In his veto of a bill last year that would have forbidden the deployment of weaponized drones, Gov. Gavin Newsom argued that he supports “common sense restrictions on potentially dangerous devices,” but noted that “this bill would also prohibit beneficial law enforcement use of such devices,” including situations with “armed and barricaded” suspects.
That explanation encapsulates the conundrum that Americans face as we witness the vast expansion of drone and surveillance technologies. We can always come up with specific situations that justify their use — e.g., search and rescue operations, and responses to specific dangerous situations — but most of us are uncomfortable being constantly surveilled by police agencies. It’s so easy for law-enforcement authorities to utilize these technologies that they’re becoming ubiquitous.
A recent VoiceofOC report found Orange County police agencies are using drones and other types of surveillance, such as license-plate readers and cameras on public streets, even as local cities face budget problems. The agencies have financial incentives to do so. The systems are costly, but they offer savings in the deployment of officers — and, of course, make it easier for local governments to impose fines, such as in fireworks patrols. However, these deployment decisions should not be driven mainly by cost issues.
Per the article, Irvine extensively used drones and has 21 drone pilots in its police department, while Santa Ana has approved up to $683,000 over three years to develop its own drone army. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department also is deeply involved in drone and surveillance use — and that department provides police services for multiple OC cities. The state has passed a handful of modest restrictions, but the individual agencies largely are on their own for coming up with rules governing their use. Not surprisingly, governments create rules that tilt in their favor.
Again, extensive drone use can provide some benefits, but it also raises serious civil-liberties questions. We urge cities to publicly discuss their departments’ surveillance policies. And state lawmakers need to step in and provide, as Newsom said, “common sense restrictions” on their use by government agencies.