JJTheJetPln
Active Member
I'm struggling to see what the reasonable expectation of privacy is when you're operating your vehicle on a public road. Someone could walk up to your car and tell you to get off your phone, whether it's a cop or a random member of the public. Some suggest that drones flying that close are an invasion of privacy, but in that same token, so would a police officer telling you to get off your phone and focus on the road and then issuing you a ticket.
In the same thought, a cop on a bus that witnesses someone using their phone, takes a photo for evidence, and relays the information to another police officer... Would this also be a violation of privacy? They took a photo of the entire contents of your vehicle left in plain view - including you committing the offence.
In another thought, intersection cameras. You don't know what they're pointed at, or what they're there for. For instance - The City of Brampton is now adding intersection cameras to around 50+ intersections. These cameras include 360 degree views, as well as license plate readers. Their use is not to issue tickets, but to assist law enforcement agencies in the event that a crime is committed and they require tracking down verifiable information on a vehicle. Is this considered an invasion of privacy?
If I take control of a camera and then zoom in on a subject that is on their phone at an intersection, have I violated that subjects privacy by doing so? Do I need to be present at the intersection to view the cameras in order to ensure that I have not violated that subjects privacy?
There are a lot of arguments out there about reasonable privacy. I can understand the argument that drones are invasive and are used for other purposes that can violate privacy, however, I struggle to understand the concern about them being unreasonable when they have many other beneficial uses. If we target the use of tracking subjects that are using their mobile devices, and the courts rule that it's unconstitutional to use drones for this purpose, it means that we'd be moving down a slippery slope to outright ban them for any other purpose that requires us to be able to strategically view subjects committing an offence in most if not all cases.
In any case, I welcome the charter challenge, and look forward to reading case law if this is litigated. There are many opinions to be had on the matter, and I welcome all of them as a means of expanding on the thought processes of both parties.
In the same thought, a cop on a bus that witnesses someone using their phone, takes a photo for evidence, and relays the information to another police officer... Would this also be a violation of privacy? They took a photo of the entire contents of your vehicle left in plain view - including you committing the offence.
In another thought, intersection cameras. You don't know what they're pointed at, or what they're there for. For instance - The City of Brampton is now adding intersection cameras to around 50+ intersections. These cameras include 360 degree views, as well as license plate readers. Their use is not to issue tickets, but to assist law enforcement agencies in the event that a crime is committed and they require tracking down verifiable information on a vehicle. Is this considered an invasion of privacy?
If I take control of a camera and then zoom in on a subject that is on their phone at an intersection, have I violated that subjects privacy by doing so? Do I need to be present at the intersection to view the cameras in order to ensure that I have not violated that subjects privacy?
There are a lot of arguments out there about reasonable privacy. I can understand the argument that drones are invasive and are used for other purposes that can violate privacy, however, I struggle to understand the concern about them being unreasonable when they have many other beneficial uses. If we target the use of tracking subjects that are using their mobile devices, and the courts rule that it's unconstitutional to use drones for this purpose, it means that we'd be moving down a slippery slope to outright ban them for any other purpose that requires us to be able to strategically view subjects committing an offence in most if not all cases.
In any case, I welcome the charter challenge, and look forward to reading case law if this is litigated. There are many opinions to be had on the matter, and I welcome all of them as a means of expanding on the thought processes of both parties.
