5 ms·

I'm curious if this kind of thing would be prohibited in the US on fourth amendment grounds or not, or would be considered probable cause for a warrant.

by madrox 8y ago

pdkl95 8y ago
Kyllo v United States created a bright line test: new technology used to view "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[1] count as a "search" if and only if the technology is not "in general public use"[2]. Since the general public does not generally use technologies for detecting trace amounts of specific chemicals, this should require a warrant. Current technologies that are heading towards losing 4th Amendment protection might be IR thermal cameras and trigger-word based audio recording (Alexa et al). The general public is increasingly using both of these technologies. When someone convinces a judge the "general public use" threshold has been crossed, the technology in general (not just a specific product) can be used without a warrant. [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html [2] Ibid.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 8y ago
  There's no physical intrusion or accessing anything on private property with this technology. It's more like law enforcement sifting through a suspect's garbage after he puts it out at the curb, which can be done without a warrant.
  - vageli 8y ago
    This is not true in every state in the US.
- ataturk 8y ago
  I turned off the water in my house over a weekend because our water heater was leaking. That caused the "smart" water meter to not function since it powers itself via the moving water supply. On the following Monday, I had a a city employee in my driveway wanting to inspect that meter because it had stopped reporting back to the city. They made up some cock and bull claim that we had used 33,000 gallons, which by my calculations, isn't even possible due to the pipe diameter and pressure--it would take many days to use that much water. Our meter was out for < 24 hrs. So they're meddling under the cover of protecting my property from a broken pipe or whatever their justification was. I guess they can also tell who flushes when, and how often we leave town, simply based on water usage patterns. The city has an ordinance that allows them to gain access in order to inspect their meter. I find this an easy way to circumvent the 4th Amendment, however. If the city employee happens to view anything illegal going on in the house while they are inspecting it, they are going to follow up with the police department. There went all my rights, all due to a "smart" water meter. It's smart all right--Orwellian! The shit going on in China is far worse, but Agenda 21 is worldwide and not to be overlooked. There is a plan for widespread, total control over populations, their property, and every human behavior.
mc32 8y ago
I'm going to totally guess and say that if the effluence uses public assets (town sewer) then it's okay for gov to monitor and do whatever and thus get a warrant based on probable cause if they get a good hit on location. If you have a septic on private land, then, I presume they can't just come and check your system for tell-tales of drugs. But that's just a guess...
- pmiller2 8y ago
  I would agree. If they can go through your garbage on the curb without a warrant, surely they can look at your sewer lines with permission of the utility company.
  - salawat 8y ago
    Moore v. Regents of the University of California Says that parts of your own body are no longer "yours" after a surgical procedure. It would not be a long leap to make the argument that since the onus of disposal is on the municipal waste treatment company that your effluent becomes "theirs" as soon as it enters municipal sewage systems. I'm not saying it makes sense, but I've given up on thinking the government will let something like that stand in their way if they get their knickers in a twist. And the whole "unless it is in use by the general public test" is blatant overreach. It's just a way to sneak in new ways to get around 4th Amendment protections through creative interpretation. Doing a multispectral scan of someone's house is a bloody search. "I was just FLIRing" the entire neighborhood on a whim... Right.
wahern 8y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
asteli 8y ago
It's a contentious issue. There's (sort of) precedent in the form of court rulings on police search of garbage cans. Apparently, in 1998, the 7th circuit court of appeals ruled 8-5 holding that the individual cannot reasonably expect privacy of their trash left in publicly accessible areas. [1] 1: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1200020.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1200020.html
- totalZero 8y ago
  There's probably a more reasonable expectation of privacy for bodily waste flushed down a toilet. I think any defense of such a practice would have to be based on the assumption that samples are taken far enough downstream to render individuals anonymous.

I'm curious if this kind of thing would be prohibited in the US on fourth amendment grounds or not, or would be considered probable cause for a warrant.

by madrox 8y ago

I'm curious if this kind of thing would be prohibited in the US on fourth amendment grounds or not, or would be considered probable cause for a warrant.

pdkl95 8y ago

Kyllo v United States created a bright line test: new technology used to view "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[1] count as a "search" if and only if the technology is not "in general public use"[2]. Since the general public does not generally use technologies for detecting trace amounts of specific chemicals, this should require a warrant. Current technologies that are heading towards losing 4th Amendment protection might be IR thermal cameras and trigger-word based audio recording (Alexa et al). The general public is increasingly using both of these technologies. When someone convinces a judge the "general public use" threshold has been crossed, the technology in general (not just a specific product) can be used without a warrant. [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html [2] Ibid.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nradov 8y ago
There's no physical intrusion or accessing anything on private property with this technology. It's more like law enforcement sifting through a suspect's garbage after he puts it out at the curb, which can be done without a warrant.
- vageli 8y ago
  This is not true in every state in the US.
ataturk 8y ago
I turned off the water in my house over a weekend because our water heater was leaking. That caused the "smart" water meter to not function since it powers itself via the moving water supply. On the following Monday, I had a a city employee in my driveway wanting to inspect that meter because it had stopped reporting back to the city. They made up some cock and bull claim that we had used 33,000 gallons, which by my calculations, isn't even possible due to the pipe diameter and pressure--it would take many days to use that much water. Our meter was out for < 24 hrs. So they're meddling under the cover of protecting my property from a broken pipe or whatever their justification was. I guess they can also tell who flushes when, and how often we leave town, simply based on water usage patterns. The city has an ordinance that allows them to gain access in order to inspect their meter. I find this an easy way to circumvent the 4th Amendment, however. If the city employee happens to view anything illegal going on in the house while they are inspecting it, they are going to follow up with the police department. There went all my rights, all due to a "smart" water meter. It's smart all right--Orwellian! The shit going on in China is far worse, but Agenda 21 is worldwide and not to be overlooked. There is a plan for widespread, total control over populations, their property, and every human behavior.

mc32 8y ago

I'm going to totally guess and say that if the effluence uses public assets (town sewer) then it's okay for gov to monitor and do whatever and thus get a warrant based on probable cause if they get a good hit on location. If you have a septic on private land, then, I presume they can't just come and check your system for tell-tales of drugs. But that's just a guess...

pmiller2 8y ago
I would agree. If they can go through your garbage on the curb without a warrant, surely they can look at your sewer lines with permission of the utility company.
- salawat 8y ago
  Moore v. Regents of the University of California Says that parts of your own body are no longer "yours" after a surgical procedure. It would not be a long leap to make the argument that since the onus of disposal is on the municipal waste treatment company that your effluent becomes "theirs" as soon as it enters municipal sewage systems. I'm not saying it makes sense, but I've given up on thinking the government will let something like that stand in their way if they get their knickers in a twist. And the whole "unless it is in use by the general public test" is blatant overreach. It's just a way to sneak in new ways to get around 4th Amendment protections through creative interpretation. Doing a multispectral scan of someone's house is a bloody search. "I was just FLIRing" the entire neighborhood on a whim... Right.

wahern 8y ago

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Greenwood California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

asteli 8y ago

It's a contentious issue. There's (sort of) precedent in the form of court rulings on police search of garbage cans. Apparently, in 1998, the 7th circuit court of appeals ruled 8-5 holding that the individual cannot reasonably expect privacy of their trash left in publicly accessible areas. [1] 1: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1200020.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1200020.html

totalZero 8y ago
There's probably a more reasonable expectation of privacy for bodily waste flushed down a toilet. I think any defense of such a practice would have to be based on the assumption that samples are taken far enough downstream to render individuals anonymous.