Brickbat: Package Thief Privacy

Quebec police are warning residents not to post home security video of porch pirates to the Internet, saying it could violate the thieves' right to privacy. "You cannot post the images yourself because you have to remember, in Canada, we have a presumption of innocence and posting that picture could be a violation of private life," said Sûreté du Québec communications officer Lt. Benoit Richard. "If you get some proof that somebody might have stolen something, call the police, give that proof to the police," he said. "We'll do the investigation, bring that person to justice and file some charges."

Comments

[Rev Arthur L kuckland]

Test
Did reason turn off comments to the Emily blunt article?

[rbike]

No, but the counter reads 0 when there are comments.

[AnonaKris]

I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me how lots cash they could make online so Qd I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life. Get this today by follow instructions====>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com

[Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)]

They don't want the Liz Wolfe level of simping, which I would be happy to provide when it comes to Ms. Blunt.

[RobertoMaddox]

my neighbor's mother-in-law makes $80/hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for 5 months but last month her paycheck was $25465 just working on the computer for a few hours. I was reading this … http://Www.worktoday7.co

[JudyAllen]

Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and I received $16894 in one month online acting from home just in a few hours. I am a daily student and work simply for a few hours in my spare time. Everybody can get this job. For details.....
open this web...… http://Www.Worktoday7.co

[Chumby]

Poutine images of package thieves on the interweb should be laissez faire. Government minions enabling the package thieves has a certain negative je ne said quois.

[AT]

In America, we also have a presumption of innocence. But that has nothing to do with soliciting public assistance in suspect identification.

Quebec police are warning residents not to post home security video of porch pirates to the Internet, saying it could violate the thieves' right to privacy.

If they have home security video of porch murderers killing a guy on their front porch, does disseminating it to identify the culprit also violate his right to privacy?

Canada man. The only nation more openly suicidal than the USA.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You clearly haven't got 'round the world much.

[B G]

What expectation of privacy exists in a spot that's clearly visible from a public street/sidewalk?

Only in Tredeau's world would real-time video footage of a crime being committed not constitute evidence of guilt regarding the person filmed doing it.

[Fist of Etiquette]

"We'll do the investigation, bring that person to justice and file some charges."

Really sounds like you're all in on going after the porch pirates.

[Adans smith]

No 1st amendment, check, no 2end amendment, check, privacy for thieves , priceless.

[Mickey Rat]

"Quebec police are warning residents not to post home security video of porch pirates to the Internet, saying it could violate the thieves' right to privacy."

A right to privacy that covers direct evidence that you committed a crime on someone else's property?

Canada is a place where rational thought goes to die.

[Chumby]

If using an incorrect pronoun when referencing a package thief, you could face jail time.

[mad.casual]

And, even if the sidewalk is not someone else's property they have a right to privacy on public property?

I've said this for decades in the Roe v. Wade debate, any right to privacy there may be still is not a right to forcibly stupify the people around you.

[Mickey Rat]

The narrative that Texas authorities prevented the Border Patrol from rescuing "migrants" from drowning was a lie.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-filing-shows-texas-did-not-stop-border-patrol-from-saving-drowning-migrants/

"Robert Danley, lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection field agent for the broader Del Rio area, wrote in a statement included with the filing that a Mexican official notified the U.S. Friday night that three migrants — a woman and two children — had drowned roughly an hour earlier while traversing the river.

A Border Patrol official then went to the Shelby Park Boat Ramp entrance, where three Texas guardsmen told him they had been ordered not to let Border Patrol agents into the area.

The filing contradicts earlier mainstream reporting and statements made by Representative Henry Cuellar (D., Texas), as well as a cease-and-desist letter to Texas attorney general Ken Paxton written by U.S. Department of Homeland Security general counsel Jonathan Meyer ordering Texas to stop preventing Border Patrol officials from accessing a section of the state’s border with Mexico.

“Texas’s failure to provide access to the border persists even in instances of imminent danger to life and safety,” Meyer wrote, referencing the drownings. “Texas has demonstrated that even in the most exigent circumstances, it will not allow Border Patrol access to the border to conduct law enforcement and emergency response activities.”"

[Randy Sax]

Buddy, you coulda at least waited a couple hours for the Roundup. Liz puts a lot of effort into them.

[JesseAz]

Good thing Jeff wasn't pushing this story yesterday. He only uses truthful reporting sources.

[Mickey Rat]

Yeah, the movement for child gender transitioning is all for parental rights to make medical decisions for their children.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/christian-teachers-reinstated-after-being-placed-on-leave-for-refusing-to-conceal-child-gender-issues-from-parents/

"Two Christian school teachers in California were reinstated by a federal judge after being placed on administrative leave for opposing the district’s policy of not informing parents when a child opted to change their gender identity in class.

The educators, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, sued the California board of education on the grounds that “deceiving” a child’s guardian violated their religious beliefs.

Judge Robert Benitez ruled in favor of the teachers, noting that the district’s policy of hiding gender-identity changes from parents violated the Fourteenth Amendment. “It harms plaintiffs who are compelled to violate the parent’s rights by forcing plaintiffs to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students,” the justice wrote in his ruling."

"In July, the Chino school board required schools to notify parents if their child experiences gender confusion, requests a pronoun change, or begins using sex-segregated facilities conflicting with the child’s sex. Bonta said at the time that the policy would “strip [students] of their freedom, violate their autonomy, and potentially put them in a harmful situation.”

Students are “currently under threat of being outed to their parents or guardians against their express wishes and will,” which the lawsuit alleges “violates the California Constitution and state laws safeguarding civil rights.” The state announced earlier this month that it would investigate possible infringements on students’ civil rights in Chino Valley, as well as in surrounding districts that have adopted similar policies."

[mad.casual]

violated their religious beliefs.

Because, once again, if they were to assert this is a free association right or a free speech right, and that they can't be forced not to do something like this if they don't want to, even Reason Magazine would tell them to shut up, quit moral panicking, and do what the State says. A position that, to this day, they have yet to significantly reverse and frequently double-down on the downstream fallout of.

[Roberta]

I wonder what "violation of private life" was in French. Seems an awkward translation.

[Roberta]

Apparently the awkward translation was in the cop's head, as he spoke it directly to the camera.

[SRG2]

Surely it is up to the individual to complain about infringement of right not the police?

I like the idea of a porch pirate plaintiff attempting to sue someone for infringing on their privacy right…perhaps the defendant can use the US argument, no expectation of privacy when you’re stealing someone’s packages.

[Davy C]

It could be defamation if the person is *not* stealing the package.

Which is technically possible, but I think I'll take my chances.

[Longtobefree]

So instead of posting the video, just bury the thief in the backyard?

[Mockamodo]

I only call 911 to pick up the bodies since I got too old to bury intruders myself.

[Wizard4169]

Always remember the the three S's.

[Jerry B.]

"We'll do the investigation, bring that person to justice and file some charges."

Yeah. Right.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)]

FWIW, the Quebec police are wrong on this, even under Canadian law. You can post all the security video you want saying "here's a video of my packages being stolen". The only time you might run into trouble is if you say, "Hey, I recognize this guy, it's Joe Schmoe, my neighbor stealing my packages. If it turns out you're wrong, you could get into trouble.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)]

Also, this is yet another example of government squeezing you at both ends. They don't enforce any crime, and then come after you when you attempt to stop, interrupt or defend yourself against the rising crime.

[TangoDelta]

Exactly. The whole "we have a presumption of innocence and posting that picture could be a violation of private life" is pure bunk. The video doesn't show innocence or guilt, just actual video and perhaps audio proceedings, assuming it hasn't been edited, and since they presumably came from a public space where there is no expectation of privacy onto a private porch where they absolutely have no expectation of privacy as they steal someone else's private property.

[MWAocdoc]

"you have to remember, in Canada, we have a presumption of innocence and posting that picture could be a violation"

Nice deflection, Benoit, but those words don't mean what you seem to think they mean! In the United States, presumption of innocence only applies to government officials when they charge someone with a crime, not when a randeaux trespasses on your private property and takes your private property away without your permission. Of course, the presumption in the U.S. is that Canadiens don't have any rights unless they are criminals. We already know for sure that Canadians don't have the right to speech or private property!

[Marshal]

Their comments are a case study in how government agencies will use their power to threaten those who act against their interests.

This also forewarns us that police, in America at least the last government agency to not fall completely under the left’s control, will come to understand criminals as their allies once the left controls law enforcement in the same way it does education.

[Dan S.]

Police often get things wrong, and I am going to assume, provisionally, that this police spokesman is simply mistaken about the law in such cases. Now if a Canadian court actually ruled that posting such videos was somehow illegal, I'd be concerned, but I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened.

[yet another dave]

Lil Lt Richard, upset people might release recordings of him stealing packages

[Phillip]

Don't most of those porch pirates wear face diapers, which have been normalized. Would the mounties charge you for violating the privacy of an anonymous person? Wouldn't surprise me.