[run414]

Some of comments here are suggesting that facial recognition wouldn't be necessary if San Francisco would just fix the root cause of its crime problem.

There is a common pattern I've noticed in discussions about San Francisco. Person A: San Francisco should implement <solution that provides relief in the near-future>. Person B: That's just a bandaid over the problem. It's better to just fix <problem that has plagued humanity for all of history>.

Usually, the solution to <problem that has always plagued humanity> requires large changes to our economic system or society that would take decades, if not lifetimes. I'm not opposed to such changes, but it seems naive to me to not do quality-of-life improvements because they would be unnecessary if our society was massively different.

If this is how the city is managed, it's no surprise that it's a mess.

[spullara]

SF is broken because they refuse to punish bad behavior. Pising and pooping on streets and sidewalks. Breaking into cars. Using heroin and meth in public. Disposing of needles wherever you feel like. Setting up a tent in the park. Most other cities would stop this from happening but SF won't.

[selestify]

Why wouldn't they punish such behavior? That sounds ridiculous

[michaelt]

Some people believe mentally ill homeless drug addicts are the tragic, powerless victims of a society which has made housing and medical care unaffordable and deprived them of political representation; that putting a homeless person in jail guaranteeing them food and a bed for a week is unlikely to be much of a deterrent; and that the things that would be an effective deterrent are inhumane.

Personally I don't agree, but I can see why a person would think that way.