Do what now? Physical spaces have privacy policies? We're really sleepwalking into a dystopia. If you don't like the privacy policy of your shopping mall, you're free to shop... online, where they get even more behavioral data on you. Yikes.
Indeed there's a huge glaring problem here: many of these malls have branded entrances (Shoppers Drug Mart, Best Buy, etc) through which a large portion of consumers walk into the mall, and these alleged decals are not present in those entrances. Here's an example [1]. Frankly I don't see said decals even in the non-branded entrances[2]
They're going to have a very hard time convincing the commissioner that people were in fact aware of these decals AND any "privay policy" therein. A simple survey would easily show that people are completely clueless about it (anecdote: I used to frequent CF malls quite a bit when I was in Toronto and never saw anything of the sort, even despite being the type of person that might actually read random stuff posted at entrances).
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7788812,-79.3447734,3a,75y,1...
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7789409,-79.3444783,3a,75y,1...
>CF suspended its use of cameras back in 2018 [...]
Don't get side tracked.
This implicit agreement can be used to obtain quite literally anything without the other party ever knowing.
Taking the argument at face value is probably not the right conclusion [1]. The linked court case establishes what we would call in American law Informed Consent. If you can't read disclaimer at the door until you are in camera range, is that really informed consent? And if the disclaimer does not actually list the policy in question, but refers you to a website to read it, can it be considered sufficient? A quote from the ruling is relevant here - "The more onerous the exclusion clause the more explicit the notice must be". Now, this case was related to legal liabilities related to injury in a ski resort, but it's the closet thing I've found. I suspect a judge won't take long to rule in favor of the plaintiff.
[1] - https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2020/2020bcca78/2020bc...
Yes, you do, because while a shopping mall might be considered a "public space," it is private property owned by a private organization. In Canada the PIPEDA [1] covers this federally, though the law is written such that it is a backstop, and provinces are free to enact their own "substantially similar" (or stricter) laws if they choose. For example, in Alberta the PIPA [2] covers these issues.
And as the article states, both federal and provincial privacy commissioners found CF in violation of those laws.
[1] https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-can...
[2] https://www.alberta.ca/personal-information-protection-act-o...
age, name, ID numbers, income, ethnic origin, or blood type;
opinions, evaluations, comments, social status, or disciplinary actions; and
employee files, credit records, loan records, medical records, existence of a dispute between a consumer and a merchant, intentions (for example, to acquire goods or services, or change jobs).
That's how I understand things.
It wasn't some security camera overlooking the concourse from 30 feet up or anything like that.
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
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.
I've seen TOSes on mall doors before. They've been white letters on clear glass at just about foot level written in letters about 1cm tall. They were usually about violence and guns and shoplifting being grounds to ejection and banning.
The only people who ever see them is the decal printing company, the guy who installs them, and mice.
I'll take that one further! Every street that enters the city I live in, has a sign with text that you'll only be able to read if you park your car, get out, and walk up to it. I've lived here 5 years and I still don't know what the heck those signs say lol. My guess is it's something about parking enforcement? Sigh. It's completely absurd lol.
We asked why they couldn't use other biometrics which were much more established at the time (eg fingerprint scanners at the doorway), they said because other biometrics required consent. They wanted to track people without their knowing or agreement.
When asked about the ethics they said something along the lines of "this is what our customers are asking for."
Point being you don't need a privacy policy when you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place. They can take pictures of you, store them in a database, sell them if they want. You don't have a right to be forgotten. And there are people that don't see anything wrong with that.
That's a lot different than companies tracking me via facial recognition, storing the data in databases that never get deleted, and combining it with behavioral data. It's going to lead to all kind of abuse. We'll end up with many variants of redlining, but digital.
What happens when that type of data is collected for today's youth and 20 years from now employers start using it to screen job applicants? What if the machine learning algorithms can't distinguish between correlation and causality? Does the "profile" of a successful person become someone from a rich neighborhood as a result of naive correlation?
I'm sure it'll be amazing for wealthy people and terrible for poor people. If I'm rich and walk into a mall, I get treated like a VIP. If I'm poor, maybe the doors don't even open.
I wonder if they stopped in response to complaints, or decided the notification was unnecessary. At the time, I figured their system judged me for browsing $800 jeans and not making a purchase.
Maybe some, but most people are aware. They have very little to zero power to fight back the abuse.