Do regulatory frameworks adequately safeguard against potential risks as drone technology expands into densely populated areas? Isn’t it a trespass on individuals’ privacy for law enforcement agencies to deploy drones over public gatherings like occasions and protests, potentially capturing intimate details about their personal lives? In a warfare zone, determining the suitable degree of drone autonomy lies with a multidisciplinary team comprising military strategists, lawyers, and engineers.
These situations are no longer theoretical. Advances in drone technology and sensor capabilities, combined with declining costs and relaxed regulations, are catapulting unmanned aerial vehicles to unprecedented heights of affordability, speed, and effectiveness. Here are four key developments transforming drone technology in the near future:
According to a report conducted by the Atlas of Surveillance, more than 1,500 US police departments currently possess drone technology. Skilled law enforcement pilots leverage drones to facilitate swift and effective search and rescue missions, monitor congested areas and events, and perform a range of additional tasks. According to Wealthy Slavin, Scottsdale’s assistant chief of police, the city’s Police Division successfully utilized a drone to locate an elderly individual with dementia who had wandered off. The division’s encounters with drones have been mixed, with pilots hindered by the FAA’s “line of sight” restriction. The regulation mandates that pilots must maintain constant visual contact with their drones, thereby significantly restricting the drone’s range and versatility.
Quickly, that can change. Within the heart of the metropolis, the Scottsdale Police Department is poised to deploy a state-of-the-art police drone, capable of navigating its surroundings with ease through autonomous takeoff, flight, and landing capabilities, as it takes up residence on a rooftop within the coming months. Slavin claims that the division is seeking a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exemption to enable its drone to operate beyond visual line of sight. Police departments have secured waivers from the FAA since 2019 to operate drones, which can reach speeds of up to 57 miles per hour. The unmanned aerial vehicles will be deployed up to three miles from their docking stations and used for tasks such as tracking suspects or providing a live feed of an officer at a visitor’s stop where backup is needed.
The FAA’s approach to innovation has proven remarkably forward-thinking, with a notable emphasis on embracing emerging trends. As the nation’s reliance on surveillance technology grows, it is increasingly likely that police drones will become a ubiquitous presence in the skies above us.
The Scottsdale division is poised to launch its drone-as-first-responder programme by purchasing a drone from Aerodome, which will be integral to its new “real-time crime centre” in US policing, enabling cities to seamlessly integrate cameras, license plate readers, drones and other monitoring strategies to track conditions in real-time. The proliferation of surveillance facilities reliant on drone technology has raised concerns among privacy advocates regarding the potential for intrusive monitoring and a lack of transparency surrounding the use and sharing of captured footage, garnered from both aerial and other sources.
In 2019, California’s police department achieved a milestone by becoming the first to secure a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) waiver, permitting them to operate drones beyond visual line of sight. Residents’ concerns arose over the unclear boundaries surrounding a surveillance system installed by the neighborhood committee, questioning both the purpose and usage of the collected footage.
According to Jay Stanley, senior coverage analyst for the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, these exemptions only worsen existing privacy concerns surrounding drone use. As the FAA grants police departments expanded drone capabilities, cities may soon see law enforcement equipped to blanket entire metropolitan areas with surveillance, raising questions about the legal landscape’s ability to address potential privacy invasions.
