4 ms·

Whether it finds what’s defined as misconduct (or not) is irrelevant. It’s dragnet surveillance: there are inevitably false positives ex picked up. But also, i

• TheFreim 3y ago
  > It’s dragnet surveillance: there are inevitably false positives ex picked up. False positives would only be a problem depending on how exactly the evidence is used. In the first example in the article Iglesias says she learned about the sensors in her own school when an admin came to the restroom after it was triggered. Despite it being triggered by actual vaping, she notes that the admin "ultimately let all the students go" which seems to indicate that, at that school, it wasn't being used blindly to convict students. Could this system be abused or over relied upon? Definitely, but it doesn't seem that false positives are an issue if the school administration has appropriate standards of evidence.
• shusfuejdn 3y ago
  What isn't clear especially is how they know which of the students in the bathroom was vaping. You could maintain plausible deniability by just only going in between classes for instance.
• hn_acker 3y ago
  > But also, isn’t this a sort of victimless crime? Smoking in buildings is not victimless compared to drinking alcohol or even smoking outside away from entrances. Secondhand smoke [1] is more dangerous than it might seem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking