We can't address concerns if they aren't based in reality.
"the unhoused man in a fit of rage yelling at passers-by is never filed with the police"
Good. That's not a crime.
"the unhoused man in a fit of rage yelling at passers-by is never filed with the police"
Good. That's not a crime.
If we don't make better governance possible, we make Flock inevitable.
Just because much of the public think of the homeless as an eyesore that they don't want to see, and they make them briefly face uncomfortable realities, doesn't justify blanketing cities with cops and cameras.
"shooing them away constantly" is also not the only option, but the bare point is the sidewalk has a purpose and it isn't housing. If the government can't enforce that, what else can it not enforce? The unhoused person needs better options and incentives and there are people far more qualified than me to tell us what they are, but they all agree the street is about the worst place for them.
This speaks volumes on the state of the US.
It is actually true. In pretty much any other country this will be "people don't trust the government? Well, guess what? We does not care".
Meanwhile the police say (and act) that they aren't legally required to protect you [1].
The public is screaming for solutions, today you'll scream back at Flock, tomorrow there will be another "solution".
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...
It probably loops back to better mental health care provision? But might also relate to provision of social housing? Or any number of things. These sorts of indicators can feed into a 'gross happiness quotient' to help us focus on improving society for all of us, not just feeding the greed of the billionaires which a lot of Western society seems to be subservient to right now.
You already came to the proper conclusion by just thinking about it for a few minutes. Let's just skip building out a surveillance state, and put that money directly into mental health & housing initiatives instead.