CANSOFCOM encounter with a civilian in Port Hawkesbury, N.S.

[Swingline1984]

There is no way he was there about anything other then flashing lights.
Typical bored nosey guy with a camera in a tiny town.

Isn't everyone a photographer these days?

Believe what you will, but I'm more inclined to think there are two sides to every story and that the photog wasn't entirely innocent although I'd be loathe to challenge his patriotism.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That would include the CAF pers talking to him, though. I agree their tone was polite, but come on - name-dropping the RCMP det commander's name and calling him a close friend? First, a laughably thin intimidation tactic more suitable to use by entitled idiots trying to get into fancy restaurants by name-dropping the chef, and second, the det cmdr's follow-up (never heard of the guy) is a black mark against the CAF, as he basically tells the public the CAF dude full out lied. And was stupid enough to be taped lying. Nice.

Come on, small town, abandoned building - someone failed to plan if they didn't realize it would arouse curiosity, and these days curiosity=smartphone pics, at the very least. You want your special people unphotographed, keep their exercises within military areas, or at least where civs walking around on public property can't start taking pics of them. As for public/private - I can stand on the street and take pics of my neighborhood, most of which (houses/yards/people in these yards) is in fact private property. As long as I'm not using telephoto lenses to peek into your bedroom through your windows, I'm not breaking any laws.

That is why I said people.  ;D  Not "civies".

 

[Pte. Jay]

How's the RCMP comment out of line? The RCMP was likely aware of the training exercise and aware that the members of whatever unit was there do not appreciate photographs being taken of their training. The military member (if that who he was) didn't want to get into a confrontation, and thought the easiest way to resolve the issue was to mention calling the police. If that photographer was there for nefarious purposes, he wouldn't want the RCMP to show up and probably would have taken off. Issue resolved. If the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, then why worry about the RCMP?

It was out of line IMO because as of that point the guy, Adam, had just approached the photographer and hadn't even suggested he stop photographing. I understand that elite CANSOFCOM soldiers aren't likely to be the best PR guys but you can understand the concern of the photographer in that respect.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It was out of line IMO because as of that point the guy, Adam, had just approached the photographer dude and hadn't even suggested he stop photographing. I understand that elite CANSOFCOM soldiers aren't likely to be the best PR guys but you can understand the concern of the photographer dude in that respect.

He isn't a photographer.  He is some local dude with a camera. 

 

[Shed]

If the photos were taken on private property or of private property there is a reasonable expectation of privacy unless there is an extenuating circumstance that says otherwise.  For a reporter they could say that the event is newsworthy, which would be considered a reasonable circumstance (since who are we to say what is or isn't newsworthy).  Hence my remark about proof that this person is a member of the press. Even freelance photogs and reporters have recognized credentials.

From the information provided, or what I've read of it, I would say that there was no expectation of privacy and therefore this fellow was free to take photos at will.  So long as he stayed on public property.  As for how everyone handled themselves, military and civilian, that's another matter.

I come across this on two fronts, I'm retired CAF and I'm an amateur photographer.  I've had to familiarize myself with the laws in Ontario and the Maritimes when it comes to taking pictures in public spaces.  To oversimplify it, even on your own private property, in certain circumstances, you may have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  if you're clearly visible from a public space than someone will not normally be charged if they take a photo that you're captured in.  There are many exceptions to that; I.e. photos for commercial purposes (Google Street View), or if someone is harassing/stalking you, or trying to embarrass you,etc.  You could have a thousand different discussions on a thousand different scenarios - hence why I'm grossly oversimplifying.  But suffice to say there is no blanket law that prohibits an individual from taking a picture of someone on private property.  Depends on the circumstances; and such laws are normally at the municipal or provincial level; and so long as they're not involved in Criminal Code of Canada, 162. (1): (“Criminal Voyeurism”).  Nice aide-memoirs here http://ambientlight.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ontario-Photography-Laws-V1.0.pdf

The circumstances here, as I've read them, are that public officials (DND/CAF), not private individuals, were going about the course of their duties in view of a public street/property.  You'd be hard pressed to find any judge, or cop, who'd say that any individual could not take pictures.  Only mitigating factor might be if he had to get himself into some weird position (up in a tree in a public park, or put his camera on a long pole to see over a fence or into a window) to see something which he couldn't conventionally see from the public space; and that doesn't seem to be the case here.

A few years ago, I was returning from dropping someone off at a restricted facility in Ottawa, for a midnight shift.  I passed by a field that just happened to have an awesome unobstructed sight line with a full moon that was low in the sky.  I pulled my vehicle far off the shoulder of the road, engaged my hazard lights.  Got out with my camera/tripod and setup for a shot.  The wired fence, colour of sky, yadda yadda yadda, made for a nice picture.  After a few minutes a Ottawa City Police cruiser stops to check me out.  I present my ID, state what I'm doing, mention that yes I know that the land beyond the fence is DND no-trespassing property, I'm retired military and familiar with the NDA which is why I stayed on public property and didn't point my camera at the buildings, etc.  I politely point out that I 'believe' I'm on public property, so while I understand why he stopped, I asked if I'm doing anything wrong.  He stalled for a few minutes and took my licence.  I presumed to run the plates/ID.  After a few minutes another cruiser pulls up with another officer, who asks the same questions - to which I reply the same answers and again ask if I'm doing anything wrong.  These guys were both kind of young, but since they are the same rank, and I was actually pretty sure that the first officer had more seniority, I was curious as to why the second officer.  They must have sensed my patience was running out, because in the midst of the chatter they let me know that he's an ex MP; and they're debating whether to call Ottawa's MP detachment.  I had to ask that since they agree I was on public and NOT DND property what lawful authority did they expect the MPs to have in the matter?  To their credit the MPs refused to respond.  After about 20 minutes, they thanked me for my patience and time, and I genuinely thanked them for being observant and doing their jobs, and we all wrapped it up and went our separate ways. 

A fairly uneventful encounter - but if it had gone any further I would have become more than a little perturbed, and asked them to either charge me, or leave me to go about  my business.  Since I'm a citizen on a public space who they couldn't seem to find anything illegal about my activity.  Now of course they could have been idiots and told me to stop loitering with my vehicle, or probably another 1/2 dozen highway act/municipal reasons to move my car - but they didn't.  Common sense prevailed, but I wonder if I hadn't had +20years in the forces, pretty much talked their lingo and I'm pretty sure they could tell that I wasn't intimidated by the uniforms or when the ex-MP mentioned the NDA trespassing regulations - which I countered with the fact that I was on the wrong side of the fence for them to be having that discussion with me about - I smiled, he smiled (but I don't think his thoughts were happy ones). Most civilians would likely have been intimidated into moving along faster. 

Yes - you (not you specifically Strike) could argue that people taking pictures near defence installations or soldiers/cops are asking for trouble, but that's not the point.  The point is that if someones not in violation of the law they should not be fearful of their police/military.  HOWEVER, I find nothing wrong with engaging such people to remind them that they are close to private/DND property, so please confine their activities outside those property lines.  The patriotism slag was an unfortunate one; and highly unnecessary.  Questioning the patriotism of someone over such a matter is trivial at best, and at worst it reinforces many civilians fear that we're becoming too much like Uncle Sam.  I'd have been hard pressed not to shove my telephoto lens up that guys  … where the sun don't shine.

Personally, even if I'm going to take a picture of something as benign as lovely flowers that are on someones property, even if I'm on a public street/sidewalk, I'll usually ask them first.  Not really necessary, but a nice neighbourly thing to do.  Also a nice icebreaker for meeting the neighbours.

 

[Pte. Jay]

He isn't a photographer.  He is some local dude with a camera.

He may have been, but he identified himself in the video as a professional photographer, probably one of the reasons he was dealt with the way he was...

 

[X Royal]

He isn't a photographer.  He is some local dude with a camera.

He may have been, but he identified himself in the video as a professional photographer, probably one of the reasons he was dealt with the way he was...

And what difference does it make legally if he is a professional photographer or not.
Professional photographers have no extra legal rights or any less than the general public.

 

[Sf2]

Situation aside,

What concerns me more is that the actual author of this news article posted this topic to the forum....perhaps looking to garner a "army-biased" response?

Interesting to say the least.

 

[kratz]

Situation aside,

What concerns me more is that the actual author of this news article posted this topic to the forum....perhaps looking to garner a "army-biased" response?

Interesting to say the least.

Agreed.

If you review Cudmore's posting history, most of his posts are self-supporting, single entry to generate discussion on topics he is or has covered.

 

[x_para76]

You know, if they had done this in a major urban center, it may have gone completely unnoticed.

Hold it in Port Hawkesbury or any small Canadian town where everyone knows everybody else (maybe dating their good looking cousin ;D ), the CFA's will stand out like fly poop in salt.

CANSOFCOM has conducted training here in Hamilton a number of times and to the best of my knowledge it was never created an issue. They have even conducted portions of their breacher's course here and all though they had a lot of co-operation from the police it was never made the news.

That being said there are probably enough gun shots and explosions in Hamilton that people wouldn't have thought it was anything out of the norm.

 

[cudmore]

Hi Strike,

I'm a long-time reporter, and as far as I know, none of what you say below is supported by law. 
There's no such thing as media credientials -- not regulation-based, anyway -- although you might see ISAF credentials issued to western reporters in a place like Afghanistan.
I wear a press pass in Parliament, but that's to get me in the building.  It's not an assesment of my status as a reporter.  That's all up to my boss.

Love how the photographer goes on about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  You want to play that game?  Show me your media credentials.  Oh, don't have any?  Let me talk to you about the Privacy Act.  He can go right ahead and take his photos but, without those credentials that show these photos are being taken for news/media, he can't go posting anything that would identify these soldiers.  That would be an invasion of their privacy.

 

[cudmore]

HI Puckchaser,
My understanding is the issue of public vs private applies in a situation like this to the photographer.  If he's on public property, anything he can see is legally "public."  He'd not be snopping unless he was interfering in someone's reasonable expectation of privacy (in their bedroom with the curtains drawn).
Bottom line: If you are outside, that's public.

Were those soldiers in public space or on private property? We know the photographer was on public property as he stated numerous times, but those individuals he was taking pictures of seem to be on private property.

 

[cudmore]

HI SF2,

As a memeber of this forum, I read and post things that i think will be of interest to its members. The fact that we're on to page 3 of comments here indicates i did not get that wrong.
Am I interested in what people have to say about my story? Sure. And that is particularly true in this case.
But that's also true in the case of every posting here. If we weren't intersted in what others thought, why would we be posting here, to beak off?
In any event, I think what you might really be feeling is that you don't trust that I'm not out to scare up some sort of snarky follow to  my piece.
Trust me. I'm not.
Imagine what such a piece would look like:
"An unidientified poster on an internet fourm  popular with soldiers who identified himself as 'Danajou,' disagreed with Westbrook's handling of affairs."
Not the sort of thing you'd see in the paper.

Situation aside,

What concerns me more is that the actual author of this news article posted this topic to the forum....perhaps looking to garner a "army-biased" response?

Interesting to say the least.

 

[cudmore]

Argh!
Are you kidding?
I've posted like, four stories  of the zillions I've written over the years I've been a member.
And everyone's post here is designed to generate discussion. If  I'm not wrong, that's the whole (word edited) point of a web forum.

If you review Cudmore's posting history, most of his posts are self-supporting, single entry to generate discussion on topics he is or has covered.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Cudmore,
Don't worry about it, keep posting.

If you could make everyone happy then you'd be boring......
Bruce
army.ca Staff

 

[Journeyman]

Cudmore,
Don't worry about it, keep posting.

:ditto:

You'll see lots of posters with opinions here;  sadly, not all of them have informed opinions.

 

[dapaterson]

Opinions are much like assholes.  Everybody's got one, and most are full of shit.

 

[cudmore]

Good folks all around.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Let's keep it civil everyone.......


Milnet.ca Mentor

 

[Strike]

Hi Strike,

I'm a long-time reporter, and as far as I know, none of what you say below is supported by law. 
There's no such thing as media credientials -- not regulation-based, anyway -- although you might see ISAF credentials issued to western reporters in a place like Afghanistan.
I wear a press pass in Parliament, but that's to get me in the building.  It's not an assesment of my status as a reporter.  That's all up to my boss.

Oh I know, but it's more a matter of calling this guy out.  Someone who enjoys photography does not a professional photog make and spouting about Charter rights just makes me question his claim of being a pro even more (which is why I searched for any work of his online to no avail - but I never checked fauxtography.com  ;D).

As for a "reasonable expectation of privacy," examples are given in the Privacy Act, but they are just that, examples.  It could be argued that having a cordon, security or police sitting on the edge of the property would be a sign that the occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Could the supporting guys have handled it better?  Of course.  Not disputing that.  But I listen to the video and just want to shake my head at the originator.  His tone was righteous and arrogant the second someone questioned what he was doing.