When No Dog Poop is an Island
posted by Frank Pasquale
I’ve twice heard co-blogger Dan Solove talk about the Korean “dog poop girl,” a woman hounded by internet shamers when she refused to clean up after her dog on a Seoul subway. The first time I heard the story I just found it funny, but at a conference earlier this year the tone of the audience was different. I felt bad about laughing at some internet satires of the woman that Dan had put on powerpoint slides. Part of it may have been the theme of the conference (legal responses to cyberharassment), but perhaps a larger cultural turning point is in the works.
Surveillance has now advanced to the point that a city in Israel is starting “dog poop DNA banks,” enabling enforcers to (potentially) identify the source of any offending rubbish:
[V]eterinarian Tika Bar-On . . . says she hopes to make DNA banking mandatory for all dog owners. At that point, instead of a practice of positive reinforcement, she imagines a system involving sidewalk poop patrols and penalties for nonscoopers. For Bar-On, this is about more than waste elimination: “We can use this DNA database for important things like genetic research on dog diseases,” she says. “We could also use DNA to identify strays and return them to their parents.” But until then, she’s focusing on feces because, as she says, “when you go to the park with your kids and they meet dog poop, it’s not very pleasant.”
My guess is that most Americans would resist the central planning implicit in this solution. But if the alternative to statism is vigilantism, it may start looking more attractive. Like trademark in the commercial realm, DNA here may be the best way to identify source in an orderly way.
December 21, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law, Culture, Humor, Intellectual Property, Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Print This Post
Responses (2)
Christie - December 21, 2008 at 6:23 pm
My biggest concern with the dog poop DNA scenario is that they (being the enforcers) won’t make allowances for when your pet has doggy diarrhea. There is just no way to collect poo in a bag.
Ken JP Stuczynski - December 24, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I don’t fear statism in this case — with the exception of questioning them having too much time and tax money on their hands to justify such an effort.
However, I think the word vigilantism is being used a bit too broadly in this context. I would call it public shaming, which is not illegal and very effective. And there are existing laws that clearly define when the line is crossed to harassment or stalking. The Internet gives anyone with a complaint a voice (though not an audience or assumption of legitimacy) and such pervasive public knowledge already protects consumers, taxpayers, and yes, neighbors. It is free social recourse based on natural consequence, not law. And I like it.
On a more pejorative note, if I’m a dog breeder, can I patent my dogs DNA and claim some kind of infringement if the local municipality keeps it on file? Or would it be fair use? :^}
Leave a Reply