Different Angle On Radwanski

One really has to wonder sometimes who writes these stories. You report that Radwanski launched an action against the installation of surveillance cameras on the basis that they were an invasion of privacy but that he lost the case in court.

The implication is that the courts found that the cameras were not an invasion of privacy. Nothing, in fact, could be farther from the truth.

The court simply ruled that he, as privacy commissioner, did not have the jurisdiction to launch such an action. There was no decision whatsoever on whether the cameras constituted an invasion of privacy. It is worth noting that Radwanski's successor agreed with his stand on the surveillance cameras but, given the court ruling, has been forced to consider other options in the fight against these cameras.

All indications from the courts are that these cameras are a gross invasion of privacy, that they are expensive, and most importantly, completely and utterly ineffective in combatting crime.

-Wade Jenson

More Letters to the editor

Recent Trending



The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the author. Castanet does not in any way warrant the information presented.

Visit our discussion forum
for these and other issues.

Previous Stories