Yeah, that’s totally fair. At least they’ll have testimony that the smoking was actually witnessed. Most people aren’t going to even bother fighting that since it actually happened. I just worry about abuse cases and the most obvious one here is false positives being assumed true by everyone who profits from them.

Edit:

Sorry, that’s from the wrong point of view but I don’t think the answer changes. It seems Rest will have to change a lot of their marketing language to really avoid liability but if someone is actually caught smoking then it’s not likely to manifest.

The great thing about that kind of human validation is that if they get a lot of false positives, the managers will start ignoring all of the alerts.

It would be unfair to charge people with just a black box algorithm. But a few door knocks could fix that, one way or the other.

Is it reasonable to make "use your body to test for carcinogens" part of the manager's job description?

Yeah really, I mean look at how the global population died out in the 1960s because someone walked past them with a lit cigarette.

You realize there's a difference between cigarette smoke and mustard gas, right? Standing at the door of a room that someone smoked in will have no effect on your health whatsoever. You need to be standing in the room, while they're smoking, preferably for a few decades.

people from the 60s die every day

Yeah, six decades later.

shockingly it's been happening since about 1959

But not because they walked past someone smoking a cigarette.