amazed and the ridicule american law on privacy. If you can go somewhere you can take pictures? Wow remind me to always wear protective headgear when travelling to the US as I certainly don't want the border guards to just take pictures for the heck of it. (They could of course by asking, but then I always want to make sure they are destroyed after I left for a certain amount of time and not kept indefinitely). Good to know as our company is looking into opening branches in the us, I won't be the consultant then.

@paul23 the contractor was there to make a record of goods to be moved. OP seems to be upset about the means the contractor used to make that record

@paul23: Uh, yeah. Pictures can be taken. USA has satelites taking pictures of even hostile areas of Earth (which military uses to help track targeted individuals). Expect in USA you may have video taken at borders, ports (airports, ferry terminals, etc.), grocery stores, banks and ATM machines, doorbells, traffic cameras (for law enforcement, & by news organizations getting real-time information on how fast traffic moves through an area). e.g. wsdot.com/travel/real-time/cameras/road/005/Bellingham/Fernd‌​ale & wsdot.com/travel/real-time/cameras/road/005/Bellingham/…

@paul23 If you travel to the US from another country, the border guards will definitely have the right to take pictures of you (and keep them for however long they feel like). If you are not happy with that then just don't travel to the US.

@paul23 The rules is basically the same in a lot of countries.

I don't know but at least any place in europe where I live (germanY) you are not allowed to take pictures in public areas. And government esp. need to provide proof of destruction upon demand (right to be forgotten). Especially the later part I'm surprised about in this answer. I would expect that for this case obviously you need to make pictures, but they serve a purpose and after need to be destroyed and proof should be given.

@Caleth As far as I am reading the question, the problem are the pictures taken during the move. Only the video walk was there to make a record of goods to be moved.

"you are not allowed to take pictures in public areas" Considering OP isn't talking about a public space, this whole comment thread is off-topic and is not improving this answer

@paul23 There is no right to be forgotten in U.S. law. It would probably be unconstitutional to establish one.

@paul23 In the EU a removal company would have a legitimate interest in recording the state of the goods it was moving, and retaining that information for the purpose of defending possible lawsuits. Otherwise step one in suing a removal company would be telling them to destroy all the evidence they could use to defend themselves. You don't have an absolute right to be forgotten in the EU.

@paul23, So all those tourists in Europe taking photos in of their trip in public are doing so illegally? I find that hard to believe, because despite your silly rant that adds nothing to the answer, yes... we can go somewhere and take pictures in public. And if someone invites us into their house and gives us permission to take pictures we can do that as well. But I agree with your decision to wear a helmet...

@MichaelHall There are lots of things with that assumption: taking pictures is different that using them like in this case. Government (contractors or whatever) are bound to way stricter rules. Then it's all about being identifiable, a picture of a crowd is less private than a picture of a specific thing in a house. And then there's the fact first of all you need to warn in advance (warning can also be you showing a camera). BTW: yes officially tourists taking pictures of buildings less than 70 years old are committing an offense, the copyrights of the building have not expired.

@paul23, I am at least somewhat familiar with the rules; I was active duty for 20 years and managed military household goods moves for 5 years following retirement. And I question that taking a picture of a building violates "copyright". Got a reference for that? In any case, my point is that your first comment comes across as a baseless anti-American rant that detracts from the issue. If Germany criminalized photographing buildings I would think it silly, but would refrain from ridicule or childish comments like well, I guess I won't be doing any business there then, unless I wear a helmet.

It's in dutch but: diederichlegal.nl/fotograferen-van-architectuur-mag-dat - notice that you can make pictures of buildings - if those are in public space. However a privately owner building is not "in public space" and as such would not fall under the exception of copyright law. Only if it is purposedly placed in public areas or public buildings you can take pictures of it.

@paul23, There's nothing in that reference to back your claim that "officially tourists taking pictures of buildings less than 70 years old are committing an offense." The prohibition is against photographing buildings if you plan to "use" the photo in some way, or if it is not visible from a public street. (private vs public ownership of a building is not specified, and therefore irrelevant) And as far as I know, this mirrors pretty closely the laws in the US.

@quarague: Really poor phrasing. Yes, expect that border guards will take pictures, and no, you can't force them to delete those. But the pictures will be taken for official use only, and the retention will be set by organizational policy, not "however long the guards feel like". Guards making any non-official use of the photos can definitely carry severe consequences for them (consider the many examples of Uber delivery drivers getting fired for later contacting customers for social reasons, and add "under color of authority" on top of that, making it a criminal offense)

@BenVoigt The only way that an Uber delivery driver is violating any law in this context is if there is an express contractual non-disclosure/non-contact agreement. The general rule is that in the private sector anyone can use that information. It certainly isn't a criminal offense unless it is a contractually protected trade secret which would be the exception and not the norm. Guards and Uber drivers are not legally analogous.