Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 533 posts

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#101

Post by dangus »

I saw a little quote about the modern business landscape that seems to apply here:

“Save a few pennies by destroying trust.”

The Hyatt franchise needs to shut this down ASAP. Most hotels are independently operated or operated by franchise groups. Not many hotel brands actually own the hotels and essentially act as marketing firms.

If I were to give this the “never assign malice to that which can be adequately explained by incompetence” benefit of the doubt, I think some bozo hotel manager got sold this innovative “solution” and implemented it without thinking much about it. Then they got their revenue and probably thought to themselves “Wow I knew the smoking problem was bad but I didn’t know it was this bad!!”

Meanwhile they are slow rolling the death of their location by tainting guest reviews, which are the lifeblood by which you justify your room rates.

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#102

Post by DudeOpotomus »

xg15 wrote: post #99
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #89

So someone does not smoke in their room but they’re charged for cleaning anyway because a third party (Rest) told the hotel that they smoked in their room. What sort of evidence should one gather during their stay to make the strongest possible (defamation? fraud?) case against Rest? (Not that anyone wants to do that on their trip, just curious about the legal implications.)

From the thread, it sounds as if they don't even pretend this is about cleaning, they're just saying "we're a smoke-free hotel, so smoking costs $500 as a punitive measure, period". I wonder if they could legally separate this from any real-world activities completely? During check-in, put a clause in the contract "if our partner company says so, you have to pay $500 extra. By signing, you agree to that" - without an…

Religious freedom may come into play here. Incense and candles are a basis for many faiths so assigning a fee on people practicing their faith will cost them in court and in payouts.

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#103

Post by dreamcompiler »

Remember when hotels charged outrageous fees to make a phone call from your room? That scam no longer works because everybody has a cell phone. Then they tried charging high fees for watching movies on the room's TV, and high fees for wifi. Those no longer work because everybody expects hotel wifi to be free and unlimited LTE is a thing now and nobody uses the TV in a hotel room any more.

Obviously this is just the latest such scam. Accuse people of smoking, refuse to show them the evidence, and charge them $500 to be split between the hotel and the sensor company.

Reminds me of the UK post office scandal where hundreds of innocent people went to prison because of software errors when the powers that be insisted the software was perfect and no auditing was possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

Yet again we have normies believing marketing bullshit that says "our proprietary algorithms are foolproof." We need laws that say any algorithm that can accuse a person of wrongdoing must be auditable and if it harms innocent people, the CEO of the company is both civilly and criminally liable.

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#104

Post by blantonl »

Between this and Hertz's new AI damage detection models, we're seeing the enshitification of business travel reaching a new level, and also doing a great job of really ticking off a group of customers (business travelers) who are already irritated enough.

Rest markets itself as a way to "unlock a new revenue stream"

Leave it to the bean counters to see this as an opportunity to generate new revenue streams from customers while simultaneously pissing them off.

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#105

Post by jplrssn »

tialaramex wrote: post #93
jdenning wrote: post #18

This seems like outright fraud - how can they charge a cleaning fee and then perform no cleaning?

Leases often work this way. In theory it's illegal in the UK (for a home, businesses are assumed to be big boys who can negotiate on equal footing) but it's still pretty common to be charged when you move out. Specifically UK law says "reasonable wear and tear" is just an expected cost of people living in a house you let to them - so e.g. they're going to wear out carpet after some years, but a cigar burn is not OK,…

They absolutely prey on people not being having the time/resources to fight back.

A friend in the UK had his deposit withheld as "mail charges" by his landlord upon moving out. Turned out the fine print in his lease said that he wasn't allowed to receive mail at the house he was legally renting.

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#106

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

jfengel wrote: post #94
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #89

So someone does not smoke in their room but they’re charged for cleaning anyway because a third party (Rest) told the hotel that they smoked in their room. What sort of evidence should one gather during their stay to make the strongest possible (defamation? fraud?) case against Rest? (Not that anyone wants to do that on their trip, just curious about the legal implications.)

Would it work if it were real time? You light up, and five minutes later a manager knocks. Dunno about the legality of refusing to open the door, but it does sound like a way to get banned from a hotel chain.

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.

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#108

Post by gpm »

vkou wrote: post #97
jfengel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there that much smoking in hotels? Do they charge more for smoking rooms? A number like 84x suggests that it's basically zero now. That kinda makes sense. The only one who would notice is the cleaning staff, and relying on their word for "it smelled like smoke" sounds like a way to get a chargeback. They'd call you on it only if they were forced to take the room out of rotation to air it out. So maybe there are a…

A number like 84x implies that it's almost entirely false positives.

No... it could be false positives, it could also be that almost no one (~1%) of smokers were caught before and this is actually a miracle technology that detects smoking.

Frankly it tracks that almost no one was caught before.

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#109

Post by john-h-k »

vkou wrote: post #97
jfengel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there that much smoking in hotels? Do they charge more for smoking rooms? A number like 84x suggests that it's basically zero now. That kinda makes sense. The only one who would notice is the cleaning staff, and relying on their word for "it smelled like smoke" sounds like a way to get a chargeback. They'd call you on it only if they were forced to take the room out of rotation to air it out. So maybe there are a…

A number like 84x implies that it's almost entirely false positives.

It doesn’t imply that. I’m pretty sure it is all false positives, but that number does not imply that. It could simply be that only ~1 in 84 smokers was being fined before

Re: Hyatt Hotels are using algorithmic Rest “smoking detectors”

#110

Post by blibble »

dangus wrote: post #96
BlackFly wrote: post #24

I'd refuse to pay the charge on check out. If they charged my card anyways I would demand a refund and inform the consumer protection agency, wait 30 days and issue the chargeback. Luckily these things work well in my nation.

Well the point is you can’t really refuse it. They won’t rent you the room unless you have a card on file authorized to make charges for incidentals.

the fact they have a card on file is irrelevant

they're not allowed to make up charges wherever they feel like it just because they have your card details

the payment doesn't settle for something like 6 months anyway

Post reply on HN