posited that in this world, there was no democracy, no
public oversight of government affairs, no rule of law administered by
an independent judiciary, no free press, and no constitutional rights of
individual liberty for Winston Smith.

As much as I often sympathise with the libertarian point of view, and as
much as the term libertarian (or at least "classically liberal")
describes my own views, the mere fact that data is gathered and retained
does not infringe on this liberty.

Abuse of this data can infringe on liberty. And since such data can be
abused, it should ideally not be gathered or retained in the first
place. But that is an ideal. It is not practically feasible to ensure
this. There are in fact many instances in which there are legitimate
reasons for gathering and retaining private data, and in which such
practices actually benefit the subject. This we cannot change. But
failing the latter, what is important is to insist on adequate measures
to prevent its abuse.

So allow me to dissent with the learned judge's concurring opinion.

-- 
Ivo Vegter  +27-84-210-2003 
Cerberus Editing & Consulting





-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Jonaathan Weinberg on 1984 and right to privacy 
in your trash
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:06:07 -0400
From: dan@geer.org 
To: Declan McCullagh  
CC: politech@politechbot.com, dan@geer.org 


Declan McCullagh writes:
  |
  |                                         Justice White, writing for the
  | majority, wrote that the determinative question was whether people had a
  | "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the garbage they put out, and
  | continued:
  |


It would be fun if useless to poll the Politech
readership about how many of us, knowing the above,
have ever since endeavored to put our trash out
as close as feasible to when it is picked up...

Best,

--dan






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Jonaathan Weinberg on 1984 and right to 
privacy in	your trash
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:27:57 -0400
From: Thomas Leavitt  
Organization: Godmoma's Forge, LLC
To: Declan McCullagh  
References: <42F3CA7C.4060804@well.com> 

So, does this suggest that taking measures to prevent having your
garbage rifled through (ensuring that it isn't "abandoned") might be a
counter-argument in a similar case?

I.e., shred your papers. Compact your trash. Put locks on your dumpster.
Keep it on private property at all times. Post no trespassing signs on
the property. Post "no dumpster diving" signs on the dumpster and
elsewhere. Hire a private disposal service, and have them contractually
obligated to not permit access to your garbage, and to deliver it
straight to an incinerator or a recycling depot. If the general public
can't be expected to get to it, the police shouldn't be expected to get
to it without a warrant.

I'm sure that Intel, etc. and various other companies and government
agencies have "secure" trash disposal services.

Thomas




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 
1984 has arrived [priv]
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 21:10:49 -0400
From: David M. Brown  
To: Declan McCullagh  
References: <42F3BC02.6090602@well.com> 

Don't understand this opinion. "We're the last bulwark etc...this is
horrible...I...concur"? You'd think someone were holding a gun to his
head.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 
1984	has arrived [priv]
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:15:04 +1200
From: Steve Withers  
To: Declan McCullagh  
References: <42F3BC02.6090602@well.com> 

On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 07:20, Declan McCullagh wrote:

 > Pelvit's attorney argued that his client had a reasonable expectation of
 > privacy in his trash, but the court rejected the argument and said the
 > trash was, well, meant to be thrown away.
 >
 > What's remarkable is the concurring opinion of Montana Supreme Court
 > Justice James C. Nelson, who reluctantly went along with his colleagues
 > but warned that George Orwell's 1984 had arrived. We reproduce his
 > concurring opinion in full:
 >
 > -Declan

So the clever crim will put his illicit waste in OTHER people's trach
cans.

They'll do the time while he'll do the crime.

Steve








_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ 
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) 


Make REAL money with your website!

The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 2.0 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to abuse@artofhacking.com.