Not a lawyer, but I think it would have less to do with the space than the rules of belonging to the group/participating in a meeting. Unless you mean someone who isn't in the group taking pictures. Refraining just seems like common sense and respect.

Hil, I'm constantly getting spoiled for reality shows on FB, if I don't watch them when they air. I figure it's my own fault.

Oh, fucking god, I don't know if you've met racists until you've met all Jamaicans.

I hate to say this, but I'm pretty sure my grandmother was actually being racist against Jamaicans (or maybe other Caribbean folks), so that brings it full circle? She said something about the "dark" women who came to clean her house being mouthy. I figure it was actually an accent issue, and probably not really an attitude issue, but didn't explore it further with her.

The lifehacker post says it's illegal, period, so that's what I'm curious about. They never define "expectation of privacy". I mean, I can sit around and expect all I want. Does it take someone witnessing my expectation for it to have legal weight?

Jamaicans (or maybe other Caribbean folks)

Hey, we don't all look alike, you know?

The library is a public space - photos are taken. However, if someone starts taking photos of kids, without talking to parents or making some sort of annocemnet( lik I'm from the local newspaper) we ask questions .

When I worked retail it was no photography - because that is how ideas were stolen ( and shoplifting was planned.

In my gym they say no photography - and because it is private , at the very least they can bar you from the gym

I don't think the anonymity of AA members is so much a legally protected right as an ethical tradition that members hold to. For a non-member to take pictures of members during a meeting, I don't know what consequences that might trigger. Other than the meeting would probably go closed.

That said, meetings don't usually take place in public places per se, they're in rented meeting areas.

The lifehacker post says it's illegal, period, so that's what I'm curious about.

Yeah, I think they are wrong about that. But it's a common misperception.

Well, damn on Grace still having the trache.

Good luck with the house!

ION, I did get my car back from the mechanic for under a grand. Just barely. But the exhaust system (original) was all rusted out, radiator hoses badly needed replacing (this I also knew, I could hear the vacuum leak) which also meant a fluids flush AND the drive belts were way past due.... So, yeah. Still cheaper than a new car. And all maintenance related rather than random failure. That was last year's...whatever that was. Ehn.

Hey, we don't all look alike, you know?

I know that! But I really didn't want to explore past the one sentence with my crazy-ass grandmother, to see who she's actually prejudiced against.

Here's the two main mentions of AA:

Just because some places are public doesn't make them legal for photography. For instance, a bathroom is a public place, but people have an expectation of privacy in the bathroom, so photos are typically not a good idea. This is also the case with anywhere else people might expect privacy, including inside places like AA meetings or doctor's offices.

Finally, you can't publish a photo that gives away private information about someone. This includes things like the aforementioned AA meeting or doctor's office along with any other situation where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I don't have a full sense of the template he's using for privacy, exactly. I mean, I can take a picture of someone in the middle of Yosemite that "gives away private information". Can I take that but not publish it?

He also cites a "no telephoto" rule that's really cloudy.

Basically, I learnt that in Illinois the cops will try and stop you from photographing them based on "illegal wiretapping", but that's not supported by the court.

Also, yikes to Liese's Dave! Poor him.

Isn't "expectation of privacy" a legal thing?