221
Hotels have developed a new revenue stream: "algorithmic" smoke detectors
(threadreaderapp.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
221 points (98.7% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
14727 readers
129 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They tried that. If the credit card denies it you could have a lawyer send a letter threatening legal action but that's all going to be at an extra cost unless you know an attorney or they think they could make enough to o do it on spec.
Or you pay monthly for a law service. Those types of letters are exactly what those programs are intended to cover.
Unfortunately, at a certain point their "data" will just trump your affidavit that you didn't smoke. You'd really have to press the issue to get beyond that, and pay to have expert testimony and technical reviews of the sensor.
A lawyer will send a demand letter, not an affidavit.
An affidavit is for sworn testimony given under oath by someone who is unwilling or unable to appear on the witness stand.
A demand letter is a formal written request for action or payment prior with a threat of legal action for noncompliance.
If they ignore the demand letter then the next step is a civil suit. Depending on the amount this might end up in small claims. Also, tort cases only require a preponderance of evidence.
A preponderance of evidence essentially means you only have to prove something is more likely than not which, in this case, would be pretty easy. The big issue is the expense of this process almost makes it not worth it.
The American legal system favors those with resources.
That's what I'm saying though - it will come down to sworn testimony, and their data from the sensor will likely constitute a preponderance of evidence.
The burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. Whomever brings the suit needs to prove that it's more likely than not that they're were incorrectly fined.
Since these devices seem to basically be VOC sensors it wouldn't be that hard to do this.