Here’s how it should have gone:
photographer waiting for good lighting
Embassy doesn’t feel nervous because they have at least one iota of experience observing humans
Another pretty good scenario:
photographer waiting for good lighting
Embassy: Hey why are you hanging around out there?
Photographer: oh I’m just writing for the light to good for this very common tourist photo opportunity
Embassy: okay, but please don’t take photos of us
Here’s another situation:
photographer waiting for good lighting
Police: Hey we got a call that you’re loitering here, and it’s making people nervous. What are you up to?
Photographer: I don’t think I need to explain myself, it’s pretty obvious I’m trying to get a good photo of the very common tourist photo opportunity.
Police: okay just make sure you’re not blocking the sidewalk.
If they have enough police (not by-law officers) to be patrolling the area for loiterers, then they have too many police. Someone obviously called this in. So who was it, and why were they so uncomfortable with a photographer’s presence? (My bet is, US consulate intelligence attaché acting paranoid.)
She said when the police officers arrived, they determined that the individual was breaking a municipal bylaw and asked him to provide his identity, but he refused, so they arrested him.
Dion confirmed the person was fined but declined to confirm his name or what bylaw he broke.
Then he didn’t break a by-law. If you can’t immediately tell someone what crime they committed then they didn’t commit a fucking crime.
When asked under what circumstances Quebec City police will arrest or fine someone for loitering, Dion said “it’s on a case-by-case basis,” and "it’s up to police officers’ discretion.
Nope. This is nonsensical. If there is ANYTHING that has been demonstrated over the past few years it is that police simply are not capable of holding themselves to any accountability. Giving them a blanket reason they can arrest/fine anyone is flagrantly unacceptable.
How do you fine somebody without telling them what they’re being fined for‽
John Morris says he was standing on a sidewalk opposite the U.S. consulate near the famed hotel around noon on Tuesday, waiting for some clouds to arrive to get the perfect shot…
He then goes on to say that officers told him that he can’t be standing there for a half hour, and was fined for loitering.
To be honest, if he was, by his own admittance, standing on a public sidewalk for 30 minutes with his gear, then he earned that loitering fine. This was also explained to him and it written on his ticket, so he’s contradicting himself by saying they never explained what law was broken.
Being a professional photographer doesn’t give someone the right to take ownership of the public space.
He could snap a photo and move on, but he decided to block a public sidewalk for as long as he wanted to get a shot… if they didn’t stop him after 30 minutes, he could have been there for hours. Who knows? Either way, he’s acting entitled.
deleted by creator
FYI, he wasn’t taking photos, he was standing idly and was blocking a public sidewalk with his equipment while he waited for a good shot. He claimed that he was out of the way, but that particular sidewalk doesn’t allow for any room to be “out of the way” because it has a street on one side and a wall on the other.
Granted, he had a massive tripod and a pro camera right outside the US consulate building for at least a half hour, which is why the police were called. He had been asked to move along, and he just argued, so he got a ticket.
A pro photographer, with intention to shoot commercial photography in a public place, might have applied for a permit first. Especially if the shoot required blocking public walkways for such a long time.
He can certainly challenge this in court, but to what end? He seemed to be clearly in the wrong.
deleted by creator
How about the cops focus on the thousands of cars being stolen instead of some guy with a camera. Oh, wait, that’s hard work and they wouldn’t get to harass anybody.
That’s not something they can go after
Better anti-thief is what you are looking for; like removing the computer from cars
That’s not something they can go after
Car theft is not something that police can go after? If it is up to me to just make my property less steal-able then why the fuck do we have police at all?
Having them check every shipping container leaving our country would destroy the economy and smugglers would just go cross border
Containers from not-janky, high volume, shippers gets them sealed with a tag before they go on the truck. Check the ones without tags.
They can re-register cars and you think they can’t get around tags?
You’ve never seen one of these tags.
Re-read what I said and try to explain how these tags are harder than that
Remembering that you are claiming that infiltrating Service Ontario is easier than infiltrating these companies
Ah yes, you can see how well having less computers works by how hard Kia and Hyundai’s are to steal in the US.
Kia removed the chip-in-key feature to save money, they essentially had no anti-theft measures at all.
Our most common technique is to remove the headlight and connect to the computer through that because people stopped keeping their Bluetooth fobs at the door and people have doorbell cameras
Cheap cars aren’t really worth sending over to Africa
The head light thing is because manufactures use the same CAN bus (network) to control security features and lighting. So by saving 50 feet of wire they expose unprotected access to the car’s computers.
