TERB In Need of a Banner

Videotaping in Public

SkyRider said:
What the media is ignoring is that the maniac sucker punched and injure a policewoman and the same maniac resisted arrest and kicked out the window of a police car but all the media cares about is that "videoman's" feelings was hurt.
Click to expand...

SkyRider, you really need to stop your constant misinformation. Why are you attacking the press (although we all already know the reason for this don't we old-fella?). The press did it's job professionally and without bias.
Every press article I looked at described what the suspect did and none of them dwelled on the opinion on Khan's opinions or feelings

From YOUR article:
Other bystander video shows the actual arrest as it unfolded. A female officer can be seen confronting the suspect, who appears to struggle against her. A handful of construction workers nearby intervene, and the suspect is subdued.
"We arrested him and at the point of the arrest he launched a completely unprovoked attack on a police officer," Pugash said. "He spat at her and then knocked her to the ground with a single punch."
Pugash added that one of the construction workers who intervened was bitten by the suspect.

Unlike you, I bothered to google other press releases and all described what the suspect did. All reported just the facts, from what I can judge all the facts, none in any way drew conclusions or criticized the police or Khan.
http://www.citynews.ca/2017/01/24/suspect-facing-9-charges-after-allegedly-punching-officer-sparking-violent-arrest-caught-on-video/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/formal-complaint-police-1.3953306
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...plaint-for-cellphone-threat-aids-comment.html

Can you provide any press release proving: " but all the media cares about is that "videoman's" feelings was hurt." So many of your posts are the same, why do you falsify and/or exaggerate?
 
SkyRider said:
This guy is making a mountain out of a molehill. What the media is ignoring is that the maniac sucker punched and injure a policewoman and the same maniac resisted arrest and kicked out the window of a police car but all the media cares about is that "videoman's" feelings was hurt.
Click to expand...

I agree the guy is just a ballbreaker.
 
Promo said:
I bothered to google other press releases and all described what the suspect did.
Click to expand...
Also check social media. It is almost entirely about the gross violation of Videoman's "rights". CP24 also is focusing on the injustice done to Videoman by the police and that the police is wrong about saliva causing HIV.

It seems that Videoman (a.k.a. Waseem Khan) is now the main story, especially since he has filed a formal complaint. Mr. Waseem "Look at Me" Khan seems to be really enjoying his 20 minute of fame.
 
[h=2]Search Results[/h][h=3]Top stories[/h]
Z



Toronto police
apologize for
'you're going to get
AIDS' comment caught
 
SkyRider said:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ize-phone-of-man-lawfully-filming-arrest.html

One sentence in the entire article about the policewoman getting sucker punched in the face.
Click to expand...

<rolleyes> This is a second follow-up article. From your link:
"The incident began when Toronto police got a call Tuesday morning indicating a man at Seaton House, a downtown homeless shelter, had spat on a staff member. Officers located the man near Dundas St. E. and Dalhousie St.


According to police, a female officer approached and the man spat at her and punched her, prompting construction workers nearby to step in; one of the workers was then bitten by the man.


After the man was placed in the back of a police car, he kicked out the back window, police said. “They tried to Taser him but the Taser didn’t work because he was wearing heavy clothing,” said Pugash."

What more do you believe needs to be said about the original incident? Again. this was a follow-up article and was meant to discuss Khan's filming.
 
SkyRider said:
Also check social media. It is almost entirely about the gross violation of Videoman's "rights". CP24 also is focusing on the injustice done to Videoman by the police and that the police is wrong about saliva causing HIV.
Click to expand...
The public has a right to their opinion. Like it or not, the Police's alleged use of excessive force, attempted physical intimidation of a civilian, threat of illegal confiscation and misinformation/lie about AIDS is bigger news, especially in light that the Police did something similar just a few weeks ago.

SkyRider said:
It seems that Videoman (a.k.a. Waseem Khan) is now the main story, especially since he has filed a formal complaint. Mr. Waseem "Look at Me" Khan seems to be really enjoying his 20 minute of fame.
Click to expand...
You yourself stated: "people behave better when they know they are being filmed". Why are you trying to turning Khan into the bad guy, perhaps we should be thanking him.

Although i appear to be criticising the Police here, it's not my position. I believe the Police have an insanely difficult job and minor errors like this are going to get made. Camera phones must add another entire magnitude of pressure. They will adjust, but it takes time and experience. If there isn't a law already, there should be one stating that un-associated people should stay XX feet away from cops who are questioning suspects or performing arrests. For their own safety.
 
http://humanrights.findlaw.ca/article/when-can-i-take-pictures-in-public/

[h=1]"When can I take pictures in public?[/h]
img297_taking_pics_300x200.jpg

Individual privacy rights are an important point of law, but so is your freedom to take a picture. The two often collide, so photographers and subjects should know their rights.
You can take photos of almost anything or anyone in a public space, but what you do with them raises larger questions of privacy, compensation, and more.
Most simply, if you’re taking photos for your own albums and not publishing or selling them, you can snap just about anything out in public. It’s more complicated when you take photos of people though.
Firstly, anyone in your photo should be out in public as well. If you’re in a public space but your telephoto lens can see into someone’s bathroom window, you’re violating their reasonable expectation of privacy.
People don’t have that same reasonable expectation when they’re out in public. But it doesn’t mean they forfeit any right to privacy.
Generally, you don’t need someone’s permission just to take a photo, but you will need their consent if you’re planning to sell or distribute it anywhere.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark decision in a case where a Quebec woman sued a magazine for publishing a photo of her taken in a public spot without her permission.

The court agreed the magazine violated her privacy and saying, “the fault lay not in the taking of the photograph but in its publication . . . since the respondent was in a public place when the photograph was taken, that act alone could not be considered an invasion of her privacy. However, the unauthorized publication of the photograph constituted an infringement of her anonymity, which is an essential element of the right to privacy.”
She was awarded only $2,000, since the photo’s publication didn’t injure her in any way. But the ruling established some important considerations on public photography and privacy rights.
Another important conclusion from that case is that you don’t need consent from bystanders, crowds, or people “incidental” to the photo.
If you’re taking a photo of at a hockey game or of the CN Tower for example, you don’t have to try cropping out anyone else who might be in the frame. The court considers them “an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals.” The important concern is that they aren’t the focus of the picture.
But if a person is the subject of your photo, they’re prominent and identifiable, and you plan to publish, distribute, or sell that shot, play it safe and get their consent.



Contact a qualified Human Rights lawyer to make sure your rights are protected."
 
SkyRider said:
http://humanrights.findlaw.ca/article/when-can-i-take-pictures-in-public/

[h=1]"When can I take pictures in public?[/h]
img297_taking_pics_300x200.jpg

Individual privacy rights are an important point of law, but so is your freedom to take a picture. The two often collide, so photographers and subjects should know their rights.
You can take photos of almost anything or anyone in a public space, but what you do with them raises larger questions of privacy, compensation, and more.
Most simply, if you’re taking photos for your own albums and not publishing or selling them, you can snap just about anything out in public. It’s more complicated when you take photos of people though.
Firstly, anyone in your photo should be out in public as well. If you’re in a public space but your telephoto lens can see into someone’s bathroom window, you’re violating their reasonable expectation of privacy.
People don’t have that same reasonable expectation when they’re out in public. But it doesn’t mean they forfeit any right to privacy.
Generally, you don’t need someone’s permission just to take a photo, but you will need their consent if you’re planning to sell or distribute it anywhere.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark decision in a case where a Quebec woman sued a magazine for publishing a photo of her taken in a public spot without her permission.

The court agreed the magazine violated her privacy and saying, “the fault lay not in the taking of the photograph but in its publication . . . since the respondent was in a public place when the photograph was taken, that act alone could not be considered an invasion of her privacy. However, the unauthorized publication of the photograph constituted an infringement of her anonymity, which is an essential element of the right to privacy.”
She was awarded only $2,000, since the photo’s publication didn’t injure her in any way. But the ruling established some important considerations on public photography and privacy rights.
Another important conclusion from that case is that you don’t need consent from bystanders, crowds, or people “incidental” to the photo.
If you’re taking a photo of at a hockey game or of the CN Tower for example, you don’t have to try cropping out anyone else who might be in the frame. The court considers them “an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals.” The important concern is that they aren’t the focus of the picture.
But if a person is the subject of your photo, they’re prominent and identifiable, and you plan to publish, distribute, or sell that shot, play it safe and get their consent.



Contact a qualified Human Rights lawyer to make sure your rights are protected."
Click to expand...

Quebec is different, that should have come up in your research of the path the case took.
However, can you make money off of a video showing someone in the act of a crime? Hell the newspapers do !
 
SkyRider said:
Also check social media. It is almost entirely about the gross violation of Videoman's "rights". CP24 also is focusing on the injustice done to Videoman by the police and that the police is wrong about saliva causing HIV.

It seems that Videoman (a.k.a. Waseem Khan) is now the main story, especially since he has filed a formal complaint. Mr. Waseem "Look at Me" Khan seems to be really enjoying his 20 minute of fame.
Click to expand...

Cops are paid for the job they do.

Absolutely Khan's violation of right should get massive media coverage, and it has, good for the media.
 
Mazzi said:
Quebec is different, that should have come up in your research of the path the case took.
Click to expand...
Oui, Quebec is definitely different. I know they have the Civil Code but would the Supreme Court rule differently under Common Law?

I know that videos are posted on Youtube all the time, not sure if they ever got permission from the person(s) in those videos. I think it is ok to post videos of people on the public payroll like police, TTC operators, garbage collectors, maybe "public figures", etc., much less sure about posting videos of private citizens even if they are in public.

I was at Church/Wellesley during Pride Parade day and was about to take a pic of a topless woman. She asked me not to and I did not.
 
adrianachambres said:
I've been video taped - without my knowing. Never found myself online - but I was on the subway with a friend and my friend got off on one stop and once he walked out he saw that a man on the train some seats down was recording a video of a zoomed up shot of my face

When I got off the subway I had a bunch of missed calls and messages from my friend worried and asking if I was ok

Bizarre behaviour and I was completely oblivious - made me feel weird on the subway for a bit after that
Click to expand...

At any given time in the subway system or even walking around most of toronto one is on camera.

Does it bother one more that they are on someones personal phone device than if they are on "security" cameras? And if so why?
 
adrianachambres said:
I've been video taped - without my knowing. Never found myself online
Click to expand...
I am in the background of a Youtube video. The subject of the video is a protest about God knows what. It seems that there is a protest about something every week. Anyway, you can see me in the background and people who don't know me might think I am part of that protest.
 
So does the guy they arrested actually have AIDS / HIV?

I know I sure as fuck would not want anyone with AIDS spitting on me and definitely not biting me. I don't care what the AIDS advocate guy I saw on the news says. I'm not going to deny the guy the right to video the arrest, but he needs to stay at least 20 feet away from the cops and the situation so as not to interfere.

Likewise, I'm going to suggest that the cop in question be given a pass on this one . His partner (I assume) had just been decked by a nut (Maybe with AIDS) and he is running on adrenaline and some idiot is in his face with a phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back