- Hamilton orders a man to remove crime-solving security cameras under a vague by-law despite their role in over 40 police investigations.
- Liberal activists falsely claim private surveillance enables racial profiling, ignoring its role in exposing real criminal activity and protecting communities.
- Police admit private footage is critical for solving crimes, yet the city enforces ideological bans that undermine public safety and transparency.
- Governments and corporations engage in mass surveillance with no pushback, while citizens face crackdowns for using the same technology to protect their homes.
- This attack on private security cameras is a broader assault on individual rights, setting a dangerous precedent for future restrictions on self-defense and community safety.
A Canadian man has been ordered to remove 10 security cameras installed outside his home—cameras that have helped police solve crimes, including homicides and break-ins. The reason? A vague "fortification by-law" that liberals are now weaponizing to suppress private surveillance, all while crime rates climb and public trust in law enforcement erodes.
Dan Myles, who lives on MacNab Street North in Hamilton, installed the cameras seven years ago after repeated break-ins at his home and in his neighborhood. His footage has been instrumental in more than 40 investigations, including three homicides and a case involving an alleged serial killer. Yet despite his cooperation with police and the clear public safety benefit, Hamilton officials have demanded he take them down. The city claims the cameras violate a by-law prohibiting surveillance beyond one’s property line—but the real motivation appears to be far more sinister.
The racial profiling excuse
Liberal activists and media outlets have long demonized private surveillance, framing it as a tool for "racial profiling." A 2019 CBC report, for example, claimed that Ring doorbell cameras—used by millions to deter crime—were being used to target minorities. The article cited a "map" from Los Angeles police that allegedly showed "hot spots" based on "reports of suspicion," which activists claimed disproportionately affected non-white neighborhoods. But the real issue isn’t racism; it’s that liberals don’t want the public to see who is committing crimes.
When citizens record criminal activity, they expose inconvenient truths: who the perpetrators are, where crimes are happening, and how often. Rather than address the root causes of crime, liberals would rather blind the public, ensuring that only government-approved surveillance (like police body cams or traffic cameras) remains in place.
Police rely on private footage, so why is the city cracking down?
Hamilton Police have openly acknowledged the value of private security footage. In a statement, they thanked residents for their "overwhelming support" in sharing CCTV images to help solve crimes. Yet, the city’s by-law enforcement seems determined to undermine this cooperation. Myles’ cameras have aided in high-profile cases, including a fatal hit-and-run where a driver was convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The crash investigator even told Myles, "Without your video, we would have had nothing."
So why is Hamilton targeting a law-abiding citizen who is helping police? The answer lies in the city’s ideological priorities. Rather than focus on reducing crime, officials are bowing to progressive activists who claim that recording criminal activity is inherently discriminatory. This is the same logic that led Denver to propose a "whites-only business tax" and Charlotte’s mayor to censor footage of a brutal subway stabbing—all in the name of "anti-racism."
The hypocrisy is staggering. While cities like Hamilton crack down on private cameras, governments and corporations engage in mass surveillance with little oversight. Amazon’s Ring doorbells, for example, partner with police departments to create "geofenced" crime maps—yet when citizens use the same technology independently, they’re accused of racism. Meanwhile, police in Kingston, Ontario, have deployed drones to spy on drivers’ phones at red lights, raising serious privacy concerns.
The message is clear: Surveillance is fine when they do it. But when citizens take matters into their own hands—whether by installing cameras or defending their homes—the state steps in to stop them.
Myles’ fight isn’t just about cameras. It’s about the right to protect one’s family and property in an era of rising lawlessness. If cities can arbitrarily ban security measures, what’s next? Will homeowners be prohibited from installing motion-sensor lights? Will neighborhood watch groups be labeled "vigilantes"? The slippery slope is real, and Hamilton’s actions set a dangerous precedent.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.