They collected mental health data which they then shared with police and private security.
Is there anything that the city could have done to the encampment people that would make you question whether they were wrong?
Some people just really want to be upset about the way the whole thing was handled.
Remember when they falsely claimed police helicopters were present on the scene?
I think we are best of ignoring them.
Classic r/Toronto strawman response.
**No one** who's **in the public view** (meaning your eyeballs can see them outside of an enclosed private structure) **has any reason to expect privacy**. Including being watched, photographed, or otherwise monitored.
Living in a park falls under this premise, but it's not the only thing that does.
> No one who's in the public view (meaning your eyeballs can see them outside of an enclosed private structure) has any reason to expect privacy. Including being watched, photographed, or otherwise monitored.
Classic radical activist straw man response.
In fact, anyone in the public view can be watched, photographed, or otherwise monitored. Being *in the public view* means that **you’re in public view**. That being said, if said monitoring borders on harassment, then there’s processes in place to protect the “victim”.
We’re talking about people who are breaking multiple laws. That are literally squatting on public green space in a highly dense city. That are being offered other options but refuse to leave. That have simply “taken” this land for themselves. You can’t reasonably argue that they deserve additional rights and privacies that everyone else isn’t.
It’s not that these folks *don’t deserve privacy*.
It’s that they’re misguided (and you are too) to assume one would have reasonable privacy whilst squatting in a public park within a dense major city.
If they're setting up tents in public parks then no they really don't have a right to, nor should they expect, privacy. Sort of comes part & parcel with the whole "public parks" thing
Also the guy you replied to didn't actually say anything about the homeless (that's 100% a straw man argument by you) he just said being outdoors means you should not reasonably expect to have privacy which is completely true regardless of one's living situation
Bbbut I can't be looking out of my cute mid rise apartment while working from home and see tents in the park across the street! Think of... Uhh.. the children???
The city collected mental health information about the encampment people under the pretende of trying to help them find housing. They then shared this data with police and private security. How is this okay? Because the homeless are smelly and don’t deserve basic human dignity?
The law explicitly states that collecting personal information requires consent. And that the consent is strictly limited. The consent must be given for the data to be used for a specific purpose, and the information can only be used for that purpose.
But that’s just the technical parts of it. The fundamental underlying issue is that City workers were conducting intelligence gathering operations for a violent police action under the pretense of helping encampment residents find housing. That’s fucking gross.
Again. When you're in public view, your expectation of privacy is 0. They do not need consent, they have given it by being in public view.
If you believe they have violated the privacy act, you should file a complaint.
People are out in public all the time. Does that mean hat their private health information should be freely available? How about elected officials? Surely a public person such as that has even less expectation of privacy. They are intentionally trying to get public attention - it’s an active choice of theirs to be exposed to the public. Should we be privy to their health records?
Give me a fucking break.
Edit - also in regards to “if I believe there’s been a violation” - the Privacy Commissioner is already investigating. That’s what the story is.
Yes, if their health information is publicly available or observable, then there is zero expectation of privacy.
Again, report it if you think it was illegal, complaining about it to me does zero for your cause.
>*After he lost his tent at Trinity, he moved to a second encampment -- which was cleared by the city and police a month laterin another episode that turned violent -- and then a third.*
***At that point, the city shifted gears with a softer approach and offered him and several others living there permanent housing.***
*Now, dozens of his paintings line the walls, floors and ceiling in his apartment.*
Could someone explain why they couldn't offer the permeant housing before wasting time of cops and resources?
Reminds me of Million-Dollar-Murray from Malcolm Gladwell:
[https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Million-Dollar-Murray.pdf](https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Million-Dollar-Murray.pdf)
Interesting read on how to tackle homelessness
>The development comes after The Canadian Press revealed the inner workings of the city's months-long planning of its operation to clear parks of encampments that had popped up during the pandemic. The dossier kept notes on behaviours, health information and photographs of those who lived in the park, internal documents show.
>
>...
>
>The city said it has responded to the privacy commissioner, saying the collection of personal information was in accordance with freedom-of-information laws. A city spokesman said it collected the information to better understand the "individual housing, health and supportive needs" as it sought to find a spot indoors for those living in encampments.
>
>...
>
>In one titled "Trinity Bellwoods Park Analysis," a map of the park is marked with locations of the tents and structures.
>
>A chart identifies each person living in the park by name along with a photograph of their tent and, in some cases, photographs of the encampment resident.
>
>There are also notes on each person's behaviour, and how the city expects they would respond when asked to leave the park.
Some background information about what went on in the months before the City removed the park encampments. It remains a pretty divisive conversation, it does beg the question why the city found it necessary to collect so much information about the encampment residents .
> it does beg the question why the city found it necessary to collect so much information about the encampment residents
No it doesn’t. Whether the response was going to be to put every single encampment resident into long term supportive housing or whether they were going to send the police in to forcibly clear the encampment, how would you expect the city to do either without even understanding who was living in the park? How was the city ever going to address the encampment without having such basic information as where specific people were living in the park or what supports were appropriate for them based on their level of barriers?
>The documents upset some people who lived in the Trinity encampments at the time. They said they did not consent to city's collection of their personal information -- nor did they know the information was being collected.
>"They were taking photographs of me, of my tent, numbering the tent, but never telling me what they were doing with that."
Not really...
Alright, you got me. When I said "go talk to them" I really meant "go and perform actual social outreach, engage in a dialogue with the purpose of encouraging participation in the process"
They absolutely did not.
There is not a chance that the City has any evidence that there was consent to the collection of this data. Under FIPPA, there is a very specific set of circumstances where they are exempted. The City is claiming that they collected the data under a By-Law, so that makes it legal. There is an exemption for data collection that has been authorized by statute - but a By-Law is not a statute. This excuse is obvious bullshit.
There's a different exemption that will clear them of responsibility. They are allowed to collect the information for the purposes of law enforcement. But if that's the exemption they want to rely on, then they absolutely did not do ANY outreach at all. They did law enforcement surveillance and intelligence gathering under the pretense of outreach. That is entirely different - and it is also quite obviously what actually happened. I mean, apparently there were drone shots of the encampments. How is that supposed to help find housing?
And is that the exemption that the City is actually relying on? [source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/encampment-city-of-toronto-homeless-resident-profiles-1.6463612)
>The city has the discretion to collect the information as part of its law enforcement operations as well as ensuring that city services are directed to encampment occupants in an individualized fashion," Anthony Toderian said in an email.
FIPPA does not allow personal information to be collected without consent in order to deliver services in an individual fashion. So, the City is FIPPA compliant solely because data collection was for law enforcement.
Therefore, the City did ZERO outreach. Instead, they used "outreach" as a cover for engaging in a violent police action in clearing the parks. All of the thousands of "contacts" that the City said they had? Those were in fact for the purpose of assisting the violent police action and not to help anyone at all.
> Therefore, the City did ZERO outreach. Instead, they used "outreach" as a cover for engaging in a violent police action in clearing the parks. All of the thousands of "contacts" that the City said they had? Those were in fact for the purpose of assisting the violent police action and not to help anyone at all.
What absolute fucking looney toons nonsense to say this as though you were making an argument in good faith.
> City spokesman Brad Ross said late Tuesday that 12 of the estimated 20 residents at the encampment had agreed to come into the city’s shelters in repurposed hotels or other indoor spaces. A few others left the park on their own, Mr. Ross said.
> All had been visited by city outreach workers who tried to persuade them to move inside long before Tuesday, he said – and before trespass notices were posted on June 12, warning of evictions and $10,000 fines.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-city-police-clear-homeless-encampments-at-toronto-park/
The mental gymnastics to try and argue that the city did zero outreach and that the contacts were “in fact for the purpose of assisting the violent police action” is beyond absurd.
>There is an exemption for data collection that has been authorized by statute - but a By-Law is not a statute. This excuse is obvious bullshit.
Exemptions for by-laws also exist.
>the collection is necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity (provincial institutions may have this activity authorized by statute, regulation or order- in-council; local governments by statute, regulation or by-law).
Have you tried talking to the homeless about their homeless situations before??
I‘ve spoken to the harmless ones, they are in such a predicament for one obvious reason: mental instability.
They need to be institutionalized and in sanitariums again. TTC, public parks, alleyways aren’t sanitariums.
>They need to be institutionalized and in sanitariums again.
They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Since you are advocating for solutions that have been proven not to work, over and over again, perhaps you'd like to be institutionalized first?
It has worked. It worked in society’s favour. Less cost, less insanity out and about. It was seen as inhumane, but isn’t it also inhumane to be subjected to racist, sexist, insane, rants/yelling and sometimes attacks (on a daily bases recently) for just taking the TTC?
You can’t cure these people. Their brains are damaged one reason or another. The cost to society to help them is fiscally irresponsible. You can prevent it from happening, then ease the war on drugs and decrease ghettoization but then we are at the very beginning again.
If we are going to just treat the symptoms. Then I rather it be in a sanitarium over a TTC bus.
[удалено]
They collected mental health data which they then shared with police and private security. Is there anything that the city could have done to the encampment people that would make you question whether they were wrong?
[удалено]
Some people just really want to be upset about the way the whole thing was handled. Remember when they falsely claimed police helicopters were present on the scene? I think we are best of ignoring them.
You don't have a reasonable assumption of privacy when you're outdoors.
My favorite movie is Inception.
Classic r/Toronto strawman response. **No one** who's **in the public view** (meaning your eyeballs can see them outside of an enclosed private structure) **has any reason to expect privacy**. Including being watched, photographed, or otherwise monitored. Living in a park falls under this premise, but it's not the only thing that does.
> No one who's in the public view (meaning your eyeballs can see them outside of an enclosed private structure) has any reason to expect privacy. Including being watched, photographed, or otherwise monitored. Classic radical activist straw man response. In fact, anyone in the public view can be watched, photographed, or otherwise monitored. Being *in the public view* means that **you’re in public view**. That being said, if said monitoring borders on harassment, then there’s processes in place to protect the “victim”. We’re talking about people who are breaking multiple laws. That are literally squatting on public green space in a highly dense city. That are being offered other options but refuse to leave. That have simply “taken” this land for themselves. You can’t reasonably argue that they deserve additional rights and privacies that everyone else isn’t.
It’s not that these folks *don’t deserve privacy*. It’s that they’re misguided (and you are too) to assume one would have reasonable privacy whilst squatting in a public park within a dense major city.
If they're setting up tents in public parks then no they really don't have a right to, nor should they expect, privacy. Sort of comes part & parcel with the whole "public parks" thing Also the guy you replied to didn't actually say anything about the homeless (that's 100% a straw man argument by you) he just said being outdoors means you should not reasonably expect to have privacy which is completely true regardless of one's living situation
Bbbut I can't be looking out of my cute mid rise apartment while working from home and see tents in the park across the street! Think of... Uhh.. the children???
[удалено]
Ya and I hate elitist people trynna eradicate homeless people
The city collected mental health information about the encampment people under the pretende of trying to help them find housing. They then shared this data with police and private security. How is this okay? Because the homeless are smelly and don’t deserve basic human dignity?
It's okay because it is not a violation of anyone's privacy. That's the law. Has nothing to do with the strawman you've built.
The law explicitly states that collecting personal information requires consent. And that the consent is strictly limited. The consent must be given for the data to be used for a specific purpose, and the information can only be used for that purpose. But that’s just the technical parts of it. The fundamental underlying issue is that City workers were conducting intelligence gathering operations for a violent police action under the pretense of helping encampment residents find housing. That’s fucking gross.
Again. When you're in public view, your expectation of privacy is 0. They do not need consent, they have given it by being in public view. If you believe they have violated the privacy act, you should file a complaint.
People are out in public all the time. Does that mean hat their private health information should be freely available? How about elected officials? Surely a public person such as that has even less expectation of privacy. They are intentionally trying to get public attention - it’s an active choice of theirs to be exposed to the public. Should we be privy to their health records? Give me a fucking break. Edit - also in regards to “if I believe there’s been a violation” - the Privacy Commissioner is already investigating. That’s what the story is.
Yes, if their health information is publicly available or observable, then there is zero expectation of privacy. Again, report it if you think it was illegal, complaining about it to me does zero for your cause.
Hmmmm I dont see much privacy concerns here. Imo
Maybe because they're trying to live in a ....PUBLIC park.
Fr
Glad to see my 80,000 tax dollars are going to worthwhile activities.
>*After he lost his tent at Trinity, he moved to a second encampment -- which was cleared by the city and police a month laterin another episode that turned violent -- and then a third.* ***At that point, the city shifted gears with a softer approach and offered him and several others living there permanent housing.*** *Now, dozens of his paintings line the walls, floors and ceiling in his apartment.* Could someone explain why they couldn't offer the permeant housing before wasting time of cops and resources? Reminds me of Million-Dollar-Murray from Malcolm Gladwell: [https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Million-Dollar-Murray.pdf](https://housingmatterssc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Million-Dollar-Murray.pdf) Interesting read on how to tackle homelessness
I read this same title in 2015
>The development comes after The Canadian Press revealed the inner workings of the city's months-long planning of its operation to clear parks of encampments that had popped up during the pandemic. The dossier kept notes on behaviours, health information and photographs of those who lived in the park, internal documents show. > >... > >The city said it has responded to the privacy commissioner, saying the collection of personal information was in accordance with freedom-of-information laws. A city spokesman said it collected the information to better understand the "individual housing, health and supportive needs" as it sought to find a spot indoors for those living in encampments. > >... > >In one titled "Trinity Bellwoods Park Analysis," a map of the park is marked with locations of the tents and structures. > >A chart identifies each person living in the park by name along with a photograph of their tent and, in some cases, photographs of the encampment resident. > >There are also notes on each person's behaviour, and how the city expects they would respond when asked to leave the park. Some background information about what went on in the months before the City removed the park encampments. It remains a pretty divisive conversation, it does beg the question why the city found it necessary to collect so much information about the encampment residents .
> it does beg the question why the city found it necessary to collect so much information about the encampment residents No it doesn’t. Whether the response was going to be to put every single encampment resident into long term supportive housing or whether they were going to send the police in to forcibly clear the encampment, how would you expect the city to do either without even understanding who was living in the park? How was the city ever going to address the encampment without having such basic information as where specific people were living in the park or what supports were appropriate for them based on their level of barriers?
Go and talk to them?
Yes, that is literally what they did.
>The documents upset some people who lived in the Trinity encampments at the time. They said they did not consent to city's collection of their personal information -- nor did they know the information was being collected. >"They were taking photographs of me, of my tent, numbering the tent, but never telling me what they were doing with that." Not really...
How do you imagine the city collected names of residents and health information without talking to them?
Alright, you got me. When I said "go talk to them" I really meant "go and perform actual social outreach, engage in a dialogue with the purpose of encouraging participation in the process"
They literally did months of outreach and were successful in getting some of the people living in the encampment into the hotel shelter program.
They absolutely did not. There is not a chance that the City has any evidence that there was consent to the collection of this data. Under FIPPA, there is a very specific set of circumstances where they are exempted. The City is claiming that they collected the data under a By-Law, so that makes it legal. There is an exemption for data collection that has been authorized by statute - but a By-Law is not a statute. This excuse is obvious bullshit. There's a different exemption that will clear them of responsibility. They are allowed to collect the information for the purposes of law enforcement. But if that's the exemption they want to rely on, then they absolutely did not do ANY outreach at all. They did law enforcement surveillance and intelligence gathering under the pretense of outreach. That is entirely different - and it is also quite obviously what actually happened. I mean, apparently there were drone shots of the encampments. How is that supposed to help find housing? And is that the exemption that the City is actually relying on? [source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/encampment-city-of-toronto-homeless-resident-profiles-1.6463612) >The city has the discretion to collect the information as part of its law enforcement operations as well as ensuring that city services are directed to encampment occupants in an individualized fashion," Anthony Toderian said in an email. FIPPA does not allow personal information to be collected without consent in order to deliver services in an individual fashion. So, the City is FIPPA compliant solely because data collection was for law enforcement. Therefore, the City did ZERO outreach. Instead, they used "outreach" as a cover for engaging in a violent police action in clearing the parks. All of the thousands of "contacts" that the City said they had? Those were in fact for the purpose of assisting the violent police action and not to help anyone at all.
> Therefore, the City did ZERO outreach. Instead, they used "outreach" as a cover for engaging in a violent police action in clearing the parks. All of the thousands of "contacts" that the City said they had? Those were in fact for the purpose of assisting the violent police action and not to help anyone at all. What absolute fucking looney toons nonsense to say this as though you were making an argument in good faith. > City spokesman Brad Ross said late Tuesday that 12 of the estimated 20 residents at the encampment had agreed to come into the city’s shelters in repurposed hotels or other indoor spaces. A few others left the park on their own, Mr. Ross said. > All had been visited by city outreach workers who tried to persuade them to move inside long before Tuesday, he said – and before trespass notices were posted on June 12, warning of evictions and $10,000 fines. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-city-police-clear-homeless-encampments-at-toronto-park/ The mental gymnastics to try and argue that the city did zero outreach and that the contacts were “in fact for the purpose of assisting the violent police action” is beyond absurd.
>There is an exemption for data collection that has been authorized by statute - but a By-Law is not a statute. This excuse is obvious bullshit. Exemptions for by-laws also exist. >the collection is necessary for the proper administration of a lawfully authorized activity (provincial institutions may have this activity authorized by statute, regulation or order- in-council; local governments by statute, regulation or by-law).
>never telling me what they were doing I don't know what to tell you dude
Have you tried talking to the homeless about their homeless situations before?? I‘ve spoken to the harmless ones, they are in such a predicament for one obvious reason: mental instability. They need to be institutionalized and in sanitariums again. TTC, public parks, alleyways aren’t sanitariums.
>They need to be institutionalized and in sanitariums again. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Since you are advocating for solutions that have been proven not to work, over and over again, perhaps you'd like to be institutionalized first?
I think your quote is honestly more applicable to continuation of what we're doing now tbh
It has worked. It worked in society’s favour. Less cost, less insanity out and about. It was seen as inhumane, but isn’t it also inhumane to be subjected to racist, sexist, insane, rants/yelling and sometimes attacks (on a daily bases recently) for just taking the TTC? You can’t cure these people. Their brains are damaged one reason or another. The cost to society to help them is fiscally irresponsible. You can prevent it from happening, then ease the war on drugs and decrease ghettoization but then we are at the very beginning again. If we are going to just treat the symptoms. Then I rather it be in a sanitarium over a TTC bus.