[voisin]

It’s crazy that their lawyers think that merely referring to a privacy policy via a decal on the door is adequate acceptance of this kind of intrusion. I thought the laws required explicit acceptance online, via a check box on sign up, along with emailed updates when the policy changes. Merely walking through a door cannot possibly be construed to be explicit acceptance.

[gravitas]

> It’s crazy that their lawyers think that merely referring to a privacy policy via a decal on the door is adequate acceptance of this kind of intrusion

Very abstractly, legal precedent exists for the general implementation. Texas has what's called "the 30.07 sign" codified in the penal code (30.06 concealed, 30.07 open carry)[1] which prohibits firearm carry on that property with nothing more than a proper/legal sign. The responsibility lies on the entrant to notice and comply with the sign prior to entering the establishment, no explicit acknowledgement is required by that place of business for it to be enforced.

(not saying I agree with what's going on here, only that I can see lawyers using laws like this to support the action in the face of no laws saying it can't be done like this - a judge may throw the argument out, but it could be made as a good faith argument? My mind is thinking about how in the 90s "shrink wrap acceptance" was just a given - you opened he box so you accepted the license, but in 2020 many new laws have been developed to curtail that design and now require explicit acceptance by the end-user.)

[1] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

[texasbigdata]

Interesting example.

Not super familiar but that’s a licensed activity right? As in there’s some training and/or test administered upon gun purchase? Sorry if that’s not the case. But that feels marginally different because if you had a handgun and you knew this door sign governed whether or not you could bring it into a premise, you would look out for it.

No one is staring at the door of the drug store, because we are not trained to do that.

[msla]

Yes, it's licensed. There's a class and a proficiency demonstration:

https://onlinetexasltc.com/texas-concealed-carry/

[gruez]

Not sure about the privacy laws in Canada, but are there any laws against video recording and/or facial recognition? AFAIK by default they're fair game because there's no expectation of privacy while in public.

[scotty79]

I don't see it any more crazy than that you can legally agree to something by clicking.

[gnrlbzik]

indeed, I almost fell off my chair : ) If we do not read it in comfort of our home, why would one do so walking into the mall.... and there is not even a precedent to do so....