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

[Danny D.]

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?

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:14:30 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

>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.

[Unquestionably Confused]

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!

[Floyd L. Davidson]

"Danny D." <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:
>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?

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.

Your described incident did not involve anyone
suggesting that you leave. Therefore you do not appear
to have broken any law.

(In fact I do not really know if it would be legal for a
postal employee to demand that you leave a Post Office
because you are taking pictures. If one did that, I
would consult an attorney if it was actually a problem.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com

[Robert Coe]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:47:04 -0500, Unquestionably Confused
<puzz...@ameritech.net> wrote:

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

[Tony Cooper]

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

[Edward McArdle]

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

--
Edward McArdle

[Scott Schuckert]

In article <kj5hq6$c2p$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.

<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

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

Maybe. As a previous poster said, they have the right to ask you to
stop, and require you to leave if you don't. If you follow these
instructions, you've haven't broken any laws; if you don't, it's
trespass. It's important to know that USPS facilities are private
property. Despite all appearances, the post office is no longer part of
the government; legally, they're a private company that's been given a
monopoly contract to deliver the mail.

Regarding the postage exchange, that rule, as far as I know, changed
some time ago. A friendly counter clerk MAY change stamps for you, if
the stamps are usable and he can put them back in his inventory. Stuck
onto a piece of paper, no way.

I'm not a postal employee, but my SO is - this this is gleaned from
many, many "how was your day" conversations...

[MaxD]

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

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-30 07:27:06 -0700, MaxD <gmd...@att.net> 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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:27:06 -0600, MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:

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

[Tony Cooper]

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.

[Frank S]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2013033008333994091-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

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.

--
Frank ess

[Savageduck]

I like the studio lighting. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.03.29 22:14 , Danny D. wrote:
> Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
<>

> 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?

No idea. But really ... the US post office is still on rules that date
to the pony express when cameras were a novelty. I doubt there is a
rule against taking a photo.

The person to ask would be the local postmaster. Not an employee in a
store. If the "officer in charge" claims such a rule, ask him to
produce the rule next time you're by the shop. And "local" rules don't
count.

The question to ask, always (of cops, guards and now posties) is:

"Oh, is that so? Please produce the rule or law. If you can't
produce it I'll wait while you call your supervisor and ask him
to produce it. What is your name again? Spell that please? Your
badge/employee number? Yes, indeed, whenever I'm harassed I make
sure I have what I need to report it."

I often ship parcels or registered letters and I always take a bar-scan
of the shipping label (using the Canada Post app and phone camera). I
could take photos of the postal clerk and I doubt she would object.



--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.03.30 10:01 , Scott Schuckert wrote:

> property. Despite all appearances, the post office is no longer part of
> the government; legally, they're a private company that's been given a
> monopoly contract to deliver the mail.

Despite re-org it remains an agency (government monopoly) of the US
Gubmint. The bored gubners are appointed by the guy at 1600 PA Av in
DC. (staggered terms).

[MaxD]

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]

On 3/30/2013 10:38 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:27:06 -0600, MaxD <gmd...@att.net> 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. :-)

[RichA]

On Mar 30, 1:59 am, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (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.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-30 19:29:32 -0700, MaxD <gmd...@att.net> said:

> On 3/30/2013 9:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-03-30 07:27:06 -0700, MaxD <gmd...@att.net> 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.

The USPS employees I speak of work behind the counter, in the sorting
rooms, are USPS delivery persons, and rural delivery contractors.

> 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.

Well, that is Texas for you.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

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]

So you never take a coffee break?

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-31 16:34:01 -0700, PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> said:

> On 3/30/2013 11:33 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-03-30 07:27:06 -0700, MaxD <gmd...@att.net> 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.

Who are you disagreeing with, MaxD, or me??

> 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.

You seem to be in agreement with me.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Danny D.]

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.]

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.]

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.]

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.

[richard]

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?"

[Neil Ellwood]

It is not illegal in the UK - but what would they be doing over here?



--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

[Tony Cooper]

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.

[Scott Schuckert]

In article <kpe2ezjdgw6d$.13pd0eeg65d72$.d...@40tude.net>, richard

<nor...@example.com> wrote:

> 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?"

Sort of like "I'm allergic!" or "I'm calling my lawyer!" Occasionally
true, or appropriate, but mostly means "I don't like that" or "Stop
doing that."

In this case, and as previously stated, it's only illegal if they ask
you to stop, or leave, and you don't. Then it's trespassing. The
official policy is THIS, straight from the USPS::
----------------------
Still Photography

For Personal Use: Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal
use may be allowed at the discretion of the Postmaster so long as there
is no disruption to Postal Service� operations and provided the
pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases,
no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and
Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and
Postal Service employees, customers, cover of mail and security cameras
cannot be depicted in the pictures. Postmasters may restrict any and
all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are
potential security concerns.
----------------------
The key phrase there is "at the discretion of the Postmaster".
According to my girlfriend, who is a USPS supervisor, the default is
virtually always going to be "NO" unless you have prior permission. Who
knows why you're taking them, and there are "terrorists" in every
wastebasket. More seriously, postal facilities DO get robbed, though
they make every effort to keep it out of the media.

[Martin Brown]

You are stood on privately owned land and the landowner has rights over
what he permits when you are stood on his land. There have been a
handful of very spectacular image rights cases involving photographs
taken on private property that were then used in advertising campaigns.
There may well be a notice on the wall stating what is permitted. Many
sport venues, supermarkets and department stores have similar policies.

It isn't illegal in the UK but it is civil trespass if you do not cease
and desist from taking photographs on private land when asked to do so.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Savageduck]

On 2013-04-01 08:18:40 -0700, Martin Brown

All of that makes perfect sense for photography on private premises,
such as almost all private property, some sports venues, many malls,
etc, and naturally, public property where there are legitimate security
concerns. However, the most interesting thing in in your post is your
turn of phrase, "You are stood". Somehow that sounds as if the reader
is wheeled out strapped to a hand truck, much like Hannibal Lector in
"The Silence of the Lambs" and "stood" in place on the particular
location.

Were you perhaps looking for "are standing"?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Francis C.]

Scott Schuckert wrote:

> Postal Service employees, customers, cover of mail and security cameras
> cannot be depicted in the pictures.

I think the picture that was posted had a postal service employee in it,
didn't it?

One could argue that the identifying features were blacked out though.

[Roy]

The USPS is an independent government agency and not a private company

Post offices are either federal buildings or leased space.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Edward McArdle <mca...@ozemail.com.au> 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]

Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> 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

[MaxD]

I think the internet and discount houses have pretty much made
"storekeepers" obsolete. Unfortunate for the purists but nonetheless true.

[Whisky-dave]

Would it depend on notices given or shown.

Here at unni. we are allowed to use CCTV on the campus but those pictures aren't be for general view to the masses. I was told that if I had CCTV in the lab these could be viewed but not saved or stored. If the CCTV can't been seen by everyone then it is OK for me to record such things.
On campus you can take pictures provided a person can't be singled out as being important unless we get their permission but I'm unclear as to whether that is a before or after the event.

[Scott Schuckert]

In article
<Hd6dnaa_VOsQLcTM...@posted.southvalleyinternet>, Roy

<aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

> The USPS is an independent government agency and not a private company
>

Citation, please. The postal employees I know (including the one I live
with) seem to disagree; to the point of stubbornly correcting people in
conversation if they say the post office is "part of the government."

The reality is probably that USPS is a unique neither-fish-nor-fowl
entity, but THEY are very insistent they're a private company.

> Post offices are either federal buildings or leased space.

Which proves? For a long time MY office was in city owned buildings,
but I wasn't part of the Philadelphia government.

[Savageduck]

A little verifiable research provides the answers to quite a few
questions regarding this subject:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Scott Schuckert]

In article <2013040213025428635-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> A little verifiable research provides the answers to quite a few
> questions regarding this subject:
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

Thank you. I will throw this in the face of the Significant Other next
time she starts up with the "I'm NOT a government employee!" stuff.

[Savageduck]

The whole issue of the private company vs Government agency argument
can be confusing, mainly due to the way it is funded and the employees'
pension fund is dealt with.
Note: that due to a bunch of Federal budget changes, postal workers are
no longer part of the Civil Service Retirement System and no longer
have payroll deductions into that system. Your wife should be part
whatever Postal Civil Service Retirement Service provides. Due to this
seperation she might not consider herself a "Government employee", but
she should check and confirm that the term "Civil Servant" is part of
how her wages are paid, and what she is going to depend on regarding
her pension.

Then, in the Wikipedia article above there is the confusing statement,
"The United States Postal Service is a Fortune 500 company." That of
course conflicts with the opening statement, "The USPS is an
independant agency of the United States government responsible for
providing postal service in the United States. Once one checks to
discover that there is no trading of the USPS on the NYSE or NASDAQ
that issue is a little clearer. The Fortune 500 ranking is due to its
status as the USA's second largest civilian employer with 574,000
personnel (as of 2011).

The other thing to consider is crimes associated with Postal Service in
the USA is dealt with by a Federal Law enforcement agency, and all
associated Postal crimes are Federal crimes punishable in Federal
Court, not State or local ordinances.

So while you wife might, as a Postal Worker, feel abandoned by the US
government in many ways, she is still intrinsically part of it, and can
wear the label "Civil Servant" with honor.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Frank S]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2013040215500089814-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

10-4.

There is "a rat" in "separate".

--
Frank ess

[Savageduck]

Phingrr phawlt


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:53:26 -0400, Scott Schuckert <n...@aol.com>
wrote:

>In article
><Hd6dnaa_VOsQLcTM...@posted.southvalleyinternet>, Roy
><aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>> The USPS is an independent government agency and not a private company
>>
>
>Citation, please.

Evidently, Google is broken at your end. Easy to fix.

>The postal employees I know (including the one I live
>with) seem to disagree; to the point of stubbornly correcting people in
>conversation if they say the post office is "part of the government."
>

The Duck has kindly done what you evidently can't: Googled for a
cite.

>The reality is probably that USPS is a unique neither-fish-nor-fowl
>entity, but THEY are very insistent they're a private company.
>
>> Post offices are either federal buildings or leased space.
>
>Which proves? For a long time MY office was in city owned buildings,
>but I wasn't part of the Philadelphia government.

The people who leased or rented space in the building - including your
employer - were able to impose any restriction on the space they
leased or rented that were not illegal restrictions. One of those
restrictions could have been prohibiting photography.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

MaxD <gmd...@att.net> wrote:
> On 4/1/2013 6:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Jennifer Murphy <JenM...@jm.invalid> wrote:

>>> 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!

> I think the internet and discount houses have pretty much made
> "storekeepers" obsolete. Unfortunate for the purists but nonetheless true.

It may be unfortunate for purists that you think that,
fortunately you are wrong.

-Wolfgang

[jimsdr...@gmail.com]

The postal service DOES NOT have a monopoly contract to deliver mail. They only have a right to the "mail box"
Put a box up that says UPS or FEDEX and it is perfectly lea gal for anone to send letters through these or any other delivery service.
However, sending mail by a currier other than USPS will be about 30x more expensive.
The USPS IS a branch of the federal government, not a private company, although they operate on their own generated funds, not tax money

[Mark Sieving]

Old question, but if anyone is still interested:

https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html

Photography and Filming for Personal Use

Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal

use may be allowed at the postmaster's discretion provided
that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations
and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to
the public. In these cases, no prior permis-sion is required

from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no

lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can
depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera,
or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mail-piece, which
would show customer name and address among other things).

[pavo...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-5, Danny D. wrote:
> 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?

I don't know where any of you are getting your legal opinions, but it is illegal to photograph ANY federal building, including Post Offices - period!! So, unless you want to end up on a no-fly list for the rest of your days, I wouldn't push the issue. And, I totally don't understand what you were trying to do with the 32 cent stamps, but exchanging stamps is not allowed and sticking them on a piece of paper invalidates the stamp, whether or not that it has been 'cancelled' (we don't "stamp" stamps, we cancel them)

[Tony Cooper]

The post being replied to was originally sent on March 29, 2013.

The responder must be very much behind in keeping up if it takes him
almost 2.5 years to come up with a reply.

[nospam]

In article <cd37b234-1074-465a...@googlegroups.com>,

<pavo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know where any of you are getting your legal opinions, but it is
> illegal to photograph ANY federal building, including Post Offices - period!!

nonsense.

[Davoud]

<pavo...@gmail.com>:

> I don't know where any of you are getting your legal opinions, but it is
> illegal to photograph ANY federal building, including Post Offices - period!!

Really? The tourist season is upon us in Washington, D.C. Each year
millions upon millions of photographs are made of the White House, the
U.S. Capitol, the museums, and every other federal building that has
even the tiniest bit of historical or architectural significance. And
it's all legal.

> So, unless you want to end up on a no-fly list for the rest of your days, I
> wouldn't push the issue. And, I totally don't understand what you were
> trying to do with the 32 cent stamps, but exchanging stamps is not allowed
> and sticking them on a piece of paper invalidates the stamp, whether or not
> that it has been 'cancelled' (we don't "stamp" stamps, we cancel them)

You're just downright laughable.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[Savageduck]

On 2015-06-19 03:42:09 +0000, Davoud <st...@sky.net> said:

> <pavo...@gmail.com>:
>> I don't know where any of you are getting your legal opinions, but it is
>> illegal to photograph ANY federal building, including Post Offices - period!!
>
> Really? The tourist season is upon us in Washington, D.C. Each year
> millions upon millions of photographs are made of the White House, the
> U.S. Capitol, the museums, and every other federal building that has
> even the tiniest bit of historical or architectural significance. And
> it's all legal.
>
>> So, unless you want to end up on a no-fly list for the rest of your days, I
>> wouldn't push the issue. And, I totally don't understand what you were
>> trying to do with the 32 cent stamps, but exchanging stamps is not allowed
>> and sticking them on a piece of paper invalidates the stamp, whether or not
>> that it has been 'cancelled' (we don't "stamp" stamps, we cancel them)
>
> You're just downright laughable.

The only thing which might be problematic for a photographer shooting
shots of any employee inside a post office is, regardless of it being a
Federal building, the employees have privacy rights at their place of
work. I would imagine the postmaster has every right to deny taking
shots of any of the employees without a release, and I doubt that would
be signed, particularly since the photographer is a crank with an
agenda.

I imagine that this nut was a hair's breath from being hauled out of
there as a trespasser.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[onev...@ozemail.com.au]

I tried to take a photo of the letter that was stamped and ready to go off on its journey ... I did that just for my own records - no clerk or any human for that matter was photographed - today the guy told me that I can't take photos ... I don't understand WHY ... :/ I photographed the envelope - NOTHING ELSE ... assholes

[Savageduck]

On 2016-09-16 04:02:59 +0000, onev...@ozemail.com.au said:

> I tried to take a photo of the letter that was stamped and ready to go off
> on its journey ... I did that just for my own records - no clerk or any hum
> an for that matter was photographed - today the guy told me that I can't ta
> ke photos ... I don't understand WHY ... :/ I photographed the envelope - N
> OTHING ELSE ... assholes

You are not in a public open space. Effectively you are on USPS
property which is the same as any corporate property and the moment you
walk through the door and you no longer have the right to take
photographs as you would if you were on the street or in a park where
there are no restrictions ad everybody is fair game. If you wanted to
take a photo of the letter before mailing it, you should have done that
before entering the post office. I would not be surprised to find a
notice posted regarding photography of any type in a Post Office. You
might fid it alond with the notice stating that it is a Federal crime
to take a firearm into a Federal building.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, 16 September 2016 05:17:45 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2016-09-16 04:02:59 +0000, onev...@ozemail.com.au said:
>
> > I tried to take a photo of the letter that was stamped and ready to go off
> > on its journey ... I did that just for my own records - no clerk or any hum
> > an for that matter was photographed - today the guy told me that I can't ta
> > ke photos ... I don't understand WHY ... :/ I photographed the envelope - N
> > OTHING ELSE ... assholes
>
> You are not in a public open space. Effectively you are on USPS
> property which is the same as any corporate property and the moment you
> walk through the door and you no longer have the right to take
> photographs as you would if you were on the street or in a park where
> there are no restrictions ad everybody is fair game. If you wanted to
> take a photo of the letter before mailing it, you should have done that
> before entering the post office. I would not be surprised to find a
> notice posted regarding photography of any type in a Post Office. You
> might fid it alond with the notice stating that it is a Federal crime
> to take a firearm into a Federal building.

Here in the UK we have photocopiers in post offices so you can photocopy any documetns before sending them off and as they charge for this service I assume it's OK. Maybe using a camera to take a photo is illegal I don't know.

[lj]

> I tried to take a photo of the letter that was stamped and ready to go off
> on its journey ... I did that just for my own records - no clerk or any hum
> an for that matter was photographed - today the guy told me that I can't ta
> ke photos ... I don't understand WHY ...

Because it is the law.
Title 39 CFR 232.1 "Conduct on Postal Property", see (h) (5) (i) therein.
For example at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1

Short summary: News photography is allowed, all others require permission of
the postmaster.

There probably should be a poster up somewhere in the post office public area
titled "Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Postal Service Property"
with this and many other rules.

[RichA]

There are always going to be officious little bastards, spouting nonsense about privacy way above their pay-grade. Always find out for yourself if it's possible beforehand, if possible.

[russia...@gmail.com]

They pieces of shh. Even if u smile make their day they still break ur box

[gtoll...@gmail.com]

If they prosecute do they do it on the spot or do you get a know on the door 2 weeks after? I believe it would have to be on the spot because of evidence.

[kevinand...@gmail.com]

https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html

[gosn...@gmail.com]

Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply. LEARN MORE

mytubethumbplay
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view.
When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs.

[Savageduck]

On Jul 7, 2018, gosn...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<a44f6d1e-85ed-429c...@googlegroups.com>):

> Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a
> constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation
> facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their
> duties.

This is quite an old question which has been churned over quite often on the
photo NGs.

First of all, your assertion that taking photographs of things that are
plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right is a tad
misleading. The constitution does not address photography, and saying that
the act of taking a photograph is covered by the First Amendment is a bit of
a stretch.

> Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law
> enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public
> places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply.
> LEARN MORE

Ignorance has been known to infect law enforcement officers. However,
regardless of how right you might be, your entire day could be ruined if you
decide to debate any such ignorant officer.

>
> mytubethumbplay
> Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
> When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to
> photograph anything that is in plain view.

...er, OK.

>
> When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the
> taking of photographs.

...and they do, that includes the private property of the USPS.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

I seem to the question of your subject line was debated at length some
time ago and the conclusion that was eventually reached was that:

1. A Post Office is a space to which the public may have access but
it is not a 'public space' in the strict sense of that term.

2. The post office and its premises are the subject of acts and
regulations which define what should or should not be done.

3. Photographs may not be taken within a post office of the staff or
the premises without the permission of the post master.

I expect someone will correct me if I am wrong.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <62s2kd52tk3khdhhd...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to
> >photograph anything that is in plain view.
> >When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the
> >taking of photographs.
>
> I seem to the question of your subject line was debated at length some
> time ago and the conclusion that was eventually reached was that:
>
> 1. A Post Office is a space to which the public may have access but
> it is not a 'public space' in the strict sense of that term.
>
> 2. The post office and its premises are the subject of acts and
> regulations which define what should or should not be done.
>
> 3. Photographs may not be taken within a post office of the staff or
> the premises without the permission of the post master.
>
> I expect someone will correct me if I am wrong.

that might be true where you live but it isn't applicable to the usa,
where the post to which you are replying is referring.

for usa post offices:
<https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.
html>

Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be

allowed at the postmaster零 discretion provided that there is no

disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are
taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior

permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions;

however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can
depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or

cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2018 22:27:53 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <62s2kd52tk3khdhhd...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to
>> >photograph anything that is in plain view.
>> >When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the
>> >taking of photographs.
>>
>> I seem to the question of your subject line was debated at length some
>> time ago and the conclusion that was eventually reached was that:
>>
>> 1. A Post Office is a space to which the public may have access but
>> it is not a 'public space' in the strict sense of that term.
>>
>> 2. The post office and its premises are the subject of acts and
>> regulations which define what should or should not be done.
>>
>> 3. Photographs may not be taken within a post office of the staff or
>> the premises without the permission of the post master.
>>
>> I expect someone will correct me if I am wrong.
>
>that might be true where you live but it isn't applicable to the usa,
>where the post to which you are replying is referring.
>
>for usa post offices:
><https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.
>html>
> Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be

> allowed at the postmaster¹s discretion provided that there is no

> disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are
> taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior
> permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions;
> however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can
> depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or
> cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show
> customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may
> restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is
> disruptive or there are potential security concerns.

You have confirmed most of what I have written, particularly when you
wrote: "Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may
be allowed at the postmaster¹s discretion ... Postmasters may restrict

any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or
there are potential security concerns."

i.e. the Postmaster has powers which are not relevant to 'public
spaces' in the strict sense of that term.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <9hg5kdl4q6bdn74tq...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> I seem to the question of your subject line was debated at length some
> >> time ago and the conclusion that was eventually reached was that:
> >>
> >> 1. A Post Office is a space to which the public may have access but
> >> it is not a 'public space' in the strict sense of that term.
> >>
> >> 2. The post office and its premises are the subject of acts and
> >> regulations which define what should or should not be done.
> >>
> >> 3. Photographs may not be taken within a post office of the staff or
> >> the premises without the permission of the post master.
> >>
> >> I expect someone will correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> >that might be true where you live but it isn't applicable to the usa,
> >where the post to which you are replying is referring.
> >
> >for usa post offices:
> ><https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.
> >html>
> > Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be

> > allowed at the postmaster1s discretion provided that there is no

> > disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are
> > taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior
> > permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions;
> > however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can
> > depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or
> > cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show
> > customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may
> > restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is
> > disruptive or there are potential security concerns.
>
> You have confirmed most of what I have written, particularly when you
> wrote: "Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may

> be allowed at the postmaster1s discretion ... Postmasters may restrict

> any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or
> there are potential security concerns."

not quite.

you missed this key part:

> > In these cases, no prior
> > permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions;

which contradicts your #3.

basically, photos in the lobby area are not an issue as long as you
don't make a nuisance of yourself, however, the postmaster can still
tell you to leave.

as i said, it may be different where you are, but the original query
was about constitutional rights, therefore it's about the usa.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 22:34:59 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Not so. It is clear from the above that the Postmaster cannot grant
permission to take photographs when there will be disruption to Postal
Service operations or when the pictures are to be taken from areas not
accessible to the public. That's when the "Office of Rights and
Permissions" comes into the picture. This is quite a different enitity
from the Postmaster.

>
>basically, photos in the lobby area are not an issue as long as you
>don't make a nuisance of yourself, however, the postmaster can still
>tell you to leave.

That's another matter but it is still subject to the authority of the
Postaster.

>
>as i said, it may be different where you are, but the original query
>was about constitutional rights, therefore it's about the usa.

So too was my original response.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <aa1aaf74-a745-49a0...@googlegroups.com>,

<nikki.digita...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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?
>

> Yes! There is a little know FEDERAL Law from the late 1800's that prohibits
> it and is a felony to photograph a postal facility. I'm a professional
> photographer for 17 years. Very few people know this and you can
> get into some very deep legal trouble if you are actually charged/

then you should be able to cite it.

meanwhile, the us postal service says otherwise.

[Savageduck]

On Aug 5, 2018, nikki.digita...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<aa1aaf74-a745-49a0...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Friday, March 29, 2013 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-5, Danny D. wrote:
> > Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?

<<Excessive Nymshifter content snipped>>

> >
> > 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?
>
> Yes! There is a little know FEDERAL Law from the late 1800's that prohibits
> it and is a felony to photograph a postal facility. I'm a professional
> photographer for 17 years.

That is nice, but you don’t seem to have a comprehensive knowledge of
Federal Law. I hope your professional photography is better than your legal
prowess.

You might also have noticed that you are responding to a post from 2013, for
which answers have been provided.

> Very few people know this and you can get into
> some very deep legal trouble if you are actually charged/

Your actual knowledge on this subject seems to be quite thin, especially as
to what might constitute a felony. Who knows what that odd legal term “very
deep legal trouble” might actually be.

<https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html>

...and you should find this notice posted in the foyer of every USPS
facility.

<https://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf>

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[PeterN]

On 8/6/2018 12:52 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2018, nikki.digita...@gmail.com wrote
> (in article<aa1aaf74-a745-49a0...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Friday, March 29, 2013 at 9:14:30 PM UTC-5, Danny D. wrote:
>>> Is it illegal to snap a photograph of a clerk inside a post office?
>
> <<Excessive Nymshifter content snipped>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Yes! There is a little know FEDERAL Law from the late 1800's that prohibits
>> it and is a felony to photograph a postal facility. I'm a professional
>> photographer for 17 years.
>
> That is nice, but you don’t seem to have a comprehensive knowledge of
> Federal Law. I hope your professional photography is better than your legal
> prowess.
>
> You might also have noticed that you are responding to a post from 2013, for
> which answers have been provided.
>
>> Very few people know this and you can get into
>> some very deep legal trouble if you are actually charged/
>
> Your actual knowledge on this subject seems to be quite thin, especially as
> to what might constitute a felony. Who knows what that odd legal term “very
> deep legal trouble” might actually be.
>
> <https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html>

Pertinent quote:
"Here are a few examples of requests that must be directed to the Office
of Rights and Permissions:

A request to use the images of historic murals for commercial purposes.
(Commercial uses may include reproductions of the murals in books or on
posters, fine art prints, greeting cards, stationery, postcards,
clothing, or other merchandising items such as magnets, coffee mugs, or
other materials for resale.)
A request that requires the set up of equipment aside from the camera
itself (e.g., a tripod, ladder, lighting, or scaffolding).
A request to use a high-resolution, professional-grade camera."


I read your citations as being ambiguous.

While casual images may be taken, unless they show images of personal,
if the image is taken by a high resolution camera, (whatever that
means,) or for use in making a fine art print, (whatever that means,)
you need special permission.....

If someone with proper authority asks you to stop and you don't, at the
very minimum it could cost you a lot of time, and legal fees.

>
> ...and you should find this notice posted in the foyer of every USPS
> facility.
>
> <https://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf>
>

Well and clearly written: /End sarcastic tag

"Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes
Photographs for news purposes may be taken in" entrances, lobbies,
foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except
where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other
authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs
may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or
installation head."
But, I need permission to take a selfie with an iPhone.



--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

On Aug 6, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article <pka89...@news3.newsguy.com>):

What was ambiguous regarding obtaining permission for location type shoots at
a USPS facility?

I was not going to search through the Federal Code, as the USPS regulations
regarding photography were much more accessible.

There are similar permit requirements, rules, and ordinances established by
most municipalities, and the State Park, or National Park Services. Try to
engage in a professional location shoot almost anywhere in Manhattan, San
Francisco, State regional Park, or any NP, and see how fast you will be
confronted by a local authority.

>
>
> While casual images may be taken, unless they show images of personal,
> if the image is taken by a high resolution camera, (whatever that
> means,) or for use in making a fine art print, (whatever that means,)
> you need special permission.....
>
> If someone with proper authority asks you to stop and you don't, at the
> very minimum it could cost you a lot of time, and legal fees.

At the very minimum you would have an educational discussion with the local
postmaster or his/her deputy. I would believe that one’s acceptance of the
local authority’s educational briefing would negate any further escalation
leading to legal fees. That would take an attitude, and acceptance failure on
the part of the individual potential rule violator. I have no doubt that
there are individuals who would try to argue their point of view, and find
themselves explaining their argument in a Court.

The real ambiguity is the vague declaration of a potential 30 day jail
sentence for any violation of any of the posted rules, or regulations, which
as you well know means that there is no threat of a felony, just a
misdemeanor.

>
> >
> > ...and you should find this notice posted in the foyer of every USPS
> > facility.
> >
> > <https://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf>
> Well and clearly written: /End sarcastic tag
>
> "Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes
> Photographs for news purposes may be taken in" entrances, lobbies,
> foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except
> where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other
> authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs
> may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or
> installation head."
> But, I need permission to take a selfie with an iPhone.

The only “selfie” I have shot with my iPhone was the required photo for
the *Mobile Passport* app.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[PeterN]

I am not talking about felonies, unless things escalate. i am talking
about ambiguity in the regulation.

>>
>>>
>>> ...and you should find this notice posted in the foyer of every USPS
>>> facility.
>>>
>>> <https://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf>
>> Well and clearly written: /End sarcastic tag
>>
>> "Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes
>> Photographs for news purposes may be taken in" entrances, lobbies,
>> foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except
>> where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other
>> authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs
>> may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or
>> installation head."
>> But, I need permission to take a selfie with an iPhone.
>
> The only “selfie” I have shot with my iPhone was the required photo for
> the *Mobile Passport* app.
>

That's more selfies than I have ever taken, with the exception of a
growth to send to my dermatologist.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

On Aug 6, 2018, PeterN wrote

(in article <pkail...@news3.newsguy.com>):

If you are going to do any international flying *Mobile Passport* is a must
have app. So far I have only used it twice, and I have plans for another trip
in the New Year.

<https://mobilepassport.us>

The other thing any photographer doing any flying in the USA should have is
TSA Pre, which will give you a KTN, or *Known Traveller Number*. That makes
check-ins a breeze.

<https://www.tsa.gov/precheck>
--

Regards,
Savageduck

[PeterN]

Yep


--
PeterN

[rodw...@gmail.com]

Reply to Danny D.

Here is what is found on a legal law website link below:
(5) Except as part of postal activities or activities associated with those permitted under paragraph (h)(4) of this section, no tables, chairs, freestanding signs or posters, structures, or furniture of any type may be placed in postal lobbies or on postal walkways, steps, plazas, lawns or landscaped areas, driveways, parking lots, or other exterior spaces.

(i)Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes. Except as prohibited by official signs or the directions of security force personnel or other authorized personnel, or a Federal court order or rule, photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head.

This can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1

[johnbi...@gmail.com]

it is legal to take pictures inside a post office in unsecured public areas
you have no right to privacy in public if you do not want your picture taken stay home with curtians drawn


there is a sign in every postoffice that states this

[Savageduck]

On Apr 20, 2019, johnbi...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<2711efc0-d89b-4c39...@googlegroups.com>):

To start with you are responding to a six year old thread which started in
2013, and has been thoroughly beaten to death.

For USPS post offices in the USA the regulations are well defined, and have
been posted in this ancient thread several times.

<https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html>

[Ken Hart]

Refer to US Postal Service bulletin 22228.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html

There are three types of filming/recording referenced in this bulletin:
News, Film & TV Production, and Personal Use.

I assume you mean personal use photos.

"Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be

allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no

disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken
from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior

permis­sion is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions;

however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can
depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover

of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mail­piece, which would show customer

name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and
all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are
potential security concerns."

While you do have a reduced expectation of privacy in a public place,
your mail is private. By extension, the act of acquiring your mail would
also be private, so no pictures of customers.
The postal employees are in a workplace, so they have an expectation of
privacy.
The post office building has to be secure, so no photos of security
features.

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[nospam]

In article <q9f92p$kvm$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart

<kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:

> > it is legal to take pictures inside a post office in unsecured public areas
> > you have no right to privacy in public if you do not want your picture
> > taken stay home with curtians drawn
> >
> >
> > there is a sign in every postoffice that states this
> >
>
> Refer to US Postal Service bulletin 22228.
> https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
>
> There are three types of filming/recording referenced in this bulletin:
> News, Film & TV Production, and Personal Use.
>
> I assume you mean personal use photos.
> "Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be

> allowed at the postmasterąs discretion provided that there is no

> disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken
> from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior

> permis-sion is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions;

> however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can
> depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover

> of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mail-piece, which would show customer

> name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and
> all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are
> potential security concerns."
>
> While you do have a reduced expectation of privacy in a public place,

there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

> your mail is private.

nobody is suggesting people take photos of other people's mail.

> By extension, the act of acquiring your mail would
> also be private, so no pictures of customers.

false. there is nothing private about going to the post office and
getting mail.

photos of customers are among what's prohibited, except that it's
impossible to enforce it.

> The postal employees are in a workplace, so they have an expectation of
> privacy.

not when they are public facing, however, that doesn't matter since
it's among what's prohibited.

> The post office building has to be secure, so no photos of security
> features.

also listed as prohibited.