[malabar]

If we need to have camera's to protect court houses, government buildings and banks for security reasons, then it would seem that a citizen has the right to videotape any event they are involved in if they so choose. If we do not get asked our permission to be videotaped when I enter a shopping mall, then I should not have to ask anyone's permission if I am on a public road and some cop is yelling and waving a gun.

[dagw]

Most States have laws requiring the mall have some sort of sign at the entrance warning you that you will be videotaped. That sign is asking your permission and by walking passed that sign and entering the mall you have granted them permission to tape you.

[rdtsc]

Should you just put signs on the back of your vehicle, and on your t-shirt that say by talking to you others implicitly grant their permission to be videtaped?

[anigbrowl]

The above should not be downvoted. True, a sign is not the same as a verbal request for permission, but in general the display or frontage of a store is an invitation to examine the goods inside, and by crossing the threshold you are accepting that invitation - and by extension, the terms and conditions set by the owner of the private property you are stepping into.

A printed notification at the entrance of a property or event is the norm, and legally sufficient. In commercial video/TV production posting them is a standard pre-show requirement, to avoid lawsuits from people claiming their right of publicity was infringed. The current mania for blurring out logos and anything even vaguely offensive on TV is to avoid frivolous but legally expensive lawsuit threats from brandholders or obscenity investigations from the FCC, which can be triggered by as few as 50 complaints.