let me explain some parts of the law

[joethenuts]

a lot of posters keep thinking that if its written in the law ,thats it.  well wrong ,ask any solicitor.

if that was the case we would not need any courts.

a law is written for instance law 1.   then there is only if  a  or   f   or section  bla , does not ocur.

lets talk about photos in a post office, once you hand over your letters and as soon as the postman stamps them ,they are deemed to be the property of the federal gov. once you touch or take a photo ,then theres privacy laws.  its simple its not yours anymore.

we also have posters complaining about paypal taking money out of your account when there is a problem.

read your contract with them , you agreed to there policy  ,if you dont agree dont sign up or take the contract to a solicitor. 

just because something is said in the law , companies have agreements with them  .  like the bank on charge backs  the law states a bank cant take money out of another banks client.  but the banks have an agreement that allows that.  and we all know that happens.

look at the law about porn movies , i still have had nobody answere that.  its simple the law states porn movies can only be sold in canberra.    have a look around  most suburbs have an adult shop.   i would say there is an agreement with the law.  these shops are not hidden , some are the size of small supermarkets.

in fact a couple of months ago i won an auction on ebay for some new steel paint tins and lids , when she gave me the pick up details  it was to an adult bookstore , i then looked at the  item number  in case i bid on the wrong line, but all correct. anyway i drive to the loading bay ,she opened up the roller door and my eyes nearly popped out , as i was loading the boxes , i did not ask why they had new empty paint tins , but i did ask why the girl on the corner wearing  just underwear was smiling at me ,she said thats a blow up doll , yes but whats her name.     lol

[pennyforum14]

but to satisfy paypal proof of lodgement dont i need a document of some kind stating the date and buyers address, and say this document is a photo (which has all this info), how does the privacy act prevent me from abtaining such proof ?? 

Exactly, even if Joe somehow managed to stumble on a tiny thread of truth about ownership of articles (however poorly expressed), with any government department, you always have the right to ask for a copy of whatever form or document you are lodging, bearing the department's lodgment stamp or the receiving officer's initials in the Office Use only box. 

I am one who photographs every non-tracked item I post, Joe. But if it upsets you to think I am "interfering" with the post by doing so, rest assured, I take each photo as the postmaster is weighing, labelling and stamping the next item so that I don't hold up other customers. I never actually touch the items in the photo process, and in any case, the final step in the process is paying for everything. So, as the photos are taken before I hand over the money, technically they still belong to me.  I'm sure if you sold a can of paint and handed it to the customer to carry to the cash register, you still would not consider it the buyer's property until they actually paid for it.  Otherwise you'd go out of business pretty quick.

[joethenuts]

TO PENNY  so the postmaster lodges them whithout paying you paying for them. amazing  , what if you dont have funds for what ever reason.   does that happen when you pay bills ,they stamp it paid before you pay them.   amazing.

you say technacly it still belongs to you  , have you not been reading  mr law man on this post , he says and everybodys kutos  it belongs to the buyer . 

[digital*ghost]

---

@queenslander-one wrote:

Australian Postal Law is quite clear on the matter. Copy below.

Rule 101  Articles carried by post to be taken to be Australia Post’s property

Quote

For the purpose of any legal proceeding or action in relation to an article carried by post or under the control of Australia Post, the article shall be taken to be, while it is being carried by post or under the control of Australia Post, the property of Australia Post.

In Australia, the seller is not legally responsible for delivery, only postage, therefore proof of postage is what is required.

---

Not to stir trouble, but I don't think that's quite a clear as first appears. Clear (to me) would be something that makes it inarguable that an article is considered AP's property at all times, as soon as it is in their possession - this only, actually, says if an article becomes the subject of (or involved in) legal proceedings / actions, then for all intents as purposes, the article will be treated (presumably during those proceedings) as though it was AP's property, not that it specifically is their property [ quite a different thing indeed], and that's a fairly narrow, specific circumstance, since I doubt even 1% of mail becomes involved in legal proceedings).

And even if I'm wrong, it's not intrinsically illegal to photograph government property, either. 

Some general information re the Privacy Act:

The Privacy Act and images

69.110 The Privacy Act protects personal information that is held, or collected for inclusion, in a ‘record’. A ‘record’ is defined to include a photograph or other pictorial representation of a person.[133] If an individual’s identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from a photograph or other image, then the collection, use and disclosure of that image is covered by the Privacy Act. This extends to video images as well as still photographs. The rest of this chapter uses the term ‘image’ to cover photographs and moving images. All of the privacy principles applicable to the collection and use and disclosure of personal information also will apply to the taking and publication of images.

69.111 As with other forms of personal information, the coverage of images is limited by the scope of the Privacy Act. For example, an image is not covered by the Privacy Act if it was taken by an individual who is acting in their private capacity. The image is also not covered if the image was taken by someone acting on behalf of a small business.[134] Similarly, images taken by a person acting on behalf of a state or territory agency are not covered by the Privacy Act, although they may be covered by a state or territory law.[135]

[pennyforum14]

Joe, do you make your buyers pay for their paint before you mix the colour for them?  I'd hazard a guess you don't.  I expect you ascertain their needs, mix the colour and make sure they are happy with it before you head to cash register to ring it up.  How many times does the buyer then not pay for the paint? 

I go the PO every day with on average 6-12 items for posting, it is a small PO (and not my closest one, I choose to drive across town because I prefer the service at the smaller PO) and my Postmaster trusts that I am not going to leeave without paying.  That said, even at the biggger, closer, Auspost owned PO, they apply the labels and stamp the items before I pay, it is normal practice.

[joethenuts]

to penny first of all paint is different  i hand paint over buyer does not have enough money i take can back   , you  get it lodged at a postoffice  but dont have money  whats the postoffice going to do with a stock on defaced stamp.

also can you see the scam here , person gives item like you to the postmaster he lodges it  you take a photo then you dont have money to pay for it , so postmaster takes off or cancelled the lodgement but you have a photo of lodgement proof on your i phone.

you have to be carefull when running a business lots of scamers around 

[dylan11235813]

Are you allowed to take a camera into the post office and take happy snaps of them franking the letters.

[pennyforum14]

Yes, I use my mobile phone camera and  the pics upload instantly to my cloud storage.  I am only taking a pic of the item on  the counter showing the postage label and franking stamp, never of the staff or surrounding area.  And I am not the only eBay seller who does it at my PO.

[digital*ghost]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

And even if I'm wrong, it's not intrinsically illegal to photograph government property, either. 

---

I suspect I may be, actually (not enough coffee, yet  ). I interpreted as "if, in these circumstances", but I've realised it could well (and/or most likely) mean "because of", which changes the entire meaning. 

[joethenuts]

to answere the paint mixing it is no different than you go to a reastaurant and order a steak  and when the order comes out ,can you decide to walk out whithout paying, paint if i make a mistake then thats my problem  , but if you come in and order a hog bristol 1/4 in a dulux 4 litre can and that is what i give you with the correct formula which is printed on the can , then yes you own it ,what next  going into a petrol station put $50 of petrol in your tank and then go and pay and say i only wanted $30 of petrol  or i have no money

[dylan11235813]

I usually just hand a big bundle over the counter, I should stand there and watch them cancel each one with my gopro (if I had one)