Canadian police forces have been using drones for many years, but scrutiny of their use is lacking, especially as the technology has evolved, privacy and surveillance researchers say.
Their concerns come after Vancouver鈥檚 Chief Const. Adam Palmer revealed that investigators deployed drones to locate a suspect in a pair of gruesome stranger attacks in the city鈥檚 downtown on Wednesday, that left one man dead and another with a severed hand.
Palmer paid tribute to the role of the drone operator in the arrest of 34-year-old White Rock man, who has now been charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault.
Brenda McPhail, an instructor in the public policy and digital society program at McMaster University, said the public only tends to hear about police use of drones 鈥渨here there鈥檚 been a success.鈥�
鈥淰ery generally, the transparency and accountability for the police use of drones is a concern,鈥� McPhail said in an interview. 鈥淧olice forces across Canada have been using drones for some time and yet you hear very little about them in the public.鈥�
She said the public rarely gets a 鈥渓ine of sight into a failure鈥� or misuse of the technology.
鈥淲hat we don鈥檛 get is scrutiny about the mistakes,鈥� McPhail said.
Drone technology had changed a lot in the last five years, she said, including newer and better cameras, and the potential to couple them with facial recognition technology makes it 鈥渢ime for renewed scrutiny鈥� of police drone programs in Canada.
The Vancouver Police Department鈥檚 drone program was launched in 2019, and McPhail said it went through a 鈥減olicy process鈥� that included consultations with privacy and civil liberties advocates.
The resultant 鈥渞emotely piloted aerial system鈥� policy includes a ban on flights 鈥渇or surveillance purposes,鈥� except where there鈥檚 an 鈥渋mminent risk to life or safety.鈥�
It also bans drone flights to record or identify people taking part in peaceful protests.
The 2019 policy touts drones as tools 鈥渢o gather digital imagery in an effort to support public safety, enhance investigative techniques, expand operational awareness and aid in critical incident resolution.鈥�
Police drone pilots, the policy states, can be authorized to aid in a number of situations including 鈥渕ass casualty events,鈥� disaster responses, missing persons investigations, hazardous material spills or volatile situations including 鈥渂arricaded suspects, hostage situations, active deadly threat scenarios, high risk search warrants, and suicidal persons.鈥�
Palmer said Wednesday the department launched 鈥渕ultiple drones鈥� during the hunt for the Vancouver attacker, and one was in 鈥渃lose proximity鈥� to where investigators arrested McBride after a tip from a member of the public.
McPhail, the former director of the privacy, technology and surveillance program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said changes to drone programs and updates to the technology should require more consultations to keep policies up-to-date and 鈥渘ew safeguards.鈥�
She said police in Toronto, for example, used drones to monitor crowds at a Canada Day celebration back in July, causing a 鈥渂it of controversy.鈥�
鈥淎nd yet in Toronto, we鈥檝e absolutely never had a public conversation about whether we want police using surveillance drones for what they would call public safety at public gatherings, which edges very closely to public surveillance at public gatherings,鈥� she said.
鈥淭his kind of technology, if used inappropriately and without the right guardrails, has the potential to be really invasive. Police use of them has the potential to violate Charter rights.鈥�
Scott Thompson, an assistant sociology professor and surveillance researcher at the University of Saskatchewan, said public opinion in Canada has been supportive of police drones in 鈥渟ingle-event uses,鈥� such as finding criminal suspects or aiding in searches for missing persons.
But public 鈥減ush back鈥� to the technologies comes when it鈥檚 used for collecting personal information like license plates or 鈥減attern of life鈥� data, where peoples鈥� movements can be tracked over large distances over long periods of time, he said.
Police forces, Thompson said, often portray drone use in the best possible terms.
鈥淭hey鈥檙e kind of shy to let the public know exactly what the capabilities are or how often they鈥檙e deployed,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut if we want an open society in which people can participate, we really need to know how often these technologies are being used and for what purposes.鈥�
Thompson said drones still have limitations, such as battery life, but 鈥渢he technology is moving forward every day.鈥�
He said some jurisdictions in the United States have started using 鈥渄rones as first responders,鈥� sending them to every police call, with 鈥渃ontinuous鈥� flights over geographic areas, collecting data somewhat indiscriminatingly.
鈥淭hese are places that policing in Canada have not yet stepped into, but as the technology gets better, they will be issues moving forward and that鈥檚 where we run into that concern about routine collection and pattern of life collection,鈥� he said.
Thompson said advancements in surveillance technologies means there鈥檚 a growing 鈥渋nvasiveness into our daily lives.鈥�
鈥淭hat鈥檚 why it鈥檚 super important that we have these conversations now before we have constant surveillance all the time, so the public can have a say in what it is that they expect in regards to privacy and what type of policing we want in our community,鈥� he said. 鈥淧rivacy is a serious concern because it鈥檚 a central feature of freedom and democracy within our society.鈥�
鈥淲ithout privacy, we don鈥檛 have a capacity to feel free to voice our opinions, so this is something that we always want to be concerned about.鈥�
READ ALSO:
