4 ms·
The second example regarding the woman and the keys was rectified with minimal incident. Your point about not experiencing these systems may be valid for the p
by iinnPP 3y ago
The second example regarding the woman and the keys was rectified with minimal incident.
Your point about not experiencing these systems may be valid for the poster, but certainly not for myself. I do acknowledge that I don't speak for everyone though.
I personally, having dealt with the utter bullshit of being poor and in social housing (which isn't even a top 5 problem I have had to deal with), would prefer the cameras with AI powered horseshit over dealing with idiots spewing their spit and other bodily fluids all over public areas of the social housing. You are free to disagree. If you have not actually lived in these places (specifically the very violent ones), then you should stop referring to us as victims. It doesn't help.
- dghlsakjg 3y agoThe article doesn’t mention what level of difficulty the blind lady had to deal with. Do you think that maybe, there’s a middle ground where poor disabled people don’t get hassled, but people who do impact the quality of life do get punished appropriately. My guess is that the spitter was a known problem resident, and this was used as an excuse or the final straw to get him out. As bad as spitting is, I wouldn’t want someone to lose their housing for a single incident like this. What wasn’t mentioned, was how much this ai costs in comparison to how much it might cost to just review the footage when an actual problem is caused. It isn’t a case of ai surveillance or nothing. The whole issue comes down to under resourced, or plain incompetent management. This is just an expensive bandaid.