Cop Campus as a Drone Surveillance Technology Center

The San Pablo Police Department (SPPD) is considering expanding its current Drone Surveillance Technology Center. Currently, the center consists of eight specially trained pilots who operate from a Nightingale base station perched atop the Police Department's sallyport. The proposed expansion aims to extend the wireless mesh network across San Pablo, purportedly to enhance aerial support operations. This initiative seeks to optimize coverage and connectivity, claiming to enable more efficient responses to priority calls-for-service. To facilitate these operations, the SPPD is actively pursuing a beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Furthermore, there are plans to identify additional base station locations scattered throughout the city, which prompts us to question the necessity of such expansion and demand transparent discussions regarding potential risks and community impact before proceeding. Here are a few compelling considerations to oppose this initiative:

• Privacy Implications & Civil Liberties: The expansion of drone surveillance directly threatens civil liberties, jeopardizing the right to freedom of association and protection from government intrusion. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have raised alarms over potential abuse and insufficient safeguards to protect individual rights. Specifically, the Carpenter v. United States (2018) Supreme Court ruling highlights the need to protect against unwarranted searches, especially in electronic surveillance. Considering the currently operating 200 surveillance cameras in the city of San Pablo, the proposed expansion lacks clear guidelines and oversight, which, together, heightens the risk of privacy infringements and threatens individual liberties.
• Mission Creep: Expanding drone surveillance capabilities poses the risk of mission creep, where initial surveillance goals extend into broader and potentially intrusive activities. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cautions against this phenomenon in drone surveillance programs, stressing the importance of clear limitations and robust accountability mechanisms. Without adequate safeguards, the proposed expansion could lead to abuses of power and undermine public trust in law enforcement. Examples of the diverse range of targets commonly observed in drone surveillance operations include, but are not limited to:
  • Faces: Drone surveillance focuses on capturing images or video footage of individuals' faces for identification, tracking, or crowd monitoring purposes.
  • Residences: Drones survey residential areas to gather data on housing structures, property conditions, and occupancy patterns.
  • Vehicles: Drones monitor vehicular traffic, collecting information such as license plate numbers, vehicle details, and movements for traffic management or law enforcement purposes.
  • Activities: Drone surveillance targets specific behaviors or events, capturing footage of gatherings, protests, or suspicious activities for law enforcement analysis.
  • Public Events: Drones monitor public events to ensure safety, tracking crowd size, behavior, and potential threats to prevent disturbances or criminal acts.
  • Commercial Establishments: Drones surveil commercial areas, detecting illegal activities like theft or vandalism and ensuring compliance with regulations.

• Data Security: Drone surveillance operations generate extensive data, including audio recordings, video footage, images, geospatial data, thermal imaging, communication logs, flight logs, timestamps, location information, device identifiers, target tracking data, and more. This abundance of data raises concerns about security, retention, and access control. However, the proposed expansion does not adequately address these issues, leaving residents vulnerable to unauthorized access, breaches, and misuse of sensitive surveillance data.
• Safety Risks: Operating drones beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) poses significant safety risks, such as collisions with aircraft, obstacles, or pedestrians. Additionally, BVLOS operations expand drone surveillance capabilities, intensifying privacy concerns and legal implications. The possibility of accidents and privacy violations highlights the importance of stringent oversight and accountability measures.

Alternative Solutions

In light of these concerns, the proposed expansion of the Drone Surveillance Technology Center is deeply troubling. Rather than proceeding with the expansion, the SPPD should prioritize alternative solutions that uphold privacy, civil liberties, and public safety:

• Implement Clear Policies: Develop comprehensive policies and guidelines governing the use of drone surveillance technology, with a focus on protecting privacy rights and civil liberties.
• Enhance Transparency: Foster transparency through public disclosure of drone surveillance policies, procedures, and guidelines. Engage with the community to solicit feedback and address concerns transparently.
• Ensure Accountability: Establish robust accountability mechanisms, including regular audits and independent oversight, to monitor compliance with drone surveillance regulations and ethical standards.