> a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco.

"Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones.

The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil rights movement) were peaceful and didn't involve harming people.

This seems like a situation where a crackdown would be likely to produce positive effects, honestly.

It's one thing to enforce some kind of dystopia, but locking up people for breaking into cars seems like it shouldn't be a particularly radical proposal.

First its locating people breaking in to cars and now the infrastructure is set up its easy to justify it being used to track problem people everywhere they go and then justified to track everyone everywhere they go to identify problem people,.

Fix in the context of perfect facial recognition surveillance means being able to locate and arrest all people that commit a crime. People who are not driven to crime because they can afford a financially comfortable and privileged lifestyle will not feel the effects of poverty and homelessness in this scenario. It's like putting a band aid on a festering wound.

On the other hand, if we are not able to locate and arrest whoever defecated on the sidewalk, maybe we'll resort to building more toilets.

edit: I have faith that San Francisco is progressive enough to not allow widespread harsh and cruel punishment for the less fortunate based on group association.

I wholeheartedly disagree. More toilets won't fix the problem -- I suspect they could even potentially worsen the issue by making the city a more attractive place for the beyond-hope.

Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.

The ACLU, psychiatrists, and other reformers are more culpable than Reagan. Deinstitutionalization started long before 1980. See, e.g.,

  https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html

Some amount of reform was needed, but the deinstitutionalization that occurred was too extreme, too rapid, and lacked adequate backstops. Politicians were just doing what they were told by lawyers and psychiatrists, and they were eager to comply because it meant huge cuts in spending.

So you are saying anyone who can't afford the insane price of having a house with a toilet in SF is mentally ill?

If they remain in SF, yes. Departure is a reasonable option.

San Francisco's policy is basically to leave the gushing wounds alone, and instead think hopeful thoughts about how we really should be eradicating all disease.

True, that would be the real solution, and then we wouldn't need those pesky bandages. No pathogens in the air, no risk of infection. Leaving wounds open also helps bystanders feel the problem, and probably motivates some to go into medical research or to work harder at it.

But "visible infections will motivate the end of disease" is a batshit insane public health program, and "car break-ins will motivate the end of capitalism" works about as well as an anti-poverty strategy.