San Francisco‘s Surveillance State expands with Billionaire-Funded Real-Time Investigations Centre
Table of Contents
San Francisco residents are facing increased police surveillance following approvals for a new Real-Time Investigations Center (RTIC) largely funded by cryptocurrency mogul Chris Larsen, raising concerns about privacy, accountability, and the growing influence of private money in public safety.
The San Francisco Police Commission, Board of Supervisors, and Mayor daniel Lurie have authorized Larsen’s $9.4 million donation to establish the RTIC. The center will not be located in the city’s new police headquarters or the existing Hall of Justice, but will instead occupy a subleased space within a Financial District building owned by Ripple Labs, Larsen’s crypto-transfer company. While the city won’t directly cover the lease costs, Ripple Labs is reportedly paying $2.3 million for the space thru December 2026.
This deal is bolstering concerns echoed in other cities, like Atlanta, where a similar public-private partnership for a police training complex, dubbed “Cop City,” faced significant opposition. A recent court order compelled the Atlanta Police Foundation to release documentation related to Cop City, despite initial resistance based on claims of not being a public entity.
The San Francisco arrangement raises similar anxieties. Critics fear that an unaccountable fundraising arm, connected to wealthy individuals and corporations, could fund surveillance measures without adequate public oversight. “that an unaccountable and untransparent fundraising arm shmoozing with corporations and billionaires would fund unpopular surveillance measures without having to reveal much to the public” is a significant concern, according to observers.
Larsen’s involvement extends beyond this recent donation. He was a key financial backer of Proposition E last year, a ballot measure that weakened the city’s 2019 surveillance transparency ordinance. This ordinance previously required the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors before deploying new surveillance technology – a democratic check that was effectively removed.
The Rise of Real-Time Crime Centers
Real-time crime centers (RTCCs), as they are often called, consolidate data from a wide range of sources, including automated license plate readers, fixed cameras, body-worn cameras, and even drones. This creates a extensive, warrantless digital dragnet, tracking the movements and activities of the entire population. The potential for abuse, particularly in an era of increasing authoritarianism, is ample.
Concerns extend to the potential for data sharing. The SFPD has already been documented sharing automated license plate reader data with out-of-state law enforcement agencies involved in federal immigration investigations, raising fears about the vulnerability of residents to harassment.
San Francisco’s RTCC will further expand its reach by incorporating live feeds from a network of approximately 15,000 privately-owned surveillance cameras. This network, partially funded by – again – chris Larsen, has already been criticized for being used to monitor lawful protests against police violence.
Do Surveillance Technologies Actually Work?
Despite the investment, evidence suggests these technologies are largely ineffective at preventing crime. Studies indicate that cameras do not demonstrably deter criminal activity, and footage often captures crimes in progress rather than preventing them. “There’s plenty of footage of crime occurring that belies the idea that surveillance is an effective deterrent,” one analyst noted. Police often seek technological “silver bullets,” but data suggests they have little impact on the underlying patterns of criminal behavior.
The situation highlights a fundamental question: should a private citizen be able to dictate the direction of public safety policy? Larsen, having already influenced the weakening of police accountability measures and funded surveillance of First Amendment activities, is now poised to bankroll and host the police’s central technology hub.
The Erosion of Public Trust
Policing, fundamentally, must be a public function, subject to the control and accountability of the communities it serves. Reliance on private funding erodes public trust and control, leaving residents vulnerable to the shifting priorities of wealthy donors. Larsen could have addressed the root causes of crime, but instead chose to prioritize surveillance.
Elected officials, critics argue, should have rejected Larsen’s donation and ensured the SFPD remained solely accountable to the people of San Francisco. Allowing private interests to fund the degradation of privacy in public spaces sets a dangerous precedent. Residents should carefully consider whether a false sense of security is worth living under constant,billionaire-bankrolled surveillance.
