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 he
:
: 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'.