I was (transitively) referring to somebody saying that you'd unintentionally signed your rights away, which in my mind is different from a law removing your rights. In one of these replies I explicitly acknowledged that regulations might still allow the hotel to be in the clear (not that you have to read everything I've ever written to add a comment here, just to say that we probably have more in common in our thoughts than it looks like you think).
Even then though, laws have limits. It's kind of like when a car wash has a sign tucked away absolving themselves of liability. At _best_, the sign serves as proof that you knew certain scenarios might not be safe and entered willingly, but if the car wash operator doesn't adequately keep rocks and grit out of their machinery then they can still easily be liable for scrapes and swirls to your car. The sign (giving them the benefit of the doubt) is to warn you of potential dangers (like that you should retract your antennae), and (assuming malice) is to persuade you that you don't have a case.
Going back to that law, how many times in the middle of each night can they verify you're not running a meth lab? Can they hold you hostage while they do the inspection? Can they unfold your underwear to ensure you're not hiding the meth lab there? Using something that broad as justification for rifling through a DEFCON attendee's things for something as commonplace as a USB has a decent chance of not holding up in court, even when the law seemingly allows it.
Mind you, that particular chapter you referenced says nothing of the sort. It gives health authorities the right to search the hotel, not for the hotel to preemptively do such searches on behalf of the health authorities.
Even then though, laws have limits. It's kind of like when a car wash has a sign tucked away absolving themselves of liability. At _best_, the sign serves as proof that you knew certain scenarios might not be safe and entered willingly, but if the car wash operator doesn't adequately keep rocks and grit out of their machinery then they can still easily be liable for scrapes and swirls to your car. The sign (giving them the benefit of the doubt) is to warn you of potential dangers (like that you should retract your antennae), and (assuming malice) is to persuade you that you don't have a case.
Going back to that law, how many times in the middle of each night can they verify you're not running a meth lab? Can they hold you hostage while they do the inspection? Can they unfold your underwear to ensure you're not hiding the meth lab there? Using something that broad as justification for rifling through a DEFCON attendee's things for something as commonplace as a USB has a decent chance of not holding up in court, even when the law seemingly allows it.
Mind you, that particular chapter you referenced says nothing of the sort. It gives health authorities the right to search the hotel, not for the hotel to preemptively do such searches on behalf of the health authorities.