Depends on the state and city, there's no federal law. Madison Square Garden (notoriously) use facial recognition to ban all lawyers from their venue who work at firms engaged in active litigation against them. This was upheld in May [1][2] since in NYC you can collect biometric data for commercial use without consent as long as it's signposted and you're not selling the data [3].
Gee, I wonder if some self righteous asshole is "lurking about...week old comments" So they can make themselves feel better by blathering on for no apparent reason.
I don't know about case law, but when you walk into a grocery store, it certainly becomes their business!
Where's the case law and precedent that says your business is only your own, even when on a public sidewalk or in a grocery store? If you're going to make such unreasonable demands, can we start with your own claims, since you made them first?
If you want to get your mind blown, bring up traffic light cameras in Texas where people use "I have the right to privacy" to literally mean they should be able to run a red light [and potentially T-bone someone].
Public roads should be a clear case where your business is everyone else's business since you're hurtling down the road in an increasingly heavier vehicle, but we're far from being able to acknowledge that.
This only doesn't blow my mind because I've noticed a distinct trend among the most vocal "right to privacy" folks: they want to get away with anti-social behavior.
I'm admittedly biased from spending a few years steeped in the cryptocurrency community, where literally everything has a hidden (or not!) self-serving agenda, however. But even beyond that realm, I see far too many privacy advocates whose examples of "reasons why you should want privacy" end up being examples of hiding bad behavior (infidelity, etc). If you couple this with anti-social people being privacy advocates out of necessity, it ends up reflecting very poorly on the privacy community as a whole.
Whose? And under what circumstances? Please be specific and include appropriate legal precedents. Thanks!