Sure! Here’s the translation to American English:
—
Once again, entrepreneur Chris Larsen, originally from San Francisco, has leveraged his economic power to promote a controversial police surveillance project in the city. Recently, the San Francisco police commissioner, along with the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Daniel Lurie, greenlighted a $9.4 million donation from Larsen for a new Real-Time Investigation Center. This new facility will move the police’s current technology center from the Hall of Justice to a subleased space within Ripple Labs, the cryptocurrency transfer company Larsen founded. Although it has been asserted that the city will not incur costs for the space, the rent has represented an expense of approximately $2.3 million for Ripple and will extend until December 2026.
The agreement also includes an additional donation of $7.25 million from the San Francisco Community Police Foundation, also established by Larsen. These foundations often serve as semi-public fundraising arms, allowing police departments to acquire technology and equipment that are not covered by municipal funds.
However, this move has raised increasing concerns about transparency and accountability by allowing foundations like Larsen’s to fund unpopular surveillance measures without adequate public scrutiny. Larsen has been an active proponent of the controversial Proposition E last year, promoting efforts that seek to bypass regulations requiring Board of Supervisors approval before the police can acquire and use new surveillance technology.
Real-Time Investigation Centers are control rooms that collect various data sources, raising concerns about mass surveillance and potential abuse of power. Additionally, there is fear that the collected data could be shared with federal agencies, a situation that has been documented in the past with information from license plate readers.
Critics argue that the expansion of surveillance not only perpetuates public distrust but may also have negative effects on already marginalized communities. Despite claims that technology should help reduce crime, numerous studies indicate that surveillance does not effectively decrease criminal activity.
In light of this reality, the citizens of San Francisco feel increasingly vulnerable to the continuous monitoring and tracking backed by private interests. The prevailing opinion is that the police should operate under public oversight to ensure that residents can demand proper accountability. Private funding could erode trust and community autonomy.
In this context, elected officials are called to prioritize the well-being of the community over external influences, ensuring that the police remain a service under the people’s supervision. Residents now face the difficult question of whether the apparent security offered by this surveillance is worth the sacrifices it poses in terms of privacy and civil liberties.
Source: MiMub in Spanish