[declan@well.com: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]]
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
Holy Fuck we need some smarter people in this society. OK, you threw away your trash. I see no inherent reason why someone else can't grab it. But INFORMATION about you isn't trash. Then again, you do "throw away" the photons that exit through your windows, so I guess cops should be able to stare at you through binoculars all the time and haul you in based on the photons you've thrown away. Oh, and to take it further, police should have immediate, un-warranted access to the "trashcan" on your computer, at all times. Indeed, there should be a registry that constantly monitors what you're throwing away, because it's just (digital) trash, right? As for crystal meth, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but if I want to pour something from my chemistry set down my throat that shouldn't be anybody's business. The fact that it doesn't accidentally kill me and indeed gives me a buzz shouldn't be the sole provence of the pharmaceutical companies. After that, if you want to make laws about selling the stuff well that's a different matter. -TD
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> To: cypherpunks@jfet.org Subject: [declan@well.com: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]] Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:55:41 +0200
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:20:34 -0700 To: politech@politechbot.com Subject: [Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv] User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317)
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.
The Supreme Court of Montana ruled last month that police could conduct a warrantless "trash dive" into the trash cans in the alley behind the home of a man named Darrell Pelvit. The cops discovered pseudoephedrine boxes -- a solvent with uses including the manufacture of methamphetamine -- and Pelvit eventually ended up in prison.
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
--------------
Justice James C. Nelson concurs.
I have signed our Opinion because we have correctly applied existing legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence to resolve this case on its facts.
I feel the pain of conflict, however. I fear that, eventually, we are all going to become collateral damage in the war on drugs, or terrorism, or whatever war is in vogue at the moment. I retain an abiding concern that our Declaration of Rights not be killed by friendly fire. And, in this day and age, the courts are the last, if not only, bulwark to prevent that from happening.
In truth, though, we area throw-away society. My garbage can contains the remains of what I eat and drink. It may contain discarded credit card receipts along with yesterday's newspaper and junk mail. It might hold some personal letters, bills, receipts, vouchers, medical records, photographs and stuff that is imprinted with the multitude of assigned numbers that allow me access to the global economy and vice versa.
My garbage can contains my DNA.
As our Opinion states, what we voluntarily throw away, what we discard--i.e., what we abandon--is fair game for roving animals, scavengers, busybodies, crooks and for those seeking evidence of criminal enterprise.
Yet, as I expect with most people, when I take the day's trash (neatly packaged in opaque plastic bags) to the garbage can each night, I give little consideration to what I am throwing away and less thought, still, to what might become of my refuse. I don't necessarily envision that someone or something is going to paw through it looking for a morsel of food, a discarded treasure, a stealable part of my identity or a piece of evidence. But, I've seen that happen enough times to understand--though not graciously accept--that there is nothing sacred in whatever privacy interest I think I have retained in my trash once it leaves my control--the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Sections 10 and 11, notwithstanding.
Like it or not, I live in a society that accepts virtual strip searches at airports; surveillance cameras; "discount" cards that record my buying habits; bar codes; "cookies" and spywear on my computer; on-line access to satellite technology that can image my back yard; and microchip radio frequency identification devices already implanted in the family dog and soon to be integrated into my groceries, my credit cards, my cash and my new underwear.
I know that the notes from the visit to my doctor's office may be transcribed in some overseas country under an out-sourcing contract by a person who couldn't care less about my privacy. I know that there are all sorts of businesses that have records of what medications I take and why. I know that information taken from my blood sample may wind up in databases and be put to uses that the boilerplate on the sheaf of papers I sign to get medical treatment doesn't even begin to disclose. I know that my insurance companies and employer know more about me than does my mother. I know that many aspects of my life are available on the Internet. Even a black box in my car--or event data recorder as they are called--is ready and willing to spill the beans on my driving habits, if I have an event--and I really trusted that car, too.
And, I also know that my most unwelcome and paternalistic relative, Uncle Sam, is with me from womb to tomb. Fueled by the paranoia of "ists" and "isms," Sam has the capability of spying on everything and everybody--and no doubt is. But, as Sam says: "It's for my own good."
In short, I know that my personal information is recorded in databases, servers, hard drives and file cabinets all over the world. I know that these portals to the most intimate details of my life are restricted only by the degree of sophistication and goodwill or malevolence of the person, institution, corporation or government that wants access to my data.
I also know that much of my life can be reconstructed from the contents of my garbage can.
I don't like living in Orwell's 1984; but I do. And, absent the next extinction event or civil libertarians taking charge of the government (the former being more likely than the latter), the best we can do is try to keep Sam and the sub-Sams on a short leash.
As our Opinion states, search and seizure jurisprudence is centered around privacy expectations and reasonableness considerations. That is true even under the extended protections afforded by Montana's Constitution, Article II, Sections 10. and 11. We have ruled within those parameters. And, as is often the case, we have had to draw a fine line in a gray area. Justice Cotter and those who have signed the Opinion worked hard at defining that line; and I am satisfied we've drawn it correctly on the facts of this case and under the conventional law of abandonment.
That said, if this Opinion is used to justify a sweep of the trash cans of a neighborhood or community; or if a trash dive for Sudafed boxes and matchbooks results in DNA or fingerprints being added to a forensic database or results in personal or business records, credit card receipts, personal correspondence or other property being archived for some future use unrelated to the case at hand, then, absent a search warrant, I may well reconsider my legal position and approach to these sorts of cases--even if I have to think outside the garbage can to get there.
I concur. /S/ JAMES C. NELSON _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
----- End forwarded message -----
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
On 8/21/05, Tyler Durden <camera_lumina@hotmail.com> wrote:
... As for crystal meth, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but if I want to pour something from my chemistry set down my throat that shouldn't be anybody's business. The fact that it doesn't accidentally kill me and indeed gives me a buzz shouldn't be the sole provence of the pharmaceutical companies. After that, if you want to make laws about selling the stuff well that's a different matter.
the state of oregon just passed a law (yet to be put into effect) that requires a prescription from a doctor for all sudafed (pseudo ephedrine) purchases. the problem isn't drug addicts killing themselves with corrosive fluids, as this would be a problem that solves itself in short order, but rather that meth heads are idiotic crime machines. i've had numerous friends and acquaintances affected by this (vehicles stolen or broken into, property damaged and/or stolen, tweakers robbing at knife point, etc, etc) and it's getting ridiculous*. big brother isn't the answer, but when you get a lot of pissed off citizens and overwhelmed police involved the solutions they settle for are going to be ugly and invasive. what a fucking mess... ---- * last week a tweaker out of jail for only a few weeks went around to our hay growers neighbors and stole all sorts of random crap from homes up and down the road he lived on. everything from elk antlers to hand made arrows for bow hunting, power tools loaded into a wheel barrow, the most random crap. the only reason he didn't hit our hay grower was that last time he stole from them they went to his parents house and told him "the next time your son steals from my home you'll be attending a funeral". now that's closer to an effective solution. :)
Coderman wrote...
the state of oregon just passed a law (yet to be put into effect) that requires a prescription from a doctor for all sudafed (pseudo ephedrine) purchases. the problem isn't drug addicts killing themselves with corrosive fluids, as this would be a problem that solves itself in short order, but rather that meth heads are idiotic crime machines. i've had numerous friends and acquaintances affected by this (vehicles stolen or broken into, property damaged and/or stolen, tweakers robbing at knife point, etc, etc) and it's getting ridiculous*.
Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? There's little doubt that the vast majority of drug-related crime stems not from some crazed crime spree but from issues relating to supply and demand. Legalizing drug XYZ no doubt drops the cost. Then again, if we legalized a lot of drugs then what would all those corrections officers do for a living? Become airport security experts no doubt. -TD
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal? There's little doubt that the vast majority of drug-related crime stems not from some crazed crime spree but from issues relating to supply and demand. Legalizing drug XYZ no doubt drops the cost.
Lets not forget the lessons of the NYC Methadone "Maintenance" Programs either. While heroin results in crime due to high cost (by virtue of illegalization), the legal version also creates crime due to it's high cost. The MMPs have the same "Money or else" position that the junkie faces on the street, and while the prices are certainly lower, they are NOT "low". In 1983 a junkie expected to pay $40-$80 per *day* for maintenance (I'm sure it's a lot higher today). Along with legalization must come the removal of monopoly practices such a single sourcing of the drug and prescriptions to dispense. Only then does the free market take over and keep the price, and the crime, low.
Then again, if we legalized a lot of drugs then what would all those corrections officers do for a living? Become airport security experts no doubt.
Move Stars. Presidents. McBodies...
-TD
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org 0xBD4A95BF I like the idea of belief in drug-prohibition as a religion in that it is a strongly held belief based on grossly insufficient evidence and bolstered by faith born of intuitions flowing from the very beliefs they are intended to support. don zweig, M.D.
On 8/23/05, J.A. Terranson <measl@mfn.org> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Tyler Durden wrote:
Yes, but the old question needs to be asked: How much of this crime would go away if crystal meth were legal?
agreed; though i'd rather see them taking something less neurotoxic, like dex or racemic amphetamine.
Lets not forget the lessons of the NYC Methadone "Maintenance" Programs either... Along with legalization must come the removal of monopoly practices such a single sourcing of the drug and prescriptions to dispense. Only then does the free market take over and keep the price, and the crime, low.
fortunately stimulants are some of the cheapest drugs to produce minus all the regulatory overhead.
I like the idea of belief in drug-prohibition as a religion in that it is a strongly held belief based on grossly insufficient evidence and bolstered by faith born of intuitions flowing from the very beliefs they are intended to support.
don zweig, M.D.
i'm saving this quote :)
participants (4)
-
coderman
-
Eugen Leitl
-
J.A. Terranson
-
Tyler Durden