If it's in the trash at your curb then it can eventually be sorted through at the landfill by some vagrant or the police. What's the difference? That you can see it happening? Are you any safer or do you have any more privacy because people can't riffle through your papers at the curb where you can see them, but they can do it at the landfill?
In other words, are we arguing about privacy or the appearance of privacy? --- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com Download "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" http://www.puryear-it.com/bestpractices.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Will Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [brlug-general] thinking outside the can (OT) > The judge's reasoning is flawed. It basically was, everyone else is > tracking > everyone, why not let the police have their fun too. > > The plain language of the bill or rights is: > > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and > effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, > and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or > affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the > persons or things to be seized." > > It can be argued that police men digging through the papers in your trash > in > your front yard is an unreasonable search. If it's hot persuite or > reasonable, you can explain it to a judge and obtain a warrent. This > argument did not go over well in Montanna. > > There's a world of difference between taking something off the curb and > combing through the details of someone's life. > > I'd be offended and want to call the police if someone sat down on my curb > and > started going through my trash one page at a time. What lengths do you > have > to go to to keep private details, such a birth control, medication, > alcohol > consumption or children's grades private? Do I need to buy an incinerator > and sort all of my trash? My insult is only increased if my taxes are > paying > for me to be violated the same way. > > As the good judge noted, I'm already being violated by unscrupulous > vendors. > While my computer is free and unlikely to betray me, my ISP, phone > company, > creditors, insurers, grocer and every one else thinks they have a right to > collect and publish details of my life. The feds have been uppity enough > to > think they have a right to demand further violations and suck up the > records > without a warrant. The practice has traditionally be thought of as > treacherous and vile. The names for people like that are, "gossip", > "busybody" and worse. I should be able to trust those I do business with > to > keep details to themselves but I can't and it is inconvenient to even try. > Who wants to walk around with hundreds of dollars and pay a surcharge to > avoid using a "rewards" card? If you sum it all up, it's invasive and > repulsive. I shared the article because the judge did a good job of > summing > up many of the nastier invasive practices. > > I wish the judge had more courage in his convictions or had made his > opinion > more clear. The warning he issued was not as clear as it could have been. > He listed a few gross violations he would not tolerate, such as mass or > random trash sweeps but did not rule out less obvious violations such as a > detailed searches. He left wiggle room for real harassment. > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:52 pm, Dustin Puryear wrote: >> if you see a chair on the curb for garbage >> collection then you have the right to take it. Why not the police? Hmm, >> so >> is dumpster diving legal or illegal? > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > >
