Great letter, thanks.
By the way ....
http://www.bigtex.com/aboutus/history/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To protect this valuable community asset, the Texas State Fair spurned offers from developers and sold its property to the City of Dallas in 1904 under an agreement that set aside a period each fall to hold the annual exposition.
State Fair, where the PUBLIC property is leased out to some PRIVATE company who in effect practices a "constructive eviction" or rather a
"constructive prohibition to enter" unless you allow them to illegally (in my layman's opinion) collect your private personal information at the discretion of the PRIVATE company who leased the PUBLIC Property which we have a right to use.
THIS concerns the State Fair as it relates to a First Amendment right (DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=38355" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The city's response was that since it leases the property to the separate organization, State Fair of Texas, Inc ., each year, the fair actually is a
private event on private property and Rundus and others "had no constitutional rights inside the fair grounds." "In its ruling yesterday the
federal court determined that the Texas State Fair is a public place where constitutional rights are protected; as a result of the ruling, Mr. Rundus and others are now free to share their faith inside the fair grounds," the law firm said.
But at this point in time, no one seems to have remembered that federal ruling. Assuming that ruling wasn't overturned, The City and Private companies seem to have selective memory.
If it is ruled that they in fact do have a right to collect info, they should be as accountable for your Information as any Healthcare provider is under HIPAA, and provide each person they collect info from the same documentation, disclosures and protections anyone subject to HIPAA regulations are required to do, with the same liabilities in case of unlawful use or dissemination or disclosure of your personal private info.
Including
"Privacy Policy Disclosures" which everyone, including banks, credit card comanies and pretty much everyone are required to give you with regard to their use of your personal private information.
If they don't first give me their
"Privacy Policy Disclosures" how can I possibly make an educated decision about whether to divulge my personal private info to them in the first place.
Of course, since it is Public Property, essentially a
city park, and cities can't prohibit CHLs from carrying, the issue should have never come up..... but since it did ... because of the "constructive/conditional prohibition, unless you ...."
The city attorney SHOULD HAVE just informed anyone leasing the property, in writing, or as part of the lease language, that they are subject to the State and Federal laws regarding city property, but since he didn't, by taking the same position the Federal Court ruled against years ago .... it is costing the State time and money .
If our Legistaors did not want us to carry at the State Fair, they wouldn't have been so careful in defining an Amusement park, wouldn't have made it so we can carry in all city parks, and now we are constructively conditionally denied admittance to a State Fair on PUBLIC property were we should be allowed, without even the consideration of a discloure statement as to Privacy Policies.
The above is my layman's opinion, based upon very precursory research, and not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinion, I'm not a lawyer.
The other places that are required to give privacy notices are all financial. We can request it but there is no law requiring it. We would lose in court using that as an argument, I would think.
