Are+you+with?+(Girls)

The controversial issue of using homeless people as an aid to provide a service issue should not be valid. There are many advantages to employing the homeless. The general public should perceive and understand the situation from different points of view, or with a blind eye. Using generalizations to label a whole group of people should not be happening. The main purpose of using the homeless was to help the homeless, as quoted by the BBH. Society should see the benefits which clearly exceed the drawbacks.

We believe that there are many positive lookouts for the use of homeless hotspots. These include:
 * **Less crimes** à they occupy their time by providing a service to society, which is impacting the society in a positive way. By occupying their time, they have less time to be influenced or attracted in wrong doings.
 * **Employment** à this advantage benefits the government, society and the homeless people themselves. The hotspots provide the chance to earn money, so that the homeless can come out of their financial crisis. By earning a wage, the government has to spend less on helping homeless people. Overtime, less homeless people will be seen and visible on streets which are beneficial to the society, as more people will have a good standard of living, even though it is only the bare minimum.
 * **Raising awareness** à some people are not aware of the fact that homeless people exist, and that the less fortunate need society’s help. As said in several of the videos linked below, generous people make donations which give a boost in the financial account.
 * **Socially active** à the homeless are more engaged and involved in society which helps them as they can see that there is a place for them in society. By advertising and providing people with a 4g internet connection, they have the opportunity to introduce themselves and share their stories with other people, who may be able to help them

Homeless people are humans too, and they should have equal rights to living as people living in homes. The communication gap or divide should not exist mainly because homeless people have feelings too, and should not suffer because society looks down on them. Anyone can be in the position of these homeless people, and stating things like “Helping hipsters check their email is not charitable, in fact its potentially dangerous and detrimental to the situation the people on the street are facing” should not be acceptable. As stated by the homeless, they are not engaged with the technological world. There’s a digital divide between the two. The only role that the homeless person plays is holding the router and accepting donations. This is proven by the video. This statement is also incorrect, because anyone can be in the position of the homeless person, a person who lives in a household can also receive dangerous emails which is a risk to society. People perceive homelessness as a negative thing, however, they don’t know the story behind what got the homeless person in that certain position. Employing only helps them. As one of them said “Benefits go beyond money”. The thought of caring also plays a huge role.

To conclude, homeless people are aware of the controversial issues taking place. They themselves believe that using them is beneficial as they have some source of money income. The selfish attitudes of people should not be tolerated. If the homeless believe that this is impacting them in a positive way, then the society should support them.

media type="youtube" key="tIeB88oHhoI" height="315" width="420" media type="youtube" key="SPBo1zMVh6Y" height="315" width="560"

Is the Homeless Hotspots project unethical? It is certainly a challenging subject for ethical analysis, and ethical analysis is what is needed rather than emotional reflex. Clearly, much of the criticism arises from “the Ick Factor,” when something that is strange and unexpected just //seems// unethical though defining exactly what’s unethical about it may prove difficult. Yes, it //is// a strange idea, but strange isn’t unethical, and yes, it //is// a publicity gimmick, but seeking publicity isn’t unethical either. If Homeless Hotspots are to be found unethical, the verdict must be based on harmful or unfair exploitation. This is a common issue on Ethics Alarms, and a gray one. My position has been split between disapproving of the ethics of paying the vulnerable, gullible, sick or needy to humiliate or harm themselves for the entertainment of others, and defending individuals who allow themselves to be paid to do things that others protest as humiliating on their behalf. The distinction often comes down to informed consent.

Extracted from: []

A comment on a blog

A tweet from someone who is for this: //“////A social experiment that actually provokes unrest about the way we treat homeless people, sparking conversation and debate? Win.”//