Kohler Made a Camera for Your Toilet

Dekoda device scans waste to assess hydration, gut health, and more

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/oct/21/poop-cam-dekoda-throne

Evidence

1. What specific data, design details or testing information does the article provide about how the device detects waste-type, hydration, or blood traces and how reliable or transparent is that evidence?

2. Does the article disclose any independent studies, peer review or regulatory approval supporting the device’s claims-- and if not, what impact does that have on the strength of the evidence?

---

Perspective

1. Which voices are included (the manufacturer, tech reviewers, health experts) and which perspectives are missing?

2. How might the interpretation of this product differ if described from the perspective of someone concerned with data privacy or digital surveillance rather than health optimization?

---

Connections

1. How does this device connect to broader themes of health-technology, smart home devices, personal data analytics, or “quantified self” culture?

2. What real-world examples or prior innovations (such as wearable health trackers, smart toilets, or home-health sensors) could you mention to deepen the analysis of how this product fits into a larger ecosystem?

---

Significance

1. Why is this product significant for individual health monitoring, consumer privacy, the home environment and what implications might it have for the future of “connected health”?

2. Which groups are most affected (consumers, manufacturers, regulatory bodies, vulnerable users) and how does the article present the scale and magnitude of potential impacts?

---

Alternatives / Supposition

1. What alternative explanations might there be for why someone would buy this gadget (e.g., novelty, status, anxiety about health) that the article does not explore?

2. Suppose the device fails to detect a serious health issue how might that change our trust in such home-health technologies, and what does that tell us about the roles of human professionals versus automated monitoring?

Extension Activities:  

Ethics & Design Workshop: Students design their own health-monitoring bathroom device (or app) and then conduct a mini-peer review focused on privacy, consent, data ownership and cost implications.

Research & Debate Assignment: Students investigate real-world examples of “smart home health tech” (including this device) and present pros & cons in a structured class debate, highlighting the social, economic and technological connections.

Cops Detain Teen at Gunpoint After AI Doritos Mix-Up

 

Cops Detain Teen at Gunpoint After AI Doritos Mix-Up

(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

Artificial intelligence system at Baltimore 16-year-old's school thought bag of chips was a gun

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgjdlx92lylo 

1.  What kinds of data or eyewitness information does the article provide to support the claim that the AI flagged the packet as a gun, and how credible do you find that evidence?

2.  How might the interpretation of this incident differ if it were reported from the perspective of the teenager, the school safety team, or the AI developers, and how does the article’s phrasing shape the reader’s understanding?

3.  How does this incident connect with broader issues of surveillance, AI in schools, and policing of minors, and what links does the article draw (or fail to draw) to those themes?

What prior knowledge or real-world examples (e.g., other false positives by AI, controversies in school safety systems) could you bring in to deepen the analysis of this case, and how might the article's connections help or hinder that?

4.  What alternative explanations might there be for how the mis-identification occurred that the article does or does not explore?  Suppose the AI system had worked correctly--how might the student’s experience, school response, or public reaction have been different, and what does that tell us about the role of technology versus human oversight in such situations?

5.  Why is this event significant for AI ethics, school policy, civil rights, etc.) and what implications does the article suggest for future use of AI in public-safety contexts? Which stakeholders are most impacted by the outcome of this incident and how does the article convey the magnitude of those impacts?

Extension Activities:  

1)  Debate Activity: Students research and debate the motion, “AI surveillance in schools does more harm than good,” using this case as a starting point to explore ethical, social, and technological implications.

2)  Design Thinking Task: Students develop a proposal for an ethical school safety system that balances privacy, accuracy, and security—illustrating how human oversight could complement or replace AI decision-making.