The International Association of Chiefs of Police recently approved “Recommended Guidelines for the use of Unmanned Aircraft.”

The IACP is to be applauded for addressing this issue, and for issuing recommendations that are quite strong in some areas. Based on what the chiefs support, it should now be seen as a broad consensus and starting point for further conversation that:

At the same time, we don’t think these recommendations go far enough to ensure true protection of privacy from drones. We also think protections need to be put into law, not merely promulgated by the police themselves (although, to be fair, it is not the job of the police to write our laws, and the focus of this document is on steps police agencies can take themselves). As long as there are agencies that are not governed by law, it is of course better to have internal guidelines than nothing at all. (Though that is true only insofar as such guidelines are not sold as or viewed as, and do not become, a substitute for stronger legislative protections.)

In our December 2011 report on drones, we outlined in a general way the kinds of protections that we would like to see applied to the police use of drones. Comparing the two documents provides a way to see how the IACP recommendations stack up. (Summaries of our recommendations follow in bold; the italicized portions are direct quotes excerpted from the IACP recommendations.)

1. Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only: 1) With a warrant, or 2) where there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific instance of criminal wrongdoing, or 3) in an emergency.

The agency will operate the aircraft in full compliance with the mandates of the Constitution, federal, state and local law governing search and seizure.

It’s always nice to see reminders to police agencies that they need to follow the Constitution, but the application of that broad document to the just-invented technology of surveillance drones requires a little bit more fleshing out if our privacy is to be preserved.

If the UA will intrude upon reasonable expectations of privacy, the agency will secure a search warrant prior to conducting the flight.

The Supreme Court has already been quite clear that searches cannot intrude upon “reasonable expectations of privacy” without a warrant. But, the whole contested question is where, exactly, people do have “reasonable expectations of privacy.”

All flights will be approved by a supervisor and must be for a legitimate public safety mission, training, or demonstration purposes.

Supervisor approval will help prevent abusive uses by rogue officers and is good, though some police agencies will no doubt interpret “legitimate public safety mission” as including such things as the wholesale monitoring of protesters or crime-prone neighborhoods. These recommendations do not include the crucial limitation that we call for—that drones not be used without reason to believe they’ll shed light on specific acts of wrongdoing—and would not forestall many of the potential uses that concern us over the mid- to long-term.

2. Images should be retained only where there is reasonable suspicion that images contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.

1. Unless required as evidence of a crime, as part of an on-going investigation, for training, or required by law, images captured by a UA should not be retained by the agency.

This strong call for non-retention of images is very good to see. The police should not be retaining records of individuals just in case they engage in wrongdoing. (Now if we can just get that principle applied to license plate recognition. . . .)

2. Unless exempt by law, retained images should be open for public inspection.

Although this additional protection, which we did not contemplate in our report, might conceivably hurt privacy by exposing images of innocent people to public review—it also constitutes a very strong public check on the use of drones. Per the first provision, the only images that are retained should be those relevant to a crime, yet not covered by laws that a) permit police to keep secret the details of live investigations or b) protect privacy by exempting government records from disclosure. If that is the case, then potential privacy harms should be minimal.

3. Public notice: explicit written policies and procedures for drone use

4. Democratic control over drone deployment and policy decisions

The agency should then engage their community early in the planning process, including their governing body and civil liberties advocates.

The community should be provided an opportunity to review and comment on agency procedures as they are being drafted. Where appropriate, recommendations should be considered for adoption in the policy.

The news media should be brought into the process early in its development.

In general these are excellent public notice recommendations that, if followed by local police departments, will go a long way toward ensuring that drones are used in proper and limited ways. (The recommendations do not explicitly say, but seem to take it for granted, that police agencies create written policies for drone use.)

The recommendations are less strong on democratic control. Although police agencies are told to “engage” with “their governing body” and allow the public to “review and comment” on agency procedures, nowhere are police departments told to seek democratic approval prior to deploying drones or setting policies on their use.

Except for those instances where officer safety could be jeopardized, the agency should consider using a “Reverse 911” telephone system to alert those living and working in the vicinity of aircraft operations (if such a system is available). If such a system is not available, the use of patrol car public address systems should be considered.

This would be a strong step toward public notice and shows a seriousness about such notice.

5. Auditing and effectiveness tracking: independent audits of UAV usage

Law enforcement agencies desiring to use UA should first determine how they will use this technology, including the costs and benefits to be gained.

All flights will be documented on a form designed for that purpose and all flight time shall be accounted for on the form. The reason for the flight and name of the supervisor approving will also be documented.

An authorized supervisor/administrator will audit flight documentation at regular intervals.

Unauthorized use of a UA will result in strict accountability.

All good measures, though none amount to the independent oversight that we called for. We need to make sure that these voluntary self-policing guidelines—as admirable as they are in some respects—are not invoked as an argument against binding legislation in this area.

6. Weapons

Equipping the aircraft with weapons of any type is strongly discouraged. Given the current state of the technology, the ability to effectively deploy weapons from a small UA is doubtful. Further, public acceptance of airborne use of force is likewise doubtful and could result in unnecessary community resistance to the program.

Although we did not address weaponization of domestic drones in our 2011 report, the issue has come up more strongly since and is certainly a concern of ours. The IACP is to be applauded for strongly discouraging agencies from weaponizing drones.

Nicholls State University in Thibodaux is testing a new kind of eye in the sky to track coastal erosion and the health of Louisiana’s barrier islands more closely.

The islands are an important habitant for migratory birds and a frontline protection against hurricanes, but the islands have undergone heavy erosion as the state’s coast has faded into the Gulf of Mexico.

Often the province of satellites and airplanes, the coastal mapping effort by Nicholls, which is in its early stages, is being tried with a six-foot, unmanned aircraft that has a four-foot wingspan and a small propeller engine, a university professor said.

Nicholls State is one of 61 universities, police departments and other government agencies with Federal Aviation Administration authorization allowing the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, according to an FAA list.

The remotely operated UAVs, or drones, use the same kind of technology once reserved for tracking and killing terrorist insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere overseas.

Mississippi State University, for example, also has an authorization as a part of its Raspet Flight Research Laboratory where its primary focus is studying lightweight composite materials and unmanned systems.

The permits for civilian use of drones, called a certificate of authorization, came to light late last month after an advocacy group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, released the names of those holding the permits.

The group, based in San Francisco, filed a federal Freedom of Information Act request with the FAA and later filed suit for the information, the group says.

The list was published in a Wall Street Journal story about the FAA’s quiet expansion of the certification program.

Balajj Ramachandran, Nicholls State associate professor and interim head of the applied sciences department, has led the effort at Nicholls to start testing drones and assess their mapping potential, from coastal restoration to disaster response.

The small, remotely operated planes and helicopters can fly more frequently and linger longer than satellites and manned aircraft over coastal areas, saving money and providing a richer picture of what is happening on the coast, he explained.

“That’s why the UAVs will be a big alternative. It costs less. It brings down costs, and you can fly whenever you want,” Ramachandran said.

He said those working on the drone program have gathered a year’s worth of data over the state’s barrier islands, but they have not published a paper yet.

Under the FAA authorization, Nicholls’ operators can only fly in a limited air space over the barrier islands and must maintain “line of sight,” meaning researchers must go to the islands and use spotters when they fly the aircraft.

Under development since 2008, Ramachandran said the first years were spent applying for grants, learning about the FAA process and setting up infrastructure to tie Nicholls to a high-speed data network with other Louisiana universities.

Ramachandran said Nicholls’ program is on hold while he negotiates the purchase of two new drones, including a helicopter-like aircraft from an Avondale-based startup called Crescent Unmanned Systems LLC.

He said the school’s first vendor, who supported the existing aircraft called a CyberBug, was bought out.

The expanded civilian use of drones has drawn privacy concerns from civil liberties advocates, especially concerns about how police agencies might use the unmanned aircraft.

Rebecca Jeschke, EFF digital rights analyst and media relations director, said her group is concerned that as drone technology gets better, the public will not know they are being watched.

“The first step is transparency. That is why we filed the FOIA request, so we could figure out what was going, so we can discuss what kind of privacy controls should be put in place,” she said.

Under legislation adopted by Congress and signed into law in late February, the FAA was directed to fully incorporate drones into civilian U.S. airspace by Sept. 30, 2015.

Ramachandran said public education is needed because people are not focusing on drones’ peaceful applications. He compared them to global positioning satellites, which were originally set up for the military.

“Any technology has its pros and its cons. That is the nature of the game,” he said.

Jeschke said universities are doing all kinds of interesting research with drones, which mostly falls outside the group’s privacy concerns.

Edward Richards, LSU law school professor, said the public’s expectation of privacy has decreased as satellite and other surveillance technology has advanced and become more widespread.

He said people also hand over their personal data to phone companies and on social networking sites, which can give that data to law enforcement without a warrant.

“I think that the drones are only interesting because they are getting the public to think about an issue that the public has personally participated in for years, which is giving up their personal privacy,” Richards said.

The FAA list can be found at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

(Original article from theadvocate.com all rights reserved) http://theadvocate.com/home/2749522-125/nichollsto-use-dronein-study

JUNE 28, 2012

The Jefferson Parish Economic Development Commission (JEDCO) is pleased to announce the graduation of Crescent Unmanned Systems, LLC, from JEDCO’s Business Innovation Center. The early-stage company manufactures and markets specialized, unmanned aerial systems with advanced surveillance capabilities. They can be used for law enforcement, military, and commercial applications.

Crescent Unmanned joined JEDCO’s business incubator program in November 2011. They experienced great successes during their time at the Business Innovation Center. The team created the Bravo 100 and the Bravo 300 as part of their Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) series. Both systems are more maneuverable than the UAVs currently operated by the military.

Crescent has attracted great interest from the law enforcement community. Both police and military have begun utilizing the company’s UAVs for search-and-rescue, crowd control, land and sea monitoring, critical infrastructure protection, crisis management, accident reconstruction, and to track enemy targets and criminals. The company has become an industry leader in affordable UAVs.

Recently, Crescent Unmanned received angel funding from the South Coast Angel Fund. They’ve benefitted from the investors’ strong dedication to accelerating early-stage ventures. This funding has allowed them to work closely with NASA and other major organizations around the country.

“JEDCO is so proud of the accomplishments Crescent Unmanned has achieved while utilizing our resources,” says JEDCO Executive Director Lucien Gunter. “This innovative company is a prime example of the type of technological businesses we want to attract to the Churchill Business and Technology Park and to Jefferson Parish.”

“JEDCO was instrumental in providing Crescent with the necessary affordable space, support, and resources to successfully gain access to the industry,” says Crescent CEO Charles Easterling. “It allowed us to meet clients in a high-tech, impressive facility that gave us the professional face necessary to be taken seriously. We are forever grateful to JEDCO for the opportunity to be a graduate of such a great facility.”

The Business Innovation Center is located at the Churchill Technology and Business Park in Avondale. It’s designed to connect entrepreneurs with the resources they need to help transform ideas into viable business ventures. The program provides below-market rate office space and a wide range of tools to help companies get started, including office furniture, telephone service, wireless internet, copy and fax machine, conference rooms, video conferencing, Smartboard technology and 24/7 secure access.

For more information about the business incubator program, visit JEDCO’s website at http://www.jedco.org/business-incubator/ or call (504) 875-3908.