ASHLAND, Ky. — At a time when automated license plate readers and other surveillance technologies are generating growing questions about privacy and government oversight, the City of Ashland is considering another increasingly common law-enforcement tool: drones.
Ashland Police Chief Todd Kelley recently told city commissioners that federal law currently prevents the department from using its existing drones, creating the need for the city to explore another drone program.
Representatives from Seattle-based BRINC Drones appeared before the Ashland City Commission to explain the company's public-safety drone technology and how it could potentially be used by police and fire departments.
The discussion comes as communities across Kentucky and the nation continue debating the expanding role of technology in law enforcement — including Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras.
Those cameras have generated controversy over how vehicle information is collected, stored and shared between law-enforcement agencies. The larger issue has become one of government surveillance: How much technology should police have, what information should it collect, who should have access to that information, and how much should the public know about how it is being used?
Drones raise many of those same questions.
"Drone as First Responder"
BRINC promotes what it calls "Drone as First Responder," or DFR, technology.
Under that concept, a drone can be dispatched ahead of police officers or other emergency personnel, allowing first responders to see what is happening before they arrive.
Company representatives told commissioners that the drones can be equipped with red and blue emergency lights, a siren and a speaker system that allows announcements to be made from the aircraft.
They can also carry certain emergency equipment. Depending upon the mission, that could include such items as flotation devices or Narcan.
BRINC representatives said the technology can help officers determine what they are encountering before arriving at a scene and, in some circumstances, determine that sending a ground unit isn't necessary.
The company said the drones are intended to supplement officers rather than replace them.
Ashland police officials also discussed the training that would be required to operate the system, including the possibility of involving dispatch personnel.
The Privacy Question
The potential public-safety benefits are easy to understand.
A drone arriving before an officer at a violent incident could provide critical information. During a fire, search-and-rescue operation or other emergency, an aerial view could potentially help first responders make faster decisions.
But the same technology capable of looking at an emergency scene from above is also capable of looking at homes, vehicles, yards and people.
That's where the conversation becomes more complicated.
The controversy surrounding Flock cameras has demonstrated that public debate over law-enforcement technology often isn't simply about whether the technology has legitimate uses.
The questions are also about limits, accountability and transparency.
When can it be used?
Who authorizes its use?
What information is recorded?
How long is that information retained?
Who outside the department can access it?
Can another agency obtain it?
And can citizens determine when and why the technology was deployed?
Those questions become increasingly important as police departments gain access to systems that would have been technologically or financially impossible for many local agencies only a generation ago.
One Significant Transparency Feature
Interestingly, the drone system presented to Ashland commissioners reportedly includes a public transparency component.
BRINC representatives said information about drone deployments can be made available to the public, including why the drone was launched and its flight telemetry.
That could allow residents who see a police drone overhead to determine why it was operating in that area.
If Ashland ultimately moves forward with the program, that feature could become particularly significant.
One of the central concerns surrounding surveillance technology is not necessarily that police possess it, but whether citizens know how, when and why it is being used.
Ashland officials were also told that authorization for drone operations would be tied to a particular jurisdiction after Commissioner DJ Rymer questioned whether the aircraft would be limited to use within city boundaries.
Police officials said another advantage is that BRINC's technology can interact with digital systems the department already uses.
No final decision to purchase or deploy the system was reported during the presentation.
Technology Is Moving Faster Than the Public Debate
The Ashland discussion represents a much broader issue facing communities throughout Kentucky.
Flock cameras, facial recognition, interconnected databases, artificial intelligence and police drones can all provide legitimate tools for solving crimes and responding to emergencies.
But each technological advancement also expands government's ability to observe, collect and analyze information.
That doesn't automatically make the technology bad.
It does mean the public deserves to be part of the conversation before these systems become routine.
The question surrounding Flock cameras — and now increasingly police drones — shouldn't simply be whether the technology works.
The question should also be:
What safeguards are in place to ensure that technology designed to protect the public doesn't quietly become a surveillance system the public no longer understands or controls?
For local governments considering these technologies, transparency may ultimately be every bit as important as the technology itself.
