Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a Post Office?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Danny D., Mar 30, 2013.

  1. Danny D.

    Danny D. Guest

    Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?

    Today, in California, I tried to exchange a book of 32 cent
    stamps for current stamps, which is something that I have been doing for
    decades (whenever they change the prices) at a value-for-value
    rate (lately I've been exchanging for "forever stamps" at the
    current rate).

    In the past, many times, I merely placed the stamps on a sheet
    of paper, in the presence of the clerk, thereby making them
    unstamped, but still valid.

    However, after watching me, the clerk would not allow the
    exchange, citing an unwritten "new regulation" that disallows
    this common practice. I snapped photos of the transaction, in the
    clear presence of everyone (there were about 3 clerks present),
    and there was absolutely no protest (it as a large Nikon SLR
    which I happened to have hanging on my neck as I was returning
    from an outing and stopped at the Post Office by way of errand).

    Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
    indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
    the clerk "without permission".

    I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
    pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
    ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
    I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.

    May I ask:
    Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    the transaction?
     
    Danny D., Mar 30, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
    > Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
    > Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
    > indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
    > the clerk "without permission".
    >
    > I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
    > pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
    > ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
    > I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.
    >
    > May I ask:
    > Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    > is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    > the transaction?




    Sounds like there are two issues here:

    Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
    since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.

    Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
    the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
    run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
    of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
    prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
    regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"

    If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
    request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
    inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
    will clear him out real fast.

    I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
    better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
    the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
    service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.

    Great fun! Go for it!
     
    Unquestionably Confused, Mar 30, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Danny D.

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:47:04 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
    <> wrote:
    : On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
    : > Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
    : > Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
    : > indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
    : > the clerk "without permission".
    : >
    : > I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
    : > pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
    : > ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
    : > I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.
    : >
    : > May I ask:
    : > Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    : > is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    : > the transaction?
    :
    :
    :
    : Sounds like there are two issues here:
    :
    : Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
    : since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.
    :
    : Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
    : the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
    : run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
    : of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
    : prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
    : regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"
    :
    : If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
    : request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
    : inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
    : will clear him out real fast.
    :
    : I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
    : better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
    : the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
    : service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.
    :
    : Great fun! Go for it!

    The difference between your situation and that of the OP is that you knew the
    legal ground you were on and the OP doesn't. Under the circumstances I'd
    suggest that he not conflate the two issues. I'd deal with the stamp exchange
    question by going to another post office and finding out what they have to
    say. Only when that issue was settled (and maybe not even then) would I go
    back to the first P.O. and deal with the photography issue.

    FWIW, I once photographed an event in a post office (a tribute to the late
    postmaster after whom the building was named), and nobody said a word. But of
    course I wasn't there to complain about the service at the stamp window. :^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 30, 2013
    #3
  4. Danny D.

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:14:49 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:47:04 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
    ><> wrote:
    >: On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
    >: > Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
    >: > Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
    >: > indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
    >: > the clerk "without permission".
    >: >
    >: > I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
    >: > pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
    >: > ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
    >: > I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.
    >: >
    >: > May I ask:
    >: > Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    >: > is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    >: > the transaction?
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >: Sounds like there are two issues here:
    >:
    >: Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
    >: since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.
    >:
    >: Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
    >: the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
    >: run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
    >: of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
    >: prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
    >: regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"
    >:
    >: If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
    >: request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
    >: inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
    >: will clear him out real fast.
    >:
    >: I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
    >: better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
    >: the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
    >: service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.
    >:
    >: Great fun! Go for it!
    >
    >The difference between your situation and that of the OP is that you knew the
    >legal ground you were on and the OP doesn't. Under the circumstances I'd
    >suggest that he not conflate the two issues. I'd deal with the stamp exchange
    >question by going to another post office and finding out what they have to
    >say. Only when that issue was settled (and maybe not even then) would I go
    >back to the first P.O. and deal with the photography issue.
    >
    >FWIW, I once photographed an event in a post office (a tribute to the late
    >postmaster after whom the building was named), and nobody said a word. But of
    >course I wasn't there to complain about the service at the stamp window. :^)
    >
    >Bob


    There are some battles not worth the fight. As I understand it, the
    OP took a photograph of post office employees in a post office while
    they were at work without asking their permission. While they did not
    object at the time, they were not given the opportunity to agree or
    object.

    The supervisor, though, does disagree. For some reason, he or she is
    upset about it.

    There's nothing to be gained by finding out the legalities of the
    situation. It's done. The OP has his photos and it will blow over at
    the post office if it's dropped here.

    If the OP presses this, what's going to happen is that the supervisor
    is going to take it out on the employees. Any further fuss over this
    is only going create problems for the employees.

    I take a lot of candid photographs, and I believe in the rights of the
    photographer as much as anyone here, but I'm not going to get some
    employee's ass chewed out by his supervisor even if the supervisor is
    wrong.

    I'd let it go.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 30, 2013
    #4
  5. Danny D.

    MaxD Guest

    On 3/29/2013 11:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:14:49 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:47:04 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
    >> <> wrote:
    >> : On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
    >> : > Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
    >> : > Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
    >> : > indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
    >> : > the clerk "without permission".
    >> : >
    >> : > I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
    >> : > pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
    >> : > ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
    >> : > I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.
    >> : >
    >> : > May I ask:
    >> : > Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    >> : > is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    >> : > the transaction?
    >> :
    >> :
    >> :
    >> : Sounds like there are two issues here:
    >> :
    >> : Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
    >> : since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.
    >> :
    >> : Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
    >> : the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
    >> : run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
    >> : of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
    >> : prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
    >> : regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"
    >> :
    >> : If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
    >> : request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
    >> : inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
    >> : will clear him out real fast.
    >> :
    >> : I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
    >> : better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
    >> : the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
    >> : service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.
    >> :
    >> : Great fun! Go for it!
    >>
    >> The difference between your situation and that of the OP is that you knew the
    >> legal ground you were on and the OP doesn't. Under the circumstances I'd
    >> suggest that he not conflate the two issues. I'd deal with the stamp exchange
    >> question by going to another post office and finding out what they have to
    >> say. Only when that issue was settled (and maybe not even then) would I go
    >> back to the first P.O. and deal with the photography issue.
    >>
    >> FWIW, I once photographed an event in a post office (a tribute to the late
    >> postmaster after whom the building was named), and nobody said a word. But of
    >> course I wasn't there to complain about the service at the stamp window. :^)
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    > There are some battles not worth the fight. As I understand it, the
    > OP took a photograph of post office employees in a post office while
    > they were at work without asking their permission. While they did not
    > object at the time, they were not given the opportunity to agree or
    > object.
    >
    > The supervisor, though, does disagree. For some reason, he or she is
    > upset about it.
    >
    > There's nothing to be gained by finding out the legalities of the
    > situation. It's done. The OP has his photos and it will blow over at
    > the post office if it's dropped here.
    >
    > If the OP presses this, what's going to happen is that the supervisor
    > is going to take it out on the employees. Any further fuss over this
    > is only going create problems for the employees.
    >
    > I take a lot of candid photographs, and I believe in the rights of the
    > photographer as much as anyone here, but I'm not going to get some
    > employee's ass chewed out by his supervisor even if the supervisor is
    > wrong.
    >
    > I'd let it go.
    >
    >


    FWIW. I've never met a post office employee who didn't deserve an ass
    chewing. Just sayin'.
     
    MaxD, Mar 30, 2013
    #5
  6. Danny D.

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:27:06 -0600, MaxD <> wrote:
    : On 3/29/2013 11:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    : > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:14:49 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >
    : >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:47:04 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
    : >> <> wrote:
    : >> : On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
    : >> : > Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
    : >> : > Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
    : >> : > indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
    : >> : > the clerk "without permission".
    : >> : >
    : >> : > I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
    : >> : > pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
    : >> : > ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
    : >> : > I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.
    : >> : >
    : >> : > May I ask:
    : >> : > Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    : >> : > is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    : >> : > the transaction?
    : >> :
    : >> :
    : >> :
    : >> : Sounds like there are two issues here:
    : >> :
    : >> : Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
    : >> : since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.
    : >> :
    : >> : Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
    : >> : the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
    : >> : run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
    : >> : of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
    : >> : prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
    : >> : regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"
    : >> :
    : >> : If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
    : >> : request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
    : >> : inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
    : >> : will clear him out real fast.
    : >> :
    : >> : I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
    : >> : better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
    : >> : the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
    : >> : service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.
    : >> :
    : >> : Great fun! Go for it!
    : >>
    : >> The difference between your situation and that of the OP is that you knew the
    : >> legal ground you were on and the OP doesn't. Under the circumstances I'd
    : >> suggest that he not conflate the two issues. I'd deal with the stamp exchange
    : >> question by going to another post office and finding out what they have to
    : >> say. Only when that issue was settled (and maybe not even then) would I go
    : >> back to the first P.O. and deal with the photography issue.
    : >>
    : >> FWIW, I once photographed an event in a post office (a tribute to the late
    : >> postmaster after whom the building was named), and nobody said a word. But of
    : >> course I wasn't there to complain about the service at the stamp window. :^)
    : >>
    : >> Bob
    : >
    : > There are some battles not worth the fight. As I understand it, the
    : > OP took a photograph of post office employees in a post office while
    : > they were at work without asking their permission. While they did not
    : > object at the time, they were not given the opportunity to agree or
    : > object.
    : >
    : > The supervisor, though, does disagree. For some reason, he or she is
    : > upset about it.
    : >
    : > There's nothing to be gained by finding out the legalities of the
    : > situation. It's done. The OP has his photos and it will blow over at
    : > the post office if it's dropped here.
    : >
    : > If the OP presses this, what's going to happen is that the supervisor
    : > is going to take it out on the employees. Any further fuss over this
    : > is only going create problems for the employees.
    : >
    : > I take a lot of candid photographs, and I believe in the rights of the
    : > photographer as much as anyone here, but I'm not going to get some
    : > employee's ass chewed out by his supervisor even if the supervisor is
    : > wrong.
    : >
    : > I'd let it go.
    : >
    : >
    :
    : FWIW. I've never met a post office employee who didn't deserve an ass
    : chewing. Just sayin'.

    I have, often. Every time I've done business at the window in the post office
    across the street from my office, the clerks have been unfailingly friendly
    and helpful.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 30, 2013
    #6
  7. Danny D.

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:38:58 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:27:06 -0600, MaxD <> wrote:
    >: On 3/29/2013 11:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    >: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:14:49 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >: >
    >: >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:47:04 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
    >: >> <> wrote:
    >: >> : On 3/29/2013 9:14 PM, Danny D. wrote:
    >: >> : > Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
    >: >> : > Later, I called the Officer in Charge of that Post Office, who
    >: >> : > indignantly said I was breaking the law by taking a picture of
    >: >> : > the clerk "without permission".
    >: >> : >
    >: >> : > I must restate, it was clear as the sun shines that I was snapping
    >: >> : > pictures, and NOBODY raised a word of protest - but - I must also
    >: >> : > ask if there is ANY legal standing for the OIC's presumption that
    >: >> : > I am guilty of breaking the law for doing so.
    >: >> : >
    >: >> : > May I ask:
    >: >> : > Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    >: >> : > is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    >: >> : > the transaction?
    >: >> :
    >: >> :
    >: >> :
    >: >> : Sounds like there are two issues here:
    >: >> :
    >: >> : Your ability to exchange stamps that you've been doing, apparently,
    >: >> : since Christ was a pup. The second is this BS with the photos.
    >: >> :
    >: >> : Want to have some fun AND get both questions answered? Go in to visit
    >: >> : the O-I-C and tell him how upset you are that you may have inadvertently
    >: >> : run afoul of some regulation that even his subordinates were not aware
    >: >> : of. "To get this cleared up, why don't you show me the regulation that
    >: >> : prohibits photography of this sort and while you're at it, show me the
    >: >> : regulation that prohibits me from turning in unused postage for credit?"
    >: >> :
    >: >> : If/when he refuses or starts back peddling, look him in the eye and
    >: >> : request, then demand, if necessary that he reach out and get the postal
    >: >> : inspection service involved. If this pompous jerk is constipated, that
    >: >> : will clear him out real fast.
    >: >> :
    >: >> : I've personally used this ploy when told by somebody who didn't know
    >: >> : better that this or that could not be done when, in fact, I already knew
    >: >> : the regulation and that it COULD be done. As soon as the Inspection
    >: >> : service "button" was pushed, their attitude changed dramatically.
    >: >> :
    >: >> : Great fun! Go for it!
    >: >>
    >: >> The difference between your situation and that of the OP is that you knew the
    >: >> legal ground you were on and the OP doesn't. Under the circumstances I'd
    >: >> suggest that he not conflate the two issues. I'd deal with the stamp exchange
    >: >> question by going to another post office and finding out what they have to
    >: >> say. Only when that issue was settled (and maybe not even then) would I go
    >: >> back to the first P.O. and deal with the photography issue.
    >: >>
    >: >> FWIW, I once photographed an event in a post office (a tribute to the late
    >: >> postmaster after whom the building was named), and nobody said a word. But of
    >: >> course I wasn't there to complain about the service at the stamp window. :^)
    >: >>
    >: >> Bob
    >: >
    >: > There are some battles not worth the fight. As I understand it, the
    >: > OP took a photograph of post office employees in a post office while
    >: > they were at work without asking their permission. While they did not
    >: > object at the time, they were not given the opportunity to agree or
    >: > object.
    >: >
    >: > The supervisor, though, does disagree. For some reason, he or she is
    >: > upset about it.
    >: >
    >: > There's nothing to be gained by finding out the legalities of the
    >: > situation. It's done. The OP has his photos and it will blow over at
    >: > the post office if it's dropped here.
    >: >
    >: > If the OP presses this, what's going to happen is that the supervisor
    >: > is going to take it out on the employees. Any further fuss over this
    >: > is only going create problems for the employees.
    >: >
    >: > I take a lot of candid photographs, and I believe in the rights of the
    >: > photographer as much as anyone here, but I'm not going to get some
    >: > employee's ass chewed out by his supervisor even if the supervisor is
    >: > wrong.
    >: >
    >: > I'd let it go.
    >: >
    >: >
    >:
    >: FWIW. I've never met a post office employee who didn't deserve an ass
    >: chewing. Just sayin'.
    >
    >I have, often. Every time I've done business at the window in the post office
    >across the street from my office, the clerks have been unfailingly friendly
    >and helpful.


    I can't recall dealing with a post office employee who needed an
    ass-chewing based in his interaction with me. I can recall many, many
    post office patron who deserved an ass-kicking based on the way they
    treated the post office employee.

    The most recent example was a customer who threw a profane hissy fit
    because the post office clerk refused to accept a "package" that was a
    grocery bag with a little Scotch tape and wanted to insure the package
    for $250. Bits of the contents were already poking through the bag.

    The only thing I've ever experienced in the way of a near-argument
    with a post office clerk was when I wanted to mail a coin by
    registered mail. The post office will not accept a package containing
    currency (if declared), but there is a stated exception to the rule
    for numismatic coinage or currency. The clerk wasn't aware of the
    exception, but the branch manager looked it up and accepted the
    package.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 30, 2013
    #7
  8. Danny D.

    MaxD Guest

    On 3/30/2013 9:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-03-30 07:27:06 -0700, MaxD <> said:
    >
    >> On 3/29/2013 11:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

    >
    > <<< L Snip >>>
    >>>
    >>> I take a lot of candid photographs, and I believe in the rights of the
    >>> photographer as much as anyone here, but I'm not going to get some
    >>> employee's ass chewed out by his supervisor even if the supervisor is
    >>> wrong.
    >>>
    >>> I'd let it go.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> FWIW. I've never met a post office employee who didn't deserve an ass
    >> chewing. Just sayin'.

    >
    > Then you ought to take a visit to the Paso Robles, California post
    > office, where you will find staff as efficient, and helpful as you might
    > find in some of the best managed, user friendly businesses in the
    > country. It is a fairly large post office which deals with the needs of
    > a medium size town and the vast rural delivery needs found in Northern
    > San Luis Obispo County. I can't remember being treated less than
    > civilly, or getting less than good service from any of that branch's
    > employees.
    >
    > Methinks you are tarring all USPS employees with the same brush.
    >
    >


    Not at all. I really meant to limit my disparaging remark to actual post
    office employees and not to postal deliverymen/women.
    I have had some good deliverymen and some not so good.
    On the other hand my original comment stands.
    I may not have had enough exposure since during our travels I rarely use
    a post office. But the local (El Paso, TX) service in the offices is
    nothing to be proud of.
     
    MaxD, Mar 31, 2013
    #8
  9. Danny D.

    MaxD Guest

    On 3/30/2013 10:38 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:27:06 -0600, MaxD <> wrote:


    > :
    > : FWIW. I've never met a post office employee who didn't deserve an ass
    > : chewing. Just sayin'.
    >
    > I have, often. Every time I've done business at the window in the post office
    > across the street from my office, the clerks have been unfailingly friendly
    > and helpful.
    >
    > Bob
    >


    There seem to be several fortunate post office patrons here.
    It might have been my unfortunate experience to be attended to shortly
    after some particularly disgruntled customer who left the clerk in a bad
    mood. I try to be as unassuming and pleasant as I can when dealing with
    the public (or, in this case P.O. employees) because I use to wear
    shirts with a logo for "Agency Services", my small company.
    Maybe it's a local meme. :)
     
    MaxD, Mar 31, 2013
    #9
  10. Danny D.

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 30, 1:59 am, (Edward McArdle) wrote:
    > This is actually the opposite of the question asked, but nowadays it is
    > possible to take a picture almost anywhere without anyone noticing.
    > There are places where you are forbidden to take photos (eg. with anything
    > over a 200mm lens at the Australian Open tennis), but it is simple to
    > break the rule. I have a small camera with a 5-100mm lens. As it is not
    > 35mm, this is actually a 28 - 560 mm equivalent.


    Technology triumphs over the ignorant rule-makers.
     
    RichA, Mar 31, 2013
    #10
  11. Danny D.

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/30/2013 11:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-03-30 07:27:06 -0700, MaxD <> said:
    >
    >> On 3/29/2013 11:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

    >
    > <<< L Snip >>>
    >>>
    >>> I take a lot of candid photographs, and I believe in the rights of the
    >>> photographer as much as anyone here, but I'm not going to get some
    >>> employee's ass chewed out by his supervisor even if the supervisor is
    >>> wrong.
    >>>
    >>> I'd let it go.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> FWIW. I've never met a post office employee who didn't deserve an ass
    >> chewing. Just sayin'.

    >
    > Then you ought to take a visit to the Paso Robles, California post
    > office, where you will find staff as efficient, and helpful as you might
    > find in some of the best managed, user friendly businesses in the
    > country. It is a fairly large post office which deals with the needs of
    > a medium size town and the vast rural delivery needs found in Northern
    > San Luis Obispo County. I can't remember being treated less than
    > civilly, or getting less than good service from any of that branch's
    > employees.
    >
    > Methinks you are tarring all USPS employees with the same brush.
    >
    >


    I am forced to disagree. the workers at our local PO would be hard to
    top for being friendly and efficient. Indeed I have rarely found a USPS
    employee who isn't quite friendly and helpful. They are people and if
    you cop an attitude, they certainly would be justified in responding in
    kind.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 1, 2013
    #11
  12. Danny D.

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/30/2013 3:46 PM, Frank S wrote:
    >
    > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > news:2013033008333994091-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2013-03-30 07:27:06 -0700, MaxD <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 3/29/2013 11:31 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

    >>
    >> <<< L Snip >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I take a lot of candid photographs, and I believe in the rights of the
    >>>> photographer as much as anyone here, but I'm not going to get some
    >>>> employee's ass chewed out by his supervisor even if the supervisor is
    >>>> wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd let it go.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> FWIW. I've never met a post office employee who didn't deserve an ass
    >>> chewing. Just sayin'.

    >>
    >> Then you ought to take a visit to the Paso Robles, California post
    >> office, where you will find staff as efficient, and helpful as you
    >> might find in some of the best managed, user friendly businesses in
    >> the country. It is a fairly large post office which deals with the
    >> needs of a medium size town and the vast rural delivery needs found in
    >> Northern San Luis Obispo County. I can't remember being treated less
    >> than civilly, or getting less than good service from any of that
    >> branch's employees.
    >>
    >> Methinks you are tarring all USPS employees with the same brush.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > http://farm1.staticflickr.com/53/152575135_5a992d24ff_o.jpg
    >
    > USPS employee at work in the Passport Photo Studio, February 2005.
    >
    > The sky and Earth didn't open up, no thunder nor lightning.
    >


    So you never take a coffee break?

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 1, 2013
    #12
  13. Danny D.

    Danny D. Guest

    Re: Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?

    On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:46:53 -0700 Frank S wrote:

    > http://farm1.staticflickr.com/53/152575135_5a992d24ff_o.jpg
    > USPS employee at work in the Passport Photo Studio, February 2005.


    But, is it illegal, as the OIC said, or not?
    Anyone know for sure?
     
    Danny D., Apr 1, 2013
    #13
  14. Danny D.

    Danny D. Guest

    Re: Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?

    On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:54:31 -0800 Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    > It is private property that is open to the public.
    >
    > That means you can photograph to your heart's content as
    > long as the manager or clerks do not object. They do
    > have the option to ask you to leave if you don't stop.
    > Not leaving would put you in violation of tresspass
    > laws.


    Do you know where we can find this written down so that
    I can show it to the postal service?

    Here, for example, is a sample pic (with identities blurred):
    http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12561500/img/12561500.jpg
     
    Danny D., Apr 1, 2013
    #14
  15. Danny D.

    Danny D. Guest

    Re: Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?

    On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:01:37 -0400 Scott Schuckert wrote:

    > legally, they're a private company that's been given a
    > monopoly contract to deliver the mail.


    This is interesting.

    So do we know what the law is about taking pictures at
    a private company which is open to the public?
     
    Danny D., Apr 1, 2013
    #15
  16. Danny D.

    Danny D. Guest

    Re: Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?

    On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:31:21 -0400 Alan Browne wrote:

    > I could take photos of the postal clerk and I doubt she would object.


    This clerk did NOT object - but - when I called back later to complain
    to the manager about them not taking stamps, THEN the manager objected
    but I doubted the manager was telling me the truth (on either issue):
    http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12561500/img/12561500.jpg

    I can't tell, from the responses, if the Post Office is a public or
    private company which is open to the public, so it really would be
    nice to see a rule that says what pictures can be taken, either way.
     
    Danny D., Apr 1, 2013
    #16
  17. Danny D.

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 06:50:46 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

    > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:31:21 -0400 Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >> I could take photos of the postal clerk and I doubt she would object.

    >
    > This clerk did NOT object - but - when I called back later to complain
    > to the manager about them not taking stamps, THEN the manager objected
    > but I doubted the manager was telling me the truth (on either issue):
    > http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12561500/img/12561500.jpg
    >
    > I can't tell, from the responses, if the Post Office is a public or
    > private company which is open to the public, so it really would be
    > nice to see a rule that says what pictures can be taken, either way.


    The USPS was owned by the US government but then a few decades ago it was
    privatized.
    Like any other private company, they can restrict photo shoots at any time
    they so choose.
    Is it illegal? Probably not. Those in power, or think they have the power,
    like to show off their intelligence and authority by barking out "it's
    illegal!". Even when it isn't.

    If that happened to me I'd say, "Ok fine. Have your postal inspector arrest
    me and charge me. You will then be able to explain to the judge precisely
    why I was arrested and charged. What are you gonna do when he dismisses the
    case?"
     
    richard, Apr 1, 2013
    #17
  18. Danny D.

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 06:48:07 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:01:37 -0400 Scott Schuckert wrote:
    >
    >> legally, they're a private company that's been given a
    >> monopoly contract to deliver the mail.

    >
    >This is interesting.
    >
    >So do we know what the law is about taking pictures at
    >a private company which is open to the public?


    The ownership of the "company" is not the issue. The USPO is the
    owner of the property, and can dictate the rules of what can be done
    on that property. If they want to prohibit photography, they can.

    You seem to feel that there has to be a specific law about a specific
    action. That's not correct.

    Many businesses prohibit photography, require a dress code (no shirt,
    no shoes, no service), require an ID for admittance, and otherwise
    prohibit certain things on their property.

    Look no further than Burger King, a private company that is open to
    the public, as an example of this.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Apr 1, 2013
    #18
  19. Re: Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?

    Edward McArdle <> wrote:
    > This is actually the opposite of the question asked, but nowadays it is
    > possible to take a picture almost anywhere without anyone noticing.
    > There are places where you are forbidden to take photos (eg. with anything
    > over a 200mm lens at the Australian Open tennis), but it is simple to
    > break the rule.


    Try selling sich photos to a sports magazine. :)

    > I have a small camera with a 5-100mm lens. As it is not
    > 35mm, this is actually a 28 - 560 mm equivalent.


    It is, however, actually a 5-100mm lens, and thus *not*
    over 200mm.
    And you said the rule was against anything "over a 200mm lens"
    not "over a lens equivalent to 200mm on FF", so there.

    > It is also forbidden to take videos at all - but almost any camera today
    > will take video.
    > And if you have a 20 megapixel camera, you can take a photo and blow up
    > that little bit in the middle.


    Yep, if you blow it up by a meagre factor of 1.5 --- equivalent
    to using a mere 300mm lens instead a 200mm lens --- you're
    left with only 9 MPix. You're much much better off using a
    2x teleconverter and/or a tiny sensor with high pixel pitch
    in first place-

    > And you don't have to put a camera up to your eye to take a picture.


    You never had to!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 1, 2013
    #19
  20. Re: Is it really illegal to snap a picture of a clerk in a PostOffice?

    Jennifer Murphy <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:14:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."


    >>May I ask:
    >> Legally, in California, in a Post Office, when nobody objects,
    >> is it against the law to snap a photograph or otherwise record
    >> the transaction?


    > I have no idea what the law is about taking the photo, but I'm pretty
    > sure that whether anyone objects or not is irrelevent. Otherwise, I
    > could walk into a store, take what I want, and leave. If no one
    > objected, I'd be in the clear.


    So you're one of the people that claim photography will steal
    your soul, or at least deprive you of cash or goods?

    How about looking at something in a store, memorizing prices (or
    even writing them down!) and then buying where it is cheapest?
    That *does* real financial damage to all the stores where you
    didn't buy! There must be a law where you must buy whatever
    you look at in a store to protect the rights of the storekeepers
    everywhere!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 1, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Consultant
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    555
    Consultant
    Aug 7, 2003
  2. Rick
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,122
    Brian The Demolition Man Little
    Mar 7, 2006
  3. Lou

    Nikon Picture Project illegal operation error

    Lou, Jan 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,233
    frederick
    Jan 25, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    514
  5. walt tonne
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    401
Loading...

Share This Page