HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 3:02 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
I get a kick out of how business towers/ banks/ oil company head offices etc.... all have cameras pointing every which way outside of their buildings, but if you dare walk up to the front of the building (on the PUBLIC sidewalk) and point a camera at their building security comes out of the woodwork like crazed animals.
Double standard anyone???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 3:33 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisethehammer View Post
I get a kick out of how business towers/ banks/ oil company head offices etc.... all have cameras pointing every which way outside of their buildings, but if you dare walk up to the front of the building (on the PUBLIC sidewalk) and point a camera at their building security comes out of the woodwork like crazed animals.
Double standard anyone???
Anyone can ask you to stop doing what you are doing, it's a free country. But, that certainly doesn't mean they can make you stop, after all it's a free country.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 4:10 PM
ryan_mcgreal's Avatar
ryan_mcgreal ryan_mcgreal is offline
Raising the Hammer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't have a problem with the cameras.
Nope, you've got it exactly backwards. As Bruce Schneier points out, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."

Everyone has something to hide, and most people, most of the time, have legitimate reasons to want to hide aspects of their lives. Do you write all your correspondence on postcards? Do you walk around naked? Of course not.

I have a public life and a private life. Even when I go out in public, I take my private life with me. When I walk in public, where I go, who I meet, and so on are simply none of the government's business, but CCTV makes that information available to the government if they decide they want it.

I don't care how quickly they claim to destroy the tapes. I don't care even if they're telling the truth. I don't care if they're so understaffed or incompetent that they never actually look at the tapes. They have no cause and no right to collect that information in the first place.

Even if CCTV deterred crime - which it incontravertibly doesn't - I still don't agree to trade a little privacy for a little security. If the streets are dangerous, identify the source of the danger and address it. That's how the government should work. Installing security cameras is nothing more than an admission that they don't have any ideas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 4:54 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
Anyone can ask you to stop doing what you are doing, it's a free country. But, that certainly doesn't mean they can make you stop, after all it's a free country.
so then why do publicly funded police respond so readily and remove people who refuse to put their cameras away??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 6:56 PM
RePinion's Avatar
RePinion RePinion is offline
Bobo in Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London (Islington), UK
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
But, I also have the expectation that my actions will not be constantly monitored and recorded by authorities.

If they want to monitor an area hire a body and put them there to patrol.
You may have that expectation, but as Millstone correctly notes, it is not a "reasonable" (or, as Americans would say, "legitimate") one as recognized by the law. The state is fully entitled to observe (and if need be, record) your actions in the public realm.

And while a "body" would probably have more of a deterrent factor than a CCTV camera (although I'm sure there are some CCTV advocates would would confute this), that body would cost considerably more to maintain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:04 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal View Post
Nope, you've got it exactly backwards. As Bruce Schneier points out, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."

Everyone has something to hide, and most people, most of the time, have legitimate reasons to want to hide aspects of their lives. Do you write all your correspondence on postcards? Do you walk around naked? Of course not.

I have a public life and a private life. Even when I go out in public, I take my private life with me. When I walk in public, where I go, who I meet, and so on are simply none of the government's business, but CCTV makes that information available to the government if they decide they want it.

I don't care how quickly they claim to destroy the tapes. I don't care even if they're telling the truth. I don't care if they're so understaffed or incompetent that they never actually look at the tapes. They have no cause and no right to collect that information in the first place.

Even if CCTV deterred crime - which it incontravertibly doesn't - I still don't agree to trade a little privacy for a little security. If the streets are dangerous, identify the source of the danger and address it. That's how the government should work. Installing security cameras is nothing more than an admission that they don't have any ideas.
absolutely! Well said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:10 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by RePinion View Post
The state is fully entitled to observe (and if need be, record) your actions in the public realm.
It's statements like that which scare the bejeebers out of me. Makes my skin crawl.

Please show me where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states the government has that entitlement. They don't, period.

But for some unknown reason we let them encroach on our freedoms, with nary a whimper. There's reasons why we all know statements like, 'Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'.

CCTV cameras are a bad idea. They are step one, mark my words.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:14 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisethehammer View Post
so then why do publicly funded police respond so readily and remove people who refuse to put their cameras away??
Because they aren't lawyers, are unsure of the law when it's not black and white (i.e. you were driving 80kmh in 60kmh zone - black and white, filming on public sidewalk a shade of grey to them) and are mis-informed.

I'd resist politely at first, but if they continued to press. Offer to put it away, but only after gathering their badge numbers and commanding officers name. Then follow-up with the the commanding officer.

But that's just me.
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:16 PM
RePinion's Avatar
RePinion RePinion is offline
Bobo in Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London (Islington), UK
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal View Post
Nope, you've got it exactly backwards. As Bruce Schneier points out, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."

Everyone has something to hide, and most people, most of the time, have legitimate reasons to want to hide aspects of their lives. Do you write all your correspondence on postcards? Do you walk around naked? Of course not.

I have a public life and a private life. Even when I go out in public, I take my private life with me. When I walk in public, where I go, who I meet, and so on are simply none of the government's business, but CCTV makes that information available to the government if they decide they want it.

I don't care how quickly they claim to destroy the tapes. I don't care even if they're telling the truth. I don't care if they're so understaffed or incompetent that they never actually look at the tapes. They have no cause and no right to collect that information in the first place.

Even if CCTV deterred crime - which it incontravertibly doesn't - I still don't agree to trade a little privacy for a little security. If the streets are dangerous, identify the source of the danger and address it. That's how the government should work. Installing security cameras is nothing more than an admission that they don't have any ideas.
When you refer to government having "no right to collect that information in the first place" you are squarely in the wrong. The government certainly does have a common law right to monitor public spaces. You may suggest that it has no moral right to do so, but that is merely a statement of ideology.

While I am certainly skeptical myself as to the efficacy of CCTV in deterring crime, I would submit that it is misleading to say that it "incontravertibly doesn't". The evidence is inconclusive and ambivalent, but certainly not "incontravertible" either one way or the other. Reports in the UK by NACRO and other institutions consistently show that crime rates decline in just over half of communities in which CCTV cameras are installed. There are those who suggest that these declines, modest and isolated as they are, are wholly attributable to other factors. Perhaps they're correct. The point to be made is that is that it isn't clear either way. In addition, police forces consistently advocate for CCTV, if not as a deterrent device, then at least as a valuable investigative tool. A number have cases have turned on evidence obtained via CCTV cameras and that is enough to lend validity to the argument that they do indeed (or at least can) serve some meaningful function, no matter how nominal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:22 PM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
I am on board with this assessment as well. To be honest, I have often fallen back on the maxim that if you have done nothing wrong, there is nothing to worry about.

It makes less sense in my opinion, however, when one considers that there is no (absolutely none) replacement for officers in the flesh patrolling on foot. As much disdain as I generally have for Westdale (no offense to Westdalians intended - It's just not my bag), I have to say that the presence of uniformed officers walking up and down Sterling St. for the first week of classes was a welcome sight. The advantages of video surveillance do not, I think, outweigh the disadvantages of losing one's ability to enjoy the public realm without being filed and ordered by authorities any more than is absolutely necessary.

Or, perhaps my change of heart is due equally to having just recently seen an excellent German film, "The Lives of Others," which concerns the tragic consequences of government surveillance in pre-1989 East Germany. Given the recent controversy over increasingly invasive techniques of government surveillance in western governments, post-9/11, I can't help but think this film to be a very topical one. Well worth seeing - Apparently it won an academy award.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:23 PM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
When I say "this assessment", I am referring to that offered by Ryan and raisethehammer. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:23 PM
RePinion's Avatar
RePinion RePinion is offline
Bobo in Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London (Islington), UK
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
It's statements like that which scare the bejeebers out of me. Makes my skin crawl.

Please show me where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states the government has that entitlement. They don't, period.

But for some unknown reason we let them encroach on our freedoms, with nary a whimper. There's reasons why we all know statements like, 'Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'.

CCTV cameras are a bad idea. They are step one, mark my words.
I'm afraid your understanding of Canadian constitutional law is way, way off. The Charter does not purport to outline what the government is entitled or empowered to do (in a very general way, this is outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867, which merely divides responsibilities between the provincial and federal governments). The Charter simply lays out a limited set of fundamental rights and freedoms which everyone in Canada (or subject to Canadian state action) is entitled to. These rights and freedoms are not absolute but are rather subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (per s.1). Moreover, there is no constitutionally protected right to privacy in the public realm in Canada. Sorry. The issue has been adjudicated to the same end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:35 PM
Millstone Millstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
But, I also have the expectation that my actions will not be constantly monitored and recorded by authorities.

If they want to monitor an area hire a body and put them there to patrol.
No, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's no different than if they were standing there with a video camera, just more efficient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:37 PM
Millstone Millstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dude View Post
ugh, i'm so tired of that constant refrain. and by the way, these cameras aren't being set-up in your neighbourhood, are they? didn't think so. furthermore, who gives a damn about the police budget? i'm more than happy to pay them to do their job...cameras and segways aside.
I live in the Downtown BIA and yes the cameras are in my neighbourhood. The 'constant refrain' has merit in public places, not in the home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:38 PM
Millstone Millstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by raisethehammer View Post
I get a kick out of how business towers/ banks/ oil company head offices etc.... all have cameras pointing every which way outside of their buildings, but if you dare walk up to the front of the building (on the PUBLIC sidewalk) and point a camera at their building security comes out of the woodwork like crazed animals.
Double standard anyone???
So what? they can ask all the questions they want, you don't have to do anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:51 PM
RePinion's Avatar
RePinion RePinion is offline
Bobo in Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London (Islington), UK
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
It's statements like that which scare the bejeebers out of me. Makes my skin crawl.

Please show me where in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states the government has that entitlement. They don't, period.

But for some unknown reason we let them encroach on our freedoms, with nary a whimper. There's reasons why we all know statements like, 'Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'.

CCTV cameras are a bad idea. They are step one, mark my words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millstone View Post
So what? they can ask all the questions they want, you don't have to do anything.
This is absolutely true. Security will come out, but they have no legal right to prevent you from taking a photographic image of their building. If they touch you, confiscate or damage your camera in any way, they have committed a tort and you may sue them. You may perhaps also try to have criminal charges laid (good luck with that, though).

When I was still in lawschool in Toronto a group of tourists stopped to take pictures of the Chanel store on Bloor street. A shop clerk came out and demanded that they stop, as "we don't allow pictures". I had to stop and intervene. I asked her by what power she purported to prevent these nice people from taking a snapshot of the store from a public space. Her only response was that it was against the policy of the store and invaded the privacy of the customers. I responded that her company had no right to control the actions of individuals beyond the confines of its own property, and that the store was as much fair game for the tourists' cameras as it was for their eyes. She got puffy and said she would call police if they kept it up and I challenged her to do so. I encouraged the people to keep taking pictures but they were too embarrassed and moved on. Too bad. They had every right.

That being said, there are certain limitations on the common law right to take pictures of people and things (e.g. where a pictoral association might amount to defamation), but generally speaking you can photograph whatever you want.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 7:56 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by RePinion View Post
I'm afraid your understanding of Canadian constitutional law is way, way off. The Charter does not purport to outline what the government is entitled or empowered to do (in a very general way, this is outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867, which merely divides responsibilities between the provincial and federal governments). The Charter simply lays out a limited set of fundamental rights and freedoms which everyone in Canada (or subject to Canadian state action) is entitled to. These rights and freedoms are not absolute but are rather subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (per s.1). Moreover, there is no constitutionally protected right to privacy in the public realm in Canada. Sorry. The issue has been adjudicated to the same end.
So then where does it say they are entitled to observe and 'record' my actions/activities at anytime, and in any public place?
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 8:03 PM
FairHamilton FairHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millstone View Post
I live in the Downtown BIA and yes the cameras are in my neighbourhood. The 'constant refrain' has merit in public places, not in the home.
So, if you live in the area of one of these cameras you'll keep all your blinds pulled?
__________________
The jobs, stupid!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 8:07 PM
RePinion's Avatar
RePinion RePinion is offline
Bobo in Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London (Islington), UK
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by FairHamilton View Post
So then where does it say they are entitled to observe and 'record' my actions/activities at anytime, and in any public place?
Generally speaking, and particularly in common law jurisdictions such as Canada, this is not how the law works. There is no overarching document which specifically lays out what particular acts a government may and may not do. There is a criminal law power, under s.91 (27), and a catch all power called the POGG (peace, order, and good governance) power which covers just about anything which doesn't fall under the specific "head of power" in the subsections of ss. 91 and 92. In crude terms, since we are a democracy, our government is entitled to do whatever it so pleases (to the extent that its actions do not conflict with the charter), because we elect it to so do. The government does not derive its power to act in particular ways exclusively from legislative documents (statutes) but also and perhaps more importantly from the common law. The common law functions in such a way that, so long as there is neither statute nor principle preventing the government from observing and recording the actions of individuals in public spaces (which there is not), the government is empowered to go on observing and recording those actions until such a statute or principle arises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2008, 8:40 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
In our society, our rights and freedoms are assigned limitations for the greater good of society as a whole, and I guess you would include the right to privacy here. Bear in mind we are talking about a surveillance camera mounted to oversee a public space and not private area.

What we need to do is weigh the perceived infringement of our right to privacy against the benefits society gains from that infringement. Personally, I have no issue with trading my right to walk down public roads unnoticed if it contributes to a safer public environment.

As far as the 'slippery slope' theory goes, it is our individual responsibility to let lawmakers know when their policy-making goes too far. A relatively silent reaction to their first appearance here has obviously given the city the tacit approval to move ahead with expansion of the pilot. If you feel they have gone too far, I suggest you let the lawmakers know.
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.