Police eye drone-based HQ imaging, privacy campaigners express concern

Privacy campaigners express concerns as police consider using high-quality imaging systems on drones

Image:
Privacy campaigners express concerns as police consider using high-quality imaging systems on drones

The National Police Air Service has asked private firms for details of drones equipped with 'airborne imaging' and 'air-to-ground communication' capabilities

Civil liberty campaigners have expressed concerns over government's plan to use imaging systems on remotely piloted drones across the England and Wales for surveillance purpose.

It came after the National Police Air Service (NPAS) expressed an interest in the technology, announcing that it was undertaking a market engagement to determine what technical functionality currently exists for Airborne EO/IR (Electro-Optical/Infra-Red) systems.

While drones are already in use by the police forces in England and Wales, the NPAS requested potential bidders to provide details about systems equipped with "airborne imaging" and "air to ground communication" capabilities, which the police do not have.

The NPAS said those systems will be installed on beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) drones and should be capable of transmitting live, high-quality images even in low light.

In addition, they should be able to capture and provide details such as vehicle registration plates, "facial features" and clothing at a distance of between 150 m and 450 m.

"Alongside the imaging systems, NPAS is also looking at how airborne data links will permit live video imagery to be transmitted into force control rooms and operational resources on scene," the organisation said.

The imaging systems will be classified into three weight bands:

The NPAS added that the systems "must be capable to operate on an aerial platform which will be airborne for a minimum of 4 hours and be operating up to 50 km away from the base station."

The plans have raised concerns among civil liberties campaigners, who fear that without clear policies in place, such technology could be misused to target activists or people taking part in legitimate activity.

This could lead to a violation of people's human rights and even harm democracy.

"We've already seen drone surveillance being used to stalk dog walkers during lockdown," Silkie Carlo, the director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, told The Guardian.

"Parliament should review the use of drones in policing and develop clear limitations on their use. Until then, police should immediately cease use of drones for generalised surveillance."

Shami Chakrabarti, the Member of the House of Lords and the former head of the civil rights advocacy group Liberty, said that "the exponential growth of societal surveillance in the UK has taken place with insufficient public debate, parliamentary scrutiny and law."

"If we are to add new 'eyes in the sky' to a raft of land-based CCTV, algorithmic, vehicle and facial recognition technology, the government must bring forward public legislation, not change our way of life by private contracts to be operated with all the ethical probity we have seen from big tech giants," she added.

In June, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said she was "deeply concerned" about the inappropriate and reckless use of live facial recognition (LFR) technologies in public spaces.

Denham noted that while facial recognition technology could help make our lives more secure and efficient, the risks to privacy increase when it is used in real time and in more public contexts.

She added that there could be "significant" consequences from using the technology, if peoples' personal data is collected on a mass scale without their knowledge, choice or control.