San Jose invited tech companies to mount cameras on a vehicle in what appears to be first-of-its-kind experiment

Last July, San Jose issued an open invitation to technology companies to mount cameras on a municipal vehicle that began periodically driving through the city’s district 10 in December, collecting footage of the streets and public spaces. The images are fed into computer vision software and used to train the companies’ algorithms to detect the unwanted objects, according to interviews and documents the Guardian obtained through public records requests.

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    961·
    6 months ago

    So instead of spending X dollars to ensure people have homes, we spend X++ dollars to evict them from their spaces?

    • horsey@lemm.eeEnglish
      621·
      6 months ago

      Sure, it’s like how NYC spent $150 million to bust people evading $105,000 in subway fees. Absolutely anything to avoid legitimately helping people.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.eeEnglish
        133·
        6 months ago

        That is a stupid issue with Mayor Adams, but NYC legitimately spends millions on housing the homeless. The city has to get you shelter. It’s the law.

        • jkrtn@lemmy.mlEnglish
          71·
          6 months ago

          How long has this been a law? The last time I went to NY I saw plenty of people sleeping in Penn Station.

            • jkrtn@lemmy.mlEnglish
              72·
              6 months ago

              At least one person I saw was in the stairwells on the way from a waiting area down to a train platform. I don’t think passengers would want to sleep in the corridor between the gate and the plane at an airport, but you’re right, perhaps it is only the locked door that is holding them back.

              Now I am kinda curious why they were staying there if they were supposed to be guaranteed shelter. I wouldn’t be surprised if the state failed to house them despite the law and that was the warmest place they could find or if the offered accommodations were unfit or dangerous.

              • KevonLooney@lemm.eeEnglish
                71·
                6 months ago

                I wouldn’t be surprised

                You are just guessing. Look into it more. They are put up in places that are pretty decent for homeless shelters. They’re usually cheap hotels, so you get your own room but no kitchen. It’s not somewhere you want to live, but it’s 100x better than a train station.

                Most homeless people are fine in them, but they have security watching the door so you can’t have a party, you can’t have pets, and you can’t have drugs. Maybe you can’t smoke. Some people don’t want to live under those conditions. Other people have mental illness and don’t want to be in any shelter.

    • TheMurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      131·
      6 months ago

      How else would the mega rich be able to buy up the property and rent out the spaces for normal people to finance?

    • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
      7·
      6 months ago

      It’s literally cheaper to provide the unhoused with healthcare. Not just for them, but for housed people and all taxpayers. But we (as a society) don’t. At this point I feel it’s literally about cruelty, and punishing them for their “life choices”. And you think we’ll just give them homes!?

    • dinckel@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      6 months ago

      Next time you ask yourself that question, remember that these cunts are spending your tax dollars to hurt those who have nothing left to lose. Vote them out