Go Ad Free

The surveillance saga pertaining to Hamilton, Ont. resident Dan Myles continues. This story goes back to September when Hamilton bylaw ordered Myles to take down the 10 security cameras he had erected on the outside of his house.

Why is bylaw so concerned? Apparently, it’s all about privacy. The cameras record the sidewalks and the streets as well as the front yardage of some properties.

But with the exception of one neighbour (the person who complained to bylaw), homeowners in the neighbourhood have no problem with the video surveillance. And with good reason: crime is rife in this neighbourhood, and the cameras help to catch the bad guys – which is why the Hamilton Police Service have frequently relied on Dan’s footage to help solve crimes, including three homicides.

And yet, Hamilton bylaw stubbornly maintains that Dan’s cameras are offside.

Bylaw might want to review the actual law. After doing so, these rocket scientists will discover that nobody has an expectation of privacy in public. Period.

Indeed, does bylaw realize there are surely thousands of doorbell cameras and dashcam cameras in Hamilton? When does the door-to-door crackdown on those cameras begin?

That’s not going to happen, of course, and it has little to do with manpower. Myles claims the reason his cameras are a point of contention is due to the complainant having connections with city hall. Apparently, it’s not what you do but who you know in Hamilton that moves the needle.

As well, in the department of hypocrisy, next time you’re in The Hammer, pay a visit to Hamilton City Hall. This edifice could be a set piece if they chose to remake Nineteen Eighty-Four given all of the oversize 360-degree cameras that abound. Apparently, the politicians and bureaucrats want to keep a keen eye on any undesirables visiting City Hall. Yet again, it’s one law for me, one law for thee.

Hamilton Bylaw has ordered Dan Myles to remove 10 security cameras from his house. They don’t want the privacy rights of criminals violated. Two things: 1. The cops have used Dan’s footage re 40 incidents. 2. NOBODY has an expectation of privacy in public. https://t.co/N4wKyYcI6g

— David Menzies (@TheMenzoid) September 18, 2025

Speaking of Hamilton City Hall, in 2021, I received a “social distancing ticket” when I covered a COVID-19 demonstration outside this building. The ticket was issued by Ranjeni RJ Reddy She/Her, a City of Hamilton Municipal Law Enforcement Officer/Licensing Compliance Officer. Using a zoom lens camera (!), she captured the image of me being closer than two metres to those I was interviewing. Shockers! And so it was that via email (!), she/her served me with a ticket for a whopping $560.

And get this: that ticket is known as an Administrative Monetary Penalty System ticket. An Administrative Monetary Penalty System is a very fancy phrase to say, in layman’s terms, that you, the citizen, are getting royally screwed by the system.

Indeed, you know that old saying, “Tell it to the judge”? Well, you’re out of luck doing so when it comes to an Administrative Monetary Penalty System ticket. There is no judge. There is no court. Instead, to seek a modicum of justice, you have to go to a Hamilton bylaw officer to get the ticket withdrawn or reduced. Good luck with that.

This nonsense was challenged in 2015. And the Supreme Court was perfectly fine with it. Say, whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? But never mind…

And by the way, where was Ranjeni RJ Reddy She/Her and her trusty zoom lens camera when hundreds of Black Lives Matter protesters assembled in Hamilton during the summer of 2020?

Crickets…

Rebel News sent a list of several questions to Hamilton’s media relations department. And we did receive a response from Rob Lalli, Director of the City of Hamilton’s Building Division:

“The City of Hamilton remains committed to the health, safety, and wellbeing of all residents and it is in the interest of health, safety and the protection of the public to regulate fortification and protective elements through the City’s Fortification Bylaw. The City of Hamilton Fortification Bylaw allows for the use of cameras for reasonable fortification. Policy exemptions to the bylaw allow for the use of cameras which may capture adjacent public property, provided they do not capture adjacent private property.

“After issuing an order to the Property (Property owner), in September, the property at 218 MacNab St N, remains in non-compliance with the City’s Fortification Bylaw. As such, a second order was issued to the tenant (the camera equipment operator) specifically with respect to video surveillance equipment that is directed beyond its own property, towards adjacent private property.

“The City continues to actively communicate with the operator of the surveillance equipment at 218 MacNab St N, and encourage self-compliance with the bylaw. If self-compliance is achieved, then the order would be closed. The tenant can achieve this by either removing the cameras, or, re-directing the camera’s away from neighboring private property. Alternatively, a limited exemption under the bylaw may be sought by the operator of the cameras for any deviations to the bylaw, for consideration by the Director of the City Building Division.”

So, what happens next? When it comes to Dan Myles, he is standing his ground. The cameras remain in place. And given the ongoing crimewave, he is indeed doing his neighbourhood a service in capturing the shenanigans of criminals. Just ask the cops.

It is only the control freaks at Hamilton bylaw and one Nosey Parker neighbour who seem to have a problem with those cameras. Myles is adamant that he will not remove the cameras. So, the ball is now in Hamilton bylaw’s court. Will this department actually deploy staffers to physically remove Dan’s cameras? Stay tuned…