I recognize that I'm missing that part of the context, but it still surprises me that the answer to that is relatively global surveillance. In the current state of things, homelessness is perfectly public and observable, right? And so at any point now, the proposed "enforcement" could take place without the need for cameras? I think that part is unclear to me as well, the problem that exists that this solves.
Well, there are two ways to reduce homelessness: enforce vagrancy laws directly or wait for homeless people to commit a second crime and arrest them for that.
Some American cities have the state capacity necessary to do the former option, but the rest are stuck with the latter. And the latter only works if you can get evidence for low-level crimes when they happen.
Yes. It solves the "surveillance tech company needs to make quarterly goals" problem, and the "politician needs to look like they are doing something about crime" problem.
