There's a framing problem here, on both sides. Notice how the EFF article starts off talking about how the recently enacted ordinance requires the police to get pre-approval permission to use facial recognition. But all that actually happened was the policed looked at live CCD footage from cameras not on the pre-approved list. The article is framing the debate by making the rules seem reasonable and the police seem sinister.

At the same time, presumably the reason you felt the need to qualify "disturbance" is because you recognize that on the other side of the debate are people who try to frame these protests in a negative light, with an insinuation (if not explicit assertion) that they inevitably descend into looting and violence.

Neither narrative is realistic, though in San Francisco the former group absolutely controls the narrative, and likes to play off the counter-framing about inevitable violence. In any event, there's no real debate here: just FUD on both sides.

When several weeks ago Mayor Breed said that the 2019 ordinance needed reforming, one of the drafters wrote an op-ed that said there's no need for it; that it doesn't restrict the police in any meaningfully way, and Breed's claim were groundless. That op-ed likewise tossed around the specter of facial recognition. But not once did they address the most obvious issue, which is that the police are severely limited in their ability to perform real-time surveillance of spontaneous and fluid situations, such as peaceful protests, riots, etc. The 2019 and earlier ordinances basically presume a context of continuous, 24 hour surveillance, access thereto, or after-the-fact evidence gathering. For example, requests to put up cameras on corners with high rates of crime or to deploy license plate scanners on patrol cars.

Activists on the left have lost all credibility, trailing right behind the right. Even the EFF has gone too far. The debate has become unhinged. It's become so adversarial that nobody even tries address the legitimate concerns of the other side, and facts simply take a back seat. There aren't any adults in the room. Perhaps that's because there isn't a room anymore--the entire conversation, even among the elected and professional classes (scholars, journalists, etc), has shifted over to social media, where success simply equates to spreading your memes (i.e. narratives, baseline assumptions, [poor] statistics, etc).

The police simply has to get pre-approved before they can monitor live cameras but they did so without pre-approval.

It's a great neologism; mispronounced (identically) in both Spanish and English! I said this word twice before I was strongly encouraged not to do so by those it theoretically describes.

And no, not all small businesses have insurance that covers damage from a riot and/or swarm lootfest with no raised rates or titanic deductible. And even if they did, they might not get covered next year (this has happened to some vineyards in Napa after the recent major fires).

There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus.

Basically, somewhat unlike White, Asian and Black, there are no specific phenotypes or looks that encompass people from Latin America. And Latin America doesn't encompass all parts all of the other Americas or the Caribbean, to all people depending on who you ask. So since

A) White, Asian and Black people can be from Latin America, plus

B) People can be from other parts of the Americas that are not always considered part of Latin America

C) The United States lacks a shorthand to address that population who lacks an adequate form of representation within the United States

then D) some people that want to signal that willingness to acknowledge these realities as Latinx.

But yes, it can be ignorable as it doesn't reflect the wishes of people with heritage from Central and South America and some parts of the Caribbean, but understand that perspective too is because many people from any distinct country in Latin America don't come from a diverse place to begin with as its mostly just their countrypeople with its own unique phenotypes (or not giving representation or to other people in a caste system), whereas in the US there already is a history of grouping people by race for better or for worse for any reason, and the idea falls apart fastest when it comes to Hispanic or Latin America groupings.

White, Asian and Black terms have the same problems when you dive deep enough into it, but the history of migration to the US by those groups makes it easier to ignore that for those groups. For example, if 25%+ of our Asian population had stopped in Peru for a few hundred years before coming to the US, then yeah we actually might be saying something like Axian by now, and there are many people who do wish for more nuanced representation.