GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless

EwanPalmer (2536690) writes "A project involving GoPro cameras and people living on the streets of San Francisco has suggests technology is making people feel less compassionate towards the homeless. Started by Kevin F Adler, the Homeless GoPro project aims to 'build empathy through a first-hand perspective' by strapping one of the cameras onto homeless volunteers to document their lives and daily interactions. One of the volunteers, Adam Reichart, said he believes it is technology which is stopping people from feeling sympathy towards people living on the street as it's easier to have 'less feelings when you're typing something' than looking at them in the eye"

Comments

No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't giving pandhandlers money before, either, now I just have my phone to look at instead of nothing.

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, are shoes making people less empathetic? Before shoes, we had nothing to stare at while avoiding eye contact, but now AFTER THAT BASTARD INVENTED SHOES, everybody's got an excuse.

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[Opportunist]

Hey, I'm as extroverted as the next guy, I look at your shoes when I'm talking with you!

Re:No, just gives us a new way to hide it

[rezme]

First rule of walking the streets of San Francisco. Don't make eye contact with the panhandlers. You'll be broke within a block. I lived there for 5 years, walked (or took public transit) everywhere, and couldn't go two blocks without passing a half dozen of them. When I first moved there, I'd give some, but it got so annoying to be getting up at 6am, and asked for spare change 12 times between my apartment and the bus stop where I caught the bus to work that I just gave up on it. I'll be the first to admit that there are a number of homeless in SF that are genuinely unable to provide for themselves, but there are far more that are. I lived in the Haight for a while, and I regularly used to get panhandled by teenagers wearing 180$ Doc Martins. I've got loads of sympathy for the homeless, but that doesn't extend to putting myself on the streets in order to feed/clothe/house them.

perception

[globaljustin]

I usually don't blame "technology" in the abstract for anything...IMHO it's too reductive of a concept to be useful and always glosses over the actual technical details

This, however, strikes me as different. This is a good thing because it communicates a *need* in a way that our modern society has made obsolete.

In the 18th Century, cities were so small and mixed that the rich **had to see the poor** daily. They had to see how they lived, open on the streets.

Today, for several reasons related to technology, the rich are able to go about their business completely obvlivious to the struggles of the poor.

Those struggles become nothing more than another voice in the din of TV/internet media...in the endless news cycle...easy to marginalize and ignore, even for a really civic-minded rich person...it's just not on their radar screen

This project aims to correct that with technology...I think it's valuable

Re:perception

[lgw]

In the 18th Century, cities were so small and mixed that the rich **had to see the poor** daily. They had to see how they lived, open on the streets.

And so a common solution at the time was to occasionally have the cops beat all the beggars out of town with cudgels. No more problem with seeing the homeless.

The issue isn't seeing, the issue is caring. (And personally, my charity goes to people around the world with much worse problems than America's "poor", people whom I will never see, but that's just me.)

Re:perception

[lgw]

The biggest problem as I see it is that so many people think it's the government's job now. After all, we pay a lot of taxes and the government has a lot of social programs. Why do more? I used to think that way myself.

But these days, I just accept my taxes as a total loss, and only count as charity what I give to good charities that I trust. I also prefer charities focused on fixing the underlying issues, over the merely palliative.

Re:perception

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it something we *want* the government to do? I'm not saying the current plan is working out, but isn't a reasonable idea that the government can and should deal with the issue?

Re:perception

[Anonymous Coward]

No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to. They will abuse it and rob the tax payer blind if they are allowed. Charities are more direct and people know that it is being done because people actually care, not because their funds have been confiscated under threat of imprisonment. Not to mention that charities will deny services to moochers and freeloaders who are just out to scam others.

It is interesting that in the US you will see people standing by the road with some short sob story on a piece of cardboard wanting you give them money. In Mexico, the poor are by the side of the road selling stuff, or doing something entertaining to earn your donation. You can guess which one I'd be more inclined to select as the recipient of my donation.

Re:perception

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I'm here in San Francisco now. Outside of my hotel (the Mosser on 4th near Mission) there were a couple (apparently) homeless men. They didn't ask for money or anything. No one was holding a sign. No one was calling out. In March I was in Vegas. Same thing. In Boston it wasn't quite so apparent (but maybe that's because Boston gets pretty cold so they go elsewhere). I was in Jamaica (the island) earlier this year and the poverty is at a level unlike anyplace else in the US. When I'm back home in Miami, people will call out to you. They'll hold up signs. They'll stand at your windows and look at you, sometimes even knock. I see it so often that it no longer even registers to me. It's every day on the work. It's when I walk outside to grab a coffee. It's pretty much every time I go out, I expect someone to be asking for money. (BTW, all this travel is for work.)

But here's the thing: I'm not rich. I give when I can and even when I can't or shouldn't, but my account is about $108 from empty. I worry about paying all my bills each month (mortgage, insurance, groceries, medical). I have some medical issues that I cannot fix now because it would set me back $10K (rotator cuff injury requiring surgery and PT, tooth alignment, weakening vision in left eye). My roof is leaking. My wife's car won't stay charged and the estimate is $300 to replace the alternator and battery. My daughter wants to go on a school trip costing $200. All these things add up and I'm not rich. To provide these things, I work almost constantly. Now I'm not complaining about this; this is the choice I make every day.

But damn, when someone comes up to me and tries to give me a guilt complex about not giving enough, the only thing I can think is, "Fuck off." I may be one of those walking down Mission ignoring you, maybe coming out of the MGM Grand, or reading the menu at a food truck in Austin. But many make the assumption that if I'm in those cities then I have to be loaded. Not the case.

Re:perception

[lgw]

Interesting assertion. I think the government (or parts of it) benefits greatly by creating a permanent underclass dependent on government assistance (giving a man a fish while trying to prevent him from learning to fish). We've seen plenty of clear historical and current evidence of people in power using aid to the poor to create a supply of loyal followers. There's little that's more creepy than a "free" school with the patron's picture everywhere and lessons everyday on what a good person the patron is and so on - this is still common today in parts of the world, as is becoming a powerful government/religious leader because of it. And to me, a poorly structured government charity (one that actually penalizes moving to a minimum wage job) has the same creepy vibe, if to a lesser degree.

I give to charities that focus on improving communities become self-sufficient and breaking these kinds of traps (though I do have one religious charity I'm slightly skeptical of, they have a solid reputation). Precisely providing that kind of aid without the "and you only have to me my loyal follower" strings attached.

Do we have much evidence of government assistance that actually fixes underlying problems, rather than help keep people satisfies with things as they are? I like to see some rays of hope in that area, somewhere!

Re:perception

[jopsen]

No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to.

Food, shelter, education and health care is not unreasonable rights :)

Anyways, private charity will never cover the need, never... I'm from a country where government works, and it does provide opportunity for people to get back on their feet.

There is still private charity for poor people, but they focus mainly on social aspects, or on the cases where a few fall through the state provided safety net.

My point is, private charity, will never cover more than edge cases. It's never enough to cover everybody, or even the majority of those in need.

Re:perception

[TheSync]

"Why the asylums were closed is anyone's guess."

In California, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was passed "To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism."

The goal of Deinstitutionalization was that instead of being warehoused in huge, remote institutions, mental patients should be returned to communities where, with help, they might achieve some function in society. Unfortunately there was not much funding for the second part, plus some patients chose the streets if they were not involuntarily committed. Thus many deinstitutionalized patients became homeless.

Re:perception

[greenreaper]

Many disagree with you as to whether these things are or should be rights. Some believe that people should be left to starve or freeze to death if they are unwilling or unable to work. (This viewpoint is not uniquely American.)

Deriding people who hold such views for their lack of compassion is non-productive. To win them over, it may be more effective to show how helping the poor benefits them - if indeed it does. For example, public health care benefits everyone who has direct or indirect contact with the public - even the rich - through the prevention of epidemics.

In the Simpsons, the local school puts on a play ("The Nice Man Giveth") to show Mr Burns the personal value of education, when poorly-educated students accidentally serve him rat poison, can't read a map to drive him to hospital, and fail to operate correctly on him. While it does not work in that particular instance, perhaps those who seek funding from the public could do a better job of explaining why the public should care.

Re:perception

[Dahamma]

Actually, I don't agree that food, shelter, educations, and health care are in any way *rights*. I see rights as restrictions that should not be placed on an individual by others. Rights are the basic humans conditions that the government should leave alone and/or protect, depending on the situation.

But that doesn't mean I don't think there are *obligations*. If you have an extreme excess of wealth and no interest in helping others in severe need, you are morally if not financially bankrupt. The fact that many people in this situation seem to pretend to follow "Christian" or other religious practices is even worse, and at some point hypocritical.

I agree with you that private charity will never cover the "need" if the need is in fact just basic income inequality. Private charities do a great job solving issues like diseases because they focus on popular trends or cross-cutting concerns that affect everyone equally. But being poor isn't likely to afflict the child of a wealthy person, and that's where collective pooling of resources come in, ie. taxes - which is where the US system of regressive taxes and selective charities is failing so badly. If you make $70k a year in salary you will pay 30%+ in taxes, but if you make $100M a year from investments you will pay 15% (eh, and yeah, 15% if you are an idiot). Hey, even without all of the tax shelters if you feel generous/guilty and want to donate to a charity, it can be much less! More to homeless albino 3 legged dogs, less to homeless veterans...

Re:perception

[Dahamma]

Ronald Reagan's tax breaks resulted in increased government revenue, is the thing. Voodoo economics actually worked

Increased revenue but MASSIVELY INCREASED spending. So, no, it did not work at all and is still the current model of pretty much every administration after his (Republican and Democrat) as to how to spend way more money than they take in for short term political gain over long term solutions.

Claiming the tax breaks themselves results in increased revenue is horribly conflating correlation with causation. It's much more likely the increased revenue was in fact due to the increased deficit spending, of course.

Re:perception

[drinkypoo]

The goal of Deinstitutionalization was that instead of being warehoused in huge, remote institutions, mental patients should be returned to communities where, with help, they might achieve some function in society. Unfortunately there was not much funding for the second part

Unfunded mandates are never benevolent. If the idea is that people will get help, but no mechanism for that is in the act, then that idea was constructed to fool fools.

Re:perception

[phishen]

I don't know about the Mexico bit, but pretty much all homeless people I see by the side of the off ramps fit the bill described above. There was this one lady that always hung out in front of a shopping center near my friend's place giving the same story about trying to save up enough for a bus ride across town. We saw her for months, and I joked that she could have walked there by now. Well, my friend actually stopped to talk to her, let her know that we'd been given the same story by her for months, and actually asked her why she didn't just walk there. The lady looked embarrassed. We never saw her there again.

Which "Homeless?"

[mythosaz]

Will it be one of the part-time homeless who make a full days' wage standing a few hours on the corner and then retreating to their suburban home because they have a juicy location?

Will it be a "gutterpunk" who has chosen homelessness as his lifestyle - playing the ukulele on "college" street between heroin injections?

[Panhandling, apparently, nets about $8/hour, depending on where you live -- more than enough if you aspire to only shoot up and go back to your crappy hotel after a few hours.]

...or will it be the genuinely if-only-I-could-bootstrap-myself homeless, the mentally ill, or someone who's on the streets because they're out of options?

I can see this

[mysidia]

which is stopping people feel sympathy towards people living on the street as it's easier to have 'less feelings when you're typing something' than looking at them in the eye"

If you are not looking them in the eye, then you are not experiencing the Identifiable Victim effect.

Wrong, it's not the tech

[cbybear]

It's having to step over trash strewn everywhere around refuse cans. It's having to avoid unknown streams down the sidewalk and then getting a lung-full of the reek of old urine. It's the constant begging. That is why people are less empathetic. After years of this and nothing working, you have to ignore it or go crazy with the constant assault.

Helping the poor

[SuperKendall]

In San Francisco you "have to see the poor" daily as well. Hows that working out for them?

The trouble with the homeless is that they are not just poor, there are usually multiple problems at work including mental issues... so seeing them and giving them money is usually not helping much.

If you really want to help the poor I suggest going to Modest Needs, that is the best place I've found to help the truly poor directly before they fall off the bottom rung of the ladder.

Re:Helping the poor

[Kjella]

Here in Norway I have the impression that it's only two main groups. One is Romani that arrive through the EU agreement, basically the kind who come with no rights, no education, no work history, no nothing and the only thing they're here for is to beg, steal and live off various programs that provide shelter and food for the homeless while leaving a trail of littering and vandalism in their wake. And yes, I don't mind stigmatizing the whole group because 68 of 69 beggars in a random sweep of beggars had a criminal record. And despite a million attempts to integrate them, they have no intention of ever becoming productive members of society and raise their children just like them to embrace their nomadic and parasitic lifestyle. Many of the children aren't enrolled in primary/secondary education at all and the few who are absent more than 1/3rd of the time. They also have more than a few cultural issues with suckers who work all day for an honest wage, why anyone would give them money is incomprehensible to me.

The other big, big group is drug/alcohol addicts, but there are hospices and such that will give them shelter and food if they don't show up high as a kite. The truly homeless are the ones who can't keep their drug use outside the shelter, but even those get winter sleeping bags so they don't freeze to death on the streets. They're not trying to hustle you for money in order to eat or drink or put clothes on their backs or a roof over their heads, it's to feed their habit. It's almost a protection racket, we're addicts and we will find the money to get our kick so you can either throw a few bucks in our cup or we'll get desperate and you really don't want us to get desperate. If you give them anything nice they'll probably sell it for the money anyway, you can give them money but it's not going to lead to anything positive. The rest are mostly taken care of, if you just have mental or money problems you won't be the streets and you won't have to beg for a living.

Re:Helping the poor

[jopsen]

The rest are mostly taken care of, if you just have mental or money problems you won't be the streets and you won't have to beg for a living.

In Norway :)
I recently moved from Denmark to San Francisco... And whilst I do see many homeless people with mental issues, I also hear that there is not treatment facilities available.

Many homeless, here also looks like they are feeding an abuse. But I certainly also see homeless people who doesn't look like drug addicts or have mental issues.

Re:Helping the poor

[AlphaWolf_HK]

The last time I was being panhandled, it was by some lady who was smoking cigarettes at the time she was asking me for money. I said I didn't have any (which is true; I only carry a credit card and rarely have cash) but even if I did, there's no way I am going to give any to somebody who is likely to just buy cigarettes with it. If they want food, that is already easy to get for free (the shelters and churches literally just give it away.) If they need clothing, same thing.

When I think about it, cigarettes and/or booze are the only thing they actually need money for. All of the bare essentials are available at no cost.

Re:Helping the poor

[Dahamma]

Thank Ronald Reagan for that. He basically killed spending for mental health (and put it all into the military, yay) which resulted in hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people being released from hospitals and institutions and onto the street. It's telling that Republicans think of Reagan as their best president in the last 50 years when honestly his policies are in fact the origin of much of the Federal deficit, health care disasters, and income inequality issues we see in the US today.

They think he "ended the Cold War." But basically he outspent the Soviet Union in the short term by jeopardizing the future of the US in the long term. Now ironically, in the current geopolitical situation China is dominating monetary and human capital and Russia doesn't have the untenable debt and has a huge income source from recent oil and gas exploration, so they may end up "winning" in the long run after all.

Re:Helping the poor

[Chrisq]

How does the second part of that sentence not make you reconsider your assertion in the first?

I think you are right that might possibly be a very small fraction who actually do prefer the "vagabond" lifestyle, despite the obvious and many hardships. But to make a blanket statement that *all* homeless are in that situation as a matter of choice seems wildly inaccurate to me.

When I was young before the welfare state was dismantled and anyone in need had to be homed by law I remember seeing a couple of homeless. They lived outside in makeshift tents in the woods on the edge of town. I remember they seemed happy. Now I see hundreds of homeless people, mainly in cities and looking unhappy. I would guess based on this that maybe 1% choose to live homeless, and much fewer than this do in cities

Re:Helping the poor

[s0nicfreak]

Having been homeless before, I saw that there are multiple types of homeless people;

There are the type that are thought of when you think of "homeless people" - the panhandlers, the bagladies, the "hobos." Either they choose to live this way, or their mental or addiction problems are so severe that they can not get out of it.

Then there are the ones you would never know are homeless. They are clean, and averagely or well dressed. They are either trying to get out of homelessness, or they truly prefer to not pay bills and a mortgage and such... or they have an addiction which forces them to spend their bill money on drugs, but it's under control just enough that they keep themselves looking good and able to do their job.

I would not presume which type of homeless person someone is just by looking at them.

Whatever type they are, though, they have to deal with people. Pretty much constantly. It's essential to survival; finding where you can eat and sleep each day, ensuring another homeless person isn't going to stab you, etc. You have to be friendly with other homeless people, the cops, and people at businesses around you.

Though yes they are free from paying most bills, and (some are) free from the rat race, and there IS some joy in that... the grass is always greener and all that. Having lived both ways I will say I certainly would not have wanted to be searching for a shelter with an open bed in the -40 degree weather we had this winter. And I much prefer stressing about bills to stressing about if I'm going to eat today.

The people that are homeless because they just prefer to not pay bills are definitely the minority. It's much more comfortable to get/build a house and live off-grid, where you'd have the added bonus of not needing to deal with people if you choose. If you want the freedom of being a vagabond, it's much more comfortable to get an RV than to be homeless. I would say that the majority of people that refuse to go back to the normals, do so because they prefer doing drugs to being normal. And there's nothing wrong with that imo (as long as they aren't stealing, robbing etc. to get those drugs); I'm not going to judge nor try to stop them from choosing that, so why judge me for looking at my phone instead of them?

(Anyway, the ones that truly want/need help aren't going to ask ME for it if I'd just look away from my phone. They need long-term help, not the short term help of me giving them a few bucks. So there isn't much I can do for them, except maybe use my phone to google some resources for them. They probably know where the nearest library is and can google it themselves, anyway.)

Re:plastic

[mythosaz]

Also fewer and fewer people know the difference between less and fewer.

Strange..

[The123king]

As someone who walks around with earphones in most of the time, believe it or not, it makes me more empathetic to the homeless.Nothing says "disposable income" more than having headphones, and as such, i'm very self-conscious about that fact. Instead of aimlessly walking on by when a homesless guy tries to chat or ask for money, i'll often stop, have a chat, and give them my spare change. Sure, they might spend it on Special Brew or hard cider, but at least they'll spend all of my change on getting though their day.

Only 30% of the money you put in collection boxes actually goes to doing charitable work, the rest is spent on administrative costs, advertising, and other costs. When I give change to a homeless guy, i know that 100% of my money is going to do that homeless guy some good, and there's nothing like the feeling of making someone's day. Put that money into a collection box, and only 30% is going to go to good causes, and you'll probably never meet the guy who's day you made.

All in all, i believe charity should start at home. And for the people who get my spare change, a home is something they can only dream about.

Re:Strange..

[The123king]

You should be more worried about the air pollution from motor vehicles than my second-hand smoke.

I smoke outside in open air, so second-hand smoke should not be a problem. I don't smoke in front of children and i especially don't blow it into peoples faces. I also try not to smoke near restaurants or other places selling food, as there's nothing less appetising than getting a nose full of someone elses cigarette, so i sympathise with you there. But i don't see anyone giving smokers "priority" over anything in public spaces. Most european countries have introduced indoor smoking bans (including the UK, my home country), so the only place to smoke is outside anyway. And most establishments either have an outdoor smoking area, or a pot of some sort outside for cigarette litter.

Tech is a refuge

[Lije Baley]

We're being driven from our humanity by various forms of corruption in civilization, and technology is helping us escape...inward.

Reality has an unfavorable bias?

[supernova87a]

Maybe, just maybe, showing how many resources and $ are being spent to give homeless people options, especially in San Francisco, only to have that money pissed away and people still soiling our streets and public transport systems, tends to decrease how sympathetic you feel towards the chronically homeless?

Re:Spare Change

[FudRucker]

the homeless have a right to drink some booze just like anybody else, maybe they have arthritis or a tooth ache and a little booze is the only way to find some temporary relief, so fuck you if you think having a home qualifies you to have a drink while being homeless disqualifies someone from having a a little temporary relief from the pain and struggles of life.

you might find yourself homeless someday, with no opportunities to improve your situation, then what?

Define homeless....

[Lumpy]

The hustling scammers, the druggies and drunks, the mentially ill, or the real homeless that are down on their luck and actually trying?

Because the first two I ignore completely. The mentially Ill I feel really bad for, and the onesthatare really down on their luck are not on the street corners hustling for money. Those people are helped by my donations to homeless shelters and to women and children shelters.

The fake hustler that is claiming they are a veteran standing there with a sign? Or the one guy I see push his wheel chair up to the corner then get in it with his hand out? they can stuff it.

Re:Spare Change

[BitZtream]

That may be true in some countries, but not in America.

In America you have to actively refuse help in order to be in continual pain or homeless.

I HAVE been poor, there is no excuse for hunger or suffering in the US, there are programs to help.

The problem is not that they are poor, its that they don't want to be helped, the reason for this could be any number of things from simple depression to severe mental disorders, but it IS NOT because help is unavailable.

A severe tooth abscess can be handled by the ER if its that bad and no publicly funded ER will turn down you down, its illegal. I know, I've been in EXACTLY that spot. And for reference, alcohol does pretty much nothing at all for tooth pain, you're far better off packing clove powder around it to numb it and treat the infection than drinking yourself silly, unless you drink enough to pass out ... in which case you have to stay drunk or the sobering up process will be FAR worse.

I don't think it's technology

[rsilvergun]

I think it's 30 years of declining wages. Half of all Americans live paycheck to paycheck. We're too busy trying to keep ourselves afloat to worry about anyone else, which is probably the whole point.... Keeps us at each other's throats :(.

Nope, it's the homeless

[russotto]

There's one guy who is constantly begging on the New Jersey Transit trains in Penn Station NYC, he claims he just needs a few bucks for a ticket to get home (common scam actually, this guy is just more regular than most). Of course he's full of shit, as another guy on my car proved by offering him a ticket to where he wanted to go, and when he refused it, lit into him about how he was a pathetic loser who was making his race look bad.

Then there's the "Why Lie, I Need a Beer" guy also in Penn Station NYC. Though I think he's actually not homeless at all but a cop of some sort, he seems a bit too healthy.

And the bunches who fake some sort of deformity. They seem to have shifts worked out; maybe there's an organization who controls it. Anyway, they get in their contorted positions and hold out a cup or a sign or whatever. Then when their shift is up, they straighten up, pick up their stuff, and go.

some kind of basic income better then jail / priso

[Joe_Dragon]

some kind of basic income better then jail / prison

yes some homeless people are in and out of local jails alot some even use them as there doctor

Re:Spare Change

[Frosty Piss]

100 percent. Been there, done that.

There are four basic types of "homeless" -

1. The mentally ill.
2. Drug users and alcoholics that don't want to "get off the street" enough to do something about their habits.
3. Homeless people who lived too close to the edge and became unemployed, drug addicts and alcoholics who want to change their lives.

And here is Seattle - "Nicklesville" ...

4. People who feel that society should support their homeless lifestyle.

There are in fact many services for all of these groups except Number Four. The rest, if they work hard, give up the heavy booze and drugs (there are in fact programs), they can lift themselves out of homelessness.

And don't fool yourself, Number Four exists in great numbers, dragging the "real" homeless down to their level.

Re:Spare Change

[fermion]

And this brings up charity versus philanthropy.

Charity is something you do because you believe you are wealthy enough to give someone money with no strings attached. This is what the salvation army wants you to do during Christmas. Not thinking that your money is going to be used to promote hate, teach people that science is bad, and generally ruin the minds of children. But many people still give because charity is good.

Then there is philanthropy. That occurs when people with money want to control the world. They decide what is best for everyone, and use their funds to make it happen. It is no better or worse than charity, just different.

The Alternative

[SuperKendall]

What could be worse than food!?

Taco Bell

Re:Spare Change

[WhatAreYouDoingHere]

And here is Seattle - "Nicklesville" ...

4. People who feel that society should support their homeless lifestyle.

I noticed a lot of that in Portland, when I lived up there. Maybe it's a northwest thing?

Re:GoPro makes dubious claim...

[jddj]

DIsagree.

I haven't seen the project in TFA, but I HAVE seen an interaction design project where GoPro cameras were put on the heads of first-graders in a lunchroom.

I have to say, the experience of seeing a first-person view through the eyes of someone 5 years old was amazing and eye-opening. Certainly, I don't have direct access to the first-graders' thoughts, but I DO have a certain access to their experience through these recordings, which I wouldn't have but for this unique instrumentation.

Try it out before you knock it. I'd say that Glass could potentially do the same thing with the homeless, if people didn't look like such rich, entitled dorks wearing Glass. There are other lower-profile life-logging cameras which could do a good job of this (I've seen one in use. The owner said people never ask her about it). Nothing about the GoPro is so special to the task.

FYI, I work in User Experience and Interaction Design, don't own a GoPro, nor do I work for them or own stock in their firm.

the real truth

[slashmydots]

I don't like the homeless because I met a bunch of them. They sincerely are lazy, unmotivated, and/or drug addicts. There's a temp agency in town where if you show up sober in the morning, you work. The end. If something is preventing you from doing that, it's probably your fault. So that's why I dislike and don't empathize with the homeless. I'm CIO of one company and the rest of the day run a computer repair shop just to make ends meet. I typically work 12 hour days. One of my homeless friends...well, he spends all day playing Magic the Gathering at a hobby shop, hanging out at various locations, bumming rides off people, and stays at the homeless shelter. When we told him to get a job at a temp agency for even just a week, he said he doesn't do that kind of work because he doesn't like it. He's also convinced he's unhireable because he's homeless but it's a cover for being lazy. THAT right there is the homeless. So take your Go Pro and shove it up your ass.

Texas Has Fewer Homeless, California More

[Nova Express]

Compared to when The Great Recession Started.

"California, with just under 12% of the nation's population, has 22.43% of the nation's homeless population, giving it a homelessness quotient of 0.88. Quite high, in other words. Almost double the number of homeless people one would predict, given its population."

"Texas, which has roughly 8.2% of the nation's population, only has 4.85% of the nation's homeless population (meaning: Texas has a quite low homelessness quotient of -0.41)."

Growing economy = less homeless, contracting economy = more homeless.

Go look at the statistics if you doubt it.

Re:Spare Change

[Pfhorrest]

It's also a big thing in Santa Barbara, CA, which has streets full of "homeless" teens from wealthy families who voluntarily move out to the street to escape their "dictator" parents, and which is also apparently some kind of "homeless mecca" to which homeless people from other cities want to migrate because of great weather and sympathetic liberal-minded college kids stocked up on their rich parents' money.

Re:Spare Change

[David Jao]

Yes, I have tried to give food or buy them food. About half the time, they accept. In any case, even giving food is not foolproof. It might just mean that they now have more money to spend on booze since they don't have to spend as much of it on food.

Norway: super rich country with strong support?

[fantomas]

Non-Norwegian here. Isn't Norway one of the richest countries in the world with a strong social support system? So the situations which make somebody homeless in other countries don't apply to Norway?

For example - in USA, I believe that people have to pay for healthcare, and after a certain period of time, no longer get housing benefit support when unemployed (USA person will have to help me here) - so it is possible to be a hard working member of society, but due to illness, get in debt (paying for medicine) and end up homeless (because you can't work, so can't pay your housing bills) so get made homeless, and can't get another place to live because you don't have the money to rent a new place?

If somebody is ill in Norway, do they have to pay for healthcare? if somebody is unemployed, will the state give them financial support to pay their housing costs? If so, you have a very different environment from other countries in the world.

Re:Spare Change

[drinkypoo]

Well, in Santa Cruz, CA, most of the homeless kids came from homes where they had been actively abused, often sexually. I went to school with some kids who lived in squats. They didn't move out of their houses and onto the streets because of a good home life.