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, isn’t this a sort of victimless crime? Or is she, herself, the victim? It’s unclear.
But also, isn’t this a sort of victimless crime? Or is she, herself, the victim? It’s unclear.
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.
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.