Are there laws requiring the release of PII to participate in wall climbing in Utah? I've been climbing climbing walls for over a decade. It's a lot of fun. But after moving to Utah recently, I find myself at a bit of an impasse. I can't find any place around here that has a climbing wall that will let you climb without filling out what they call "a waiver," except it's totally not a waiver. In every case, it's a big, long form requesting all sorts of personally identifiable information, including DOB, address, phone number, and email address. I look at this information being requested, and here's what goes through my mind: best case scenario, I get put on a mailing list, which I don't want. Slightly worse: they sell that information to advertisers, which I definitely don't want. Worst case: the data gets stolen by hackers or a disgruntled employee, and sold to advertisers or identity thieves. (It goes without saying that I don't want this to happen either.) So there is no scenario in which I'm comfortable turning this information over. Never in my life have I been asked to sign a waiver to climb a wall, let alone provide a huge amount of PII to go along with it. One of the places told me that it's a legal requirement. If so, it has to be local, as I've never run across it elsewhere in the US. Can anyone confirm that 1) this legal requirement actually exists in the state of Utah, or 2) there's a different requirement (such as signing an actual waiver of liability, without requiring PII disclosure) and these are sleazy businesses trying to take advantage of it? It would really be nice to know what's going on here.
"Legal requirement" can and in this case simply means "it's what is required in order for us to be reasonably able to offer you this service", noting that it would be unreasonable for such a dangerous business to operate, when one moron slipping and suing them could put them out of business. It's a little surprising that you've never had to sign a waiver before, but there are quite a number of similar waivers out there, such as REI (Seattle), The Edge (Vt), Croc Center (Coeur d'Alene), YMCA (MI) and U. Nebraska. They all have in common the requirement of a signature (indicating that you've waived your right to sue them), birth date, date of signature. This is the bare minimum that's required to have a valid waiver, and more info would be better (to uniquely identify the customer out of the 1000 John Smith's in the state and 500,000 in the US). If you break yourself and try to sue, they will trot out the waiver to put an end to the suit. Name, address, phone number and birth date do a long ways towards proving that the person who signed the waiver is indeed you.
It depends on where you live, but &quot;restrain&quot; doesn't mean telling a person that they have to stay put, it implies either a physical blockage (locking the door) or a threat of force, and neither of those are present or suggested by the sign. We don't know what the consequences are, for example they might report you to your parents or even restrain you if you are a minor (that's who is in most &quot;gym classes&quot;). If you are an adult, the consequence could be some contractual sanction (read the contract) or termination of the contract for breach (read the contract). You can simply ask a supervisor how they intend to enforce this restriction.
I'd take the city council's advice and realize that you could be charged with a crime. Their job is to know the local laws and put them into place, as well as know how those laws relate to state law. As for state law, the Revised Statutes of Missouri, RSMo Section 574.115 Making a terrorist threat says: 574.115. Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the first degree if such person, with the purpose of frightening ten or more people or causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly: (1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or (2) Communicates a false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or (3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life. 2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the first degree is a class D felony. 3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm. A fake gun turret on a porch in the public view that tracks people who walk by could be interpreted as making a terrorist threat because it (3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life. And, it's probably safe to assume your turret has the "the purpose of frightening ten or more people." The fact that the gun turret is on private property doesn't mean much; it is in view of the public and your intent is for it to be seen by the public and you want to invoke fear in the public members who walk by. And it's not going to be seen by the council as some sort of security; threats are not security. If you did put up such a turret, and the state didn't take action under 574.115, and there is no local law on the books that applies, the council can easy put one in place at their regular council meeting with a simple motion and vote. Since you already asked the council, they may already be considering such a law. And, depending on the county, the council could invoke a law addressing threats to the public that has more severe penalties that the state law, because Missouri is a home rule (Wikipedia) state.
My alternative is to put up a sign &quot;Keep Out: Testing Lasers from Space&quot; which is a derivative of this idea and (IMO) would be considered humor. I know there is a line, how and where is that &quot;line&quot; defined? This distinction captures the key point. If your sign stating &quot;Active Mine Field&quot; would, in the overall context, be understood as humor and not as a true statement of fact, it will be protected by the First Amendment. If, however, someone is basically defrauded by a sign, because it appears to a reasonable person to be making a true statement of fact upon which a person reasonably relies to their detriment (or perhaps could reasonably rely to their detriment for criminal law purposes), then it is probably not protected. For example, suppose that your &quot;Active Minefield&quot; sign causes the fire department, when responding to a wildfire next door to your property, to take the long way around your property or to call in the bomb squad at great expense. You could have civil liability as a result. Similarly, if the fire department refused to respond to a fire on your property due to such a sign, your insurance company might have a ground to deny your insurance claim for damages that a prompt fire department response could have prevented. And @user6726 points out circumstances where there could be criminal liability, although there, as in the civil case, the First Amendment would require those criminal statutes to be employed in enough of a common sense fashion to only be invoked in cases where a reasonable person would believe the sign to be purporting to be a true statement of fact in the overall context of the situation, in order to withstand an &quot;as applied&quot; constitutional challenge to a facially valid statute. So, a &quot;space lasers&quot; sign (at least as of 2022 when there are no such things) would probably not give rise to legal or civil liability, but an &quot;Active Minefield&quot; sign without something involved in the presentations to clearly indicate that it is a joke (or a fictional depiction for temporary theatrical purposes, for example) to a reasonable person, could result in civil or criminal liability. Similarly, if the sign was very artistic and also had pictures of Bugs Bunny and Coyote chasing each other, and images of obviously fake &quot;land mines&quot;, or if the sign were accompanied by a picture of cow turds everywhere that made clear that the &quot;minefield&quot; was a field full of excrement rather than high explosives, it wouldn't be actionable.
While Colorado does issue driver's licenses to homeless individuals, as you identified in your question, you need the help of a homeless shelter. I can see from your questions that you're reluctant to seek help from family, friends, or a shelter; however, I do not see a lawful way around Colorado's residency requirement without their assistance. Under C.R.S. § 42-2-107(1)(a)(II), the DMV cannot issue a driver's license "until [it] verifies all facts relative to such applicant's right to receive an instruction permit or minor driver's or driver's license including the age, identity, and residency of the applicant." Here is a link to Colorado's statutes. Unfortunately, I can't link to the specific provision cited above. The administrative rules further explain what is required for the department to verify residency. The regulations also talk about the exception for homeless people and specifically state that "Proof of residency documents are waived, if an applicant provides a letter on letterhead, signed by the director of a homeless shelter, certifying that the individual is homeless and stays at the shelter." 1 Colo. Code Regs. § 204- 30:16-2.12. Under the law and applicable registration, you cannot give a PO Box as your residence. You must give an actual address that you are supposed to be residing at. I don't know your individual circumstances; however, you might find it easier to stay at a friends house long enough to get your driver's license. Hope this is helpful to you.
Important story, but BoingBoing also doubts the BBC's wording. It could be an attempted summary of a previous story on BBC Newsnight on 18 July: Lord Porter of Spalding, a former bricklayer, alleged corporations were running tests on the safety of their high-rise building materials but refusing to share the results. Releasing the results could allow residents and local authorities to know if their buildings are at risk of a fire following the Grenfell catastrophe which claimed the lives of at least 80 people. There Lord Porter was talking about results commissioned by private companies including manufacturers, where the labs wouldn't provide information because of 'intellectual property rights' of the client, or presumably commercial confidentiality. Under these situations, it is said the private concerns have no obligation to disclose. If this is what the BBC story was referring to, then at least investigations by government or third parties wanting to reveal characteristics of the products wouldn't have a copyright (or patent etc) problem.
I'm a notary. If someone showed me a marked-up license, I'd refuse to perform the notarization, and make a note of the persons name and phone number, to make sure I would never make another appointment with the person. Is there a law that says I have to refuse? I don't think so. Is there is a law that says I can refuse if I have any doubts about the person's identity? Absolutely.
This doesn't sound like fraud (against you, at least), but it does sound like an unfair or deceptive trade practice, which is outlawed by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and perhaps the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, both of which prohibit unfair and deceptive trade practices. I don't know about Pennsylvania, but the FTC has on many occasions taken action against companies for engaging in just this kind of behavior. To find out whether you would be able to take action against the other company, you'd want to find a good competition lawyer in Pennsylvania. For some more basic background on the FTC's rules, check out this primer.