Fixed cameras are easily avoided by someone looking to commit a crime. It's not hard to map out the cameras and calculate blind spots, or to disguise yourself such that the captured footage is useless for identifying you.

A live guard can move around, and will also easily identify someone who's taken measures to obscure their face.

A current robot is somewhere between, it's basically a mobile camera so it's less predictable/avoidable than a fixed camera, but not as good as a live guard. They're limited by laws currently, otherwise you could build a terminator/robocop style robot that was armed. Now that absolutely would deter/stop crime.

They do not do network level OS fingerprinting. If you were to do that then you would find the vast majority of hosts are linux - because very few windows systems are not behind a firewall, and most firewalls are linux based.

They are reading the user-agent header from web browsers.

And it's extremely unreliable, especially for devices which are behind a firewall or proxy.

Bots don't pretend to be linux, if they're trying to hide that they are then they pretend to be windows.

Here's the problem..

Focusing on identifying incidents and making arrests... What if the robot deterred incidents from taking place at all? Surely that would be better.

In schools no matter how robust the hardware, the kids will destroy them. You'll have to buy a whole new set next year for the new kids anyway.

Apple started as a hardware company, with network services coming MUCH later.
Google were always a network first company.

There are also no shortage of concealable cameras...
A big pair of ugly glasses is obvious, you might as well be carrying a full size video camera. You can see it's there and behave accordingly. A pervert is more likely to use a small hidden camera.

Following is massively easier than leading...

If someone else has already done something, then you know it's possible and just need to work out how. And the more information you have about the existing implementation the easier it is to replicate it, as even very minimal high level information is going to steer you in the right general direction.

If you're leading then you can't be sure what is possible, you could spend a lot of resources chasing dead ends.

Most of the theatres here have extremely uncomfortable seats. A small handful of them have decent seats and charge a premium for them.
They also try to sell you large drinks, which cause you to need the toilet, so you either sit there in discomfort needing the toilet or miss a chunk of the movie. If the movie is long then your drink will go cold (or warm) and not taste good.

At home i have a comfortable seat, i can adjust the volume to suit my needs, i can pause the movie if i need to visit the toilet or get another drink etc, and there's noone else there to distract me.

That sounds more like a bug or dropped support for older hardware.

No it doesn't. Monitors already have standards for reporting their capabilities and this works just fine on linux and mac.

A structured database, with separate code to query the data and perform calculations if needed.

There are very few cases where a spreadsheet is the best tool for the job, in most cases it's the only tool the user was given so they came up with some frankenstein mess.

You can't that's the point.
If someone can view the data, they can copy it. The only way to "secure" it is to prevent them from viewing it in the first place.

Any attempt to allow viewing while restricting copying or modification is theatre at best and only provides a false sense of security. At worst it's actively harmful because users who naively rely on such systems often end up taking less precautions than they otherwise would have.
There are _ALWAYS_ ways to bypass such systems.

Anything can fail, which is why the whole point of a backup is to have more than one copy in different places.