There's something seriously screwed up with people in this country. I was in Starbucks last night when my friend and I saw this hilarious sign for a product. I went to order and took a picture of it, fully intent on getting some 8th grade humor with it on facebook.

The crone at the counter starts yelling at me, telling me that I can't take pictures in their store. I asked her to clarify and she said that I can't take pictures in Starbucks especially of their products. Despite the crazed lack of planning in that marketing idea, I told her that I worked for the a LE agency and that you have every right to take pictures in public. She told me she was going to call the police and I said "great. I'm sure you'll learn a lot about the law."

What is it about controlling everything in society?

About this issue you are, unfortunately, mistaken. Starbucks is private property and entry is by revocable license. If Starbucks (or any other store) wants to prohibit photography, it is entirely within its rights to do so. You are confusing the law regarding use of photographs taken in locations where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, which could include a Starbucks, with the right of a property owner to control the use of his property.

Your lesson for the day: You can be prohibited from taking pictures on private property, and yes, she can call the police. Her recourse is limited to having you arrested for trespassing if you refuse to leave. She might be a jerk, but she's correct.

Edited: The lawyer beat me to it by 2 minutes, but you now have the same info from a better qualified source.

I don't argue the point that a private property owner can do pretty much as they want but would they not have to provide some form of notice so a person would know what restrictions were in place when entering the store?

Many businesses do. However, they told you the restriction when you started taking pictures. As I indicated, the license to enter is revocable.

The funniest part of that is that Starbucks has a Flickr group in which they invite people to take pictures inside Starbucks stores and put them on the Starbucks Flickr group.

There are dozens of stories of people trying to take photos for the Starbucks Flickr who are told that Starbucks has a corporate policy against photos in its stores.

It was probably an attempt by an individual manager to not have their store seen in a bad condition. It's my understanding that Starbucks managers have a great deal of latitude and responsibility when it comes to their stores. They're probably afraid of somebody at corporate (or the local health department!) seeing a photo with empty cups lying around, dusty tables, newspapers strewn all over, etc.

If Starbucks managers are so afraid of being caught asleep/not doing their jobs, then perhaps they should stop acting like TSA employees (who apparently have entitlements to receive checks no matter how lazy/incompetent they are at their job).

Now that's interesting! I didn't know that. Speaking from my own personal experience (at a much, much smaller company), it's not unusual for Legal to not know what Marketing is up to.

Those darn creative types!

Well, not until you posted about it.

=aw

Searching for something else, I came across this:

Other countries???

The TSA has strong-armed other countries into accepting their 'help' and 'training' if they want to have flights land in the US. As far as facial 'glitches' or 'microexpressions' or any of that human lie detector stuff, I think perhaps the people in charge of the TSA are not aware of this:

Lie to Me is not a documentary.

I swear I am so tempted to break out in Jim Carey Liar Liar mode:

The Canadian surrender monkeys for one .

The last thing I would ever provide a LEO with is my SSN. The chances are good that they will relay it over an open radio frequency that anybody could hear with a scanner or one of the live streams on the internet.



I don't like their over-roasted crappy coffee anyway, so that's just another reason to avoid them.