CBC News article: "Montreal residents fight prostitution online"

[Porter]

Did you know that your picture is taken about a hundred or so times a day??

In London I believe the average is about 1000 times a day..

So while I agree with your statement, the law is bent and individual rights are again trashed for the benefit of fanatics..

 

[eastender]

Trade Off

Hello all,

This tactic does not seem quite legal...to say the least? Aren't the privacy rights of alleged sex workers equal to that of anyone else? Doesn't someone have to be convicted of a crime in Canada/Quebec before their photo can be published under a criminal or "shady" heading. And what of the damage to reputation that could be done to innocents by righteous photo-happy zealots who could target anyone they think is suspicious? Imagine another group of photo-happy zealots going after pedophiles or sexual perverts and seeing your picture on Facebook under one of those labels by mistake. I don't know Canadian law on this subject, but I get the feeling this tactic has the making of a mighty fine lawsuit when images of those who have been convicted of nothing are published under such terms.

ish,

Merlot

And the right to life rights of children are they equal to those of alleged SWs / substance abusers?

The area is populated with small kiddie parks and school yards where discarded NEEDLES and USED CONDOMS. Common sight on school yard fences and inside elementary schools is a poster instructing kids what to do should they spot a needle, etc.
And yes little kids have been accidently stuck by needles while making snowballs, snowmen or playing or have had skin contact with used condoms. Why should little kids have to undergo all the resulting testing to see if they are not infected?

What about the quality of life rights of the residents?

Remember it was the drug den that sparked the latest media attention. A drug den is not the same as a local restaurant where people go to do drugs as opposed to eating. It is a fire hazard. The buildings in the area are old, built without appropriate firewalls and fire guards separating roofs. One catches fire and the whole block could follow. Also try getting reasonable home insurance if you are close to a known drug den.

 

[naughtylady]

very true...
myself included.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[daydreamer41]

What if one of the "sex workers" who was photographed was actually just a student from Concordia who happened to be high and happened to be in the neighborhood, buying some weed?

What about the privacy rights of the sex workers? Don't they have a right to restrict the use and reproduction of their photographic images?

It sounds like Montreal lawyers might have a field day with this one.

Gee, Beav, you are a lawyer. You know that you have no privacy rights if you are in public breaking the law, even if they are not doing sex but drugs.

Today, with all of the security cameras around, everyone walking down the street has no privacy rights. The cameras are rolling 24/7.

MSNBC has this crime show and they showed this private citizen who created JohnTV in Oklahoma. He goes out and videos street prostitutes and Johns in the act in public.

They are usually in a car, but they can be on a car, in the park or a parking lot in the open for children to see. When he spots them, he rolls the camera after calling police.

For example, one guy was a delivery truck driver for Lowes or Home Depot, I forget which. But he was on company time caught with the woman in his truck while this guy was filming away.

The man making the video said that kids would be around witnessing the transactions and the sex.

School kids should not be subject to witnessing public sex or transactions, or women parading around chasing down cars. The people in these specific Montreal neighborhoods are doing the right thing.

 

[YouVantOption]

Before throwing stones, I would suggest to take your weapon offline and give it a rest, because its not working right for you.


Here is a brief description of PIPEDA!!

Perhaps you want to query Google about the intersection between PIPEDA/Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Facebook, or PIPEDA and Google Street View. My weapon is working just fine.

 

[YouVantOption]

Probably because you misinterpret what she says.

I have spoken with Émilie on several occasions and she is very well informed.

I didn't misrepresent anything, or even represent it. If the quotes in the press are accurate,and I have no reason to doubt that they are, then she is dead wrong.

 

[YouVantOption]

Hochelaga fun fact

La Banque d'Hochelaga is one of the first place that Charles Ponzi used to perpetrate his schemes.

 

[YouVantOption]

Doesn't someone have to be convicted of a crime in Canada/Quebec before their photo can be published under a criminal or "shady" heading.

That would put the Journal de Montreal out of business.

 

[annabe| |ee]

I understand the residents being fed up, but they're - maybe unknowingly - taking out their frustration in the wrong direction (+ it comes across to me as extremely immature, rude and apathetic, to put it kindly... to take pictures of street-walkers against their will + post them online in a negative combative context). If they want to clean up their streets, they should be focusing on lobbying the government to change laws towards safety-encouraging legalization and to promote more drug addiction outreach and education... not taking it out on the street-walkers. It's best to solve a problem from the roots.

I could be very wrong, I don't know all, but this is my impression so far.

edit: I apologize if I'm totally off the mark. I'm just trying to make sense of this and have positive intentions towards everyone.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Gee, Beav, you are a lawyer. You know that you have no privacy rights if you are in public breaking the law, even if they are not doing sex but drugs.

We are not talking about a law enforcement investigation. We are talking about private citizens photographing private citizens based on hunch and suspicion. Essentially, private citizens becoming LE.

What if your next door neighbor, a deluded fellow, decided that you were an assassin hired by al Qaeda and started videotaping your every move, and then posted your photos and video on Facebook in a profile with your name, and a caption that you are "the next Osama bin Laden and he lives right here in the USA." Is that OK?

There is actually a movie about this - the name of it escapes me but it is with Shia LeBouf who suspects his next door neighbor is a murderer, and starts videotaping him 24/7. It turns out that the neighbor is a murderer, but try to rethink that whole movie with a different ending - the neighbor is a totally innocent guy and LeBouf is a paranoid asshole. Many issues would be implicated.

 

[bond_james_bond]

I remember hearing something about Montreal being maybe one of the only cities where you cannot be filmed in public without your permission. Correction: I think it's that you CAN be filmed in public, but the pictures cannot be published without your permission.

But what about when CTV or CBC does their broadcasts of reporter-in-the-street, and people are walking by in the background?

With the exception of Montreal (I think), your neighbor (or anyone) can post pictures of you in public on the internet or other media (without your permission).

Again, suppose you're visiting Times Square. And you are caught in the background of tourist photos. And those tourists later put those pictures on Facebook. There's nothing you can do.

But someone can NOT publish materially false things about you (with or without pictures) on a website or other publication. You can then sue them for slander.

 

[EagerBeaver]

But someone can NOT publish materially false things about you (with or without pictures) on a website or other publication. You can then sue them for slander.

Actually, libel. Libel is written or published defamatory material. Slander is verbal defamation.

 

[EagerBeaver]

With the exception of Montreal (I think), your neighbor (or anyone) can post pictures of you in public on the internet or other media (without your permission). Again, suppose you're visiting Times Square. And you are caught in the background of tourist photos. And those tourists later put those pictures on Facebook. There's nothing you can do.

I don't know about Montreal but this is not really a correct statement of the law in New York. In New York there is a very specfic statute that governs the use of photographic images and you have to get a written, signed waiver/consent to use those images, particularly commercially. The failure to do so may result in a lawsuit and heavy monetary damages depending on how the photos were used. I am aware of a case which settled for 6 figures against a pharmaceutical company for using without permission a person's photograph to promote a particular new drug treatment for a sexually transmitted disease. The company failed to get a waiver for that particular use although they had one for other uses of that person's image in general promotional literature.

 

[Merlot]

"And the right to life rights of children are they equal to those of alleged SWs / substance abusers?"

The fact that conditions usually surrounding areas concentrated with SWs and the typically associated atmosphere is socially debilitating and dangerous to all is both beyond obvious and totally off my point. And the tactic using the specter of children and drug needles is cheap sensationalistic hyperbole. But maybe you want to use this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjDzDsgbww

The point for this episode is righteous people desperate to clean up their area have become camera vigilantes publishing photos that label anyone they suspect as prostitutes, drug addicts, perverts, etc., generally branding people as criminals without real investigation or evidence that those they accuse are guilty. These vigilantes are willing to accuse and libel anyone regardless of rights. Their "whatever it takes" tactics may succeed by forcing public notice and government action to resolve the problem, but in principle it eliminates rights for themselves as well as their targets.

To some talking about "the equality of rights for all" may sound too grandly philosophical, but these camera vigilantes ARE destroying lives indiscriminately with their Facebook libel, which means they are publishing evidence for their own prosecution as well...and it would be deserved. There are better ways to resolve the problem without these abuses.

Cheers,

Merlot

PS

Isn't this competitiveness over which area is worse or who knows more just useless.

 

[Porter]

ywo,

Perhaps you want to query Google about the intersection between PIPEDA/Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Facebook, or PIPEDA and Google Street View. My weapon is working just fine.

Thats the whole point, I do not rely on Google for my education.. While a good search engine is a great tool, one needs a bit of processing power to correctly assimilate the information.

Good luck with the search thing..,

./P

 

[Porter]

ee,

And the right to life rights of children are they equal to those of alleged SWs / substance abusers?

Rights are for eveyone and in equal measure.. The cornerstone of a free society.

Posting pictures of innocent people (remember , innocent till proven guilty) in order to draw the attention of media to expose a problem, is beyond the boundaries of Privacy!

The end does not justify the means!!

However , privacy is just but an illusion these days.. and thats a dam shame!

 

[The Snark]

I don't know about Montreal but this is not really a correct statement of the law in New York. In New York there is a very specfic statute that governs the use of photographic images and you have to get a written, signed waiver/consent to use those images, particularly commercially. The failure to do so may result in a lawsuit and heavy monetary damages depending on how the photos were used. I am aware of a case which settled for 6 figures against a pharmaceutical company for using without permission a person's photograph to promote a particular new drug treatment for a sexually transmitted disease. The company failed to get a waiver for that particular use although they had one for other uses of that person's image in general promotional literature.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be mistaken, but I thought Quebec had a similar law in place--in fact, I thought privacy law in Quebec was more stringent than in other jurisdictions in North America. As this article suggests, a lot of people complain about how unforgiving the laws here are in regards to publication of photographs.

 

[Merlot]

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be mistaken, but I thought Quebec had a similar law in place--in fact, I thought privacy law in Quebec was more stringent than in other jurisdictions in North America. As this article suggests, a lot of people complain about how unforgiving the laws here are in regards to publication of photographs.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

"Quebec is the only place in North America where photographers are required to get permission from the subjects of photographs that will be presented to the public. The only situations where such a permission is not mandatory is when the photo is of a crowd, if it's considered legitimate news or considered to be in the public interest."

Hello Snark,

As a former news and freelance photographer I can confirm that when I was working in this job in the 80s taking photos of people in public places in the U.S. usually did not need signed releases. I believe the laws on this have generally not changed. Some in Canada/Quebec may look at the wording in the text here and say...well...they are in public aren't they. True, that may or maybe not be applicable in this episode. But, the critical point is the libelous branding of these people on Facebook or anywhere who have not been proven to be criminals or been convicted, and that is far different than taking an "innocent photo" where the appearance of a person is just incidental. I don't see anything wrong with these camera vigilantes taking photos to the police to push an investigation. But publishing the photos and branding innocent (unconvicted) subjects is almost definitely (since I don't know Canadian/Quebec law) libel.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[EagerBeaver]

Commercial Use

As I indicated above, it depends on the intended use of the photograph. If the intended use is commercial, then the privacy law in New York is triggered:

New York has America's oldest publicity statute. Dating from 1903, New York's Right of Privacy law states:

"A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
-- New York Civil Rights Law Section 50.

[New York law] "consists of only two elements: the commercial use of a person's name or photograph and the failure to procure the person's written consent for such use."
-- Shamsky v. Garan, 1995.

Section 51 provides for injunction and exemplary damages "if the defendant ... knowingly used" the identity. However, there is no statute in New York that covers publicity after death.

 

[daydreamer41]

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

"Quebec is the only place in North America where photographers are required to get permission from the subjects of photographs that will be presented to the public. The only situations where such a permission is not mandatory is when the photo is of a crowd, if it's considered legitimate news or considered to be in the public interest."

Hello Snark,

As a former news and freelance photographer I can confirm that when I was working in this job in the 80s taking photos of people in public places in the U.S. usually did not need signed releases. I believe the laws on this have generally not changed. Some in Canada/Quebec may look at the wording in the text here and say...well...they are in public aren't they. True, that may or maybe not be applicable in this episode. But, the critical point is the libelous branding of these people on Facebook or anywhere who have not been proven to be criminals or been convicted, and that is far different than taking an "innocent photo" where the appearance of a person is just incidental. I don't see anything wrong with these camera vigilantes taking photos to the police to push an investigation. But publishing the photos and branding innocent (unconvicted) subjects is almost definitely (since I don't know Canadian/Quebec law) libel.

Cheers,

Merlot

These neighbors do not have to outright call them prostitutes along with the pictures. They can merely describe what the women are doing - walking around the street for long periods of time waiting for cars to pick them up. There would be an implication that they are prostitutes, but the neighbors are not outright calling them such.

As far as public interest, there is public interest. It could be a news story. It does not have to be a newspaper to be newsworthy. These women are allegedly doing something illegal. It is up to LE to determine, but the neighborhood would have the right to present the fact that these women are exhibiting suspicious behavior without really coming out and saying so.

The best thing these neighbors could do is get politically involved and elect one of their own for City Council. That way whoever Montreal's mayor is, they will take notice and instruct LE to investigate and prosecute.

As I have said many times before, I think Canada;s prostitution laws are excellent. Street porstitution is not good for neighborhoods. The only change I would like to see would be special zoning or zones for Incalls, which are far away from Schools and residential areas.