When it comes to private companies working with local cops to conduct mass aerial surveillance, Massachusetts is the “wild west”
If you see a drone chasing your SUV on Storrow Drive, or zooming over Lansdowne Street during a Sox game next spring, don’t even worry for a second. It’s totally legit.
In a Jan. 23 media release, the Saskatoon-based company Draganfly, a self-described “leader in drone technology and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) solutions,” announced that it secured Federal Aviation Administration permission for “drone operations over people and moving vehicles.” Specifically, the “rare urban environment FAA waiver [was] granted … for [a] prescribed flight route over Boston.”
According to Draganfly, it “has secured a (FAA) waiver enabling its small unmanned aircraft (sUA) to conduct operations over human beings and moving vehicles.” “This waiver,” the company added, “marks a significant milestone for Draganfly and highlights its commitment to advancing the capabilities of UAV operations in complex urban environments.”
But what exactly will the company be doing over Boston? And what are the privacy implications of this project?
Permission to operate drones over people and vehicles
Per the Draganfly media release, “The permissions cover a prescribed flight route over the city of Boston, emphasizing safety and reliability while operating within challenging and densely populated urban settings.”
Draganfly CEO Cameron Chell said, “Securing this FAA waiver underscores the trust and confidence we have built with regulatory authorities and reflects the safety and strength of our UAV platforms. … This achievement allows us to deploy drones for critical applications in urban environments, including public safety, infrastructure inspection, and specialized mission support.”
Those with a Remote Pilot Certificate from the FAA, including individuals and companies that contract with municipal or state authorities, must typically follow a strict set of guidelines that keep drones safely away from crowded spaces and roadways. Those rules make it difficult or even impossible to fly one in a place like Greater Boston. This exception will loosen those limits for Draganfly by permitting operation over human beings (“Allowing flights over individuals who are not direct participants in the UAV operation”), as well as over moving vehicles (“Enabling UAV operations over moving traffic, which is critical for urban deployment scenarios”).
In a statement, Coty Vann, Draganfly’s lead on the Boston project, said, “This waiver is not only a regulatory achievement but a significant step forward in scaling drone operations in the urban landscape.”
The media release added: “These regulatory exemptions reinforce Draganfly’s position as an innovator in the UAV space and showcase its readiness to meet the evolving needs of its defense, government, and commercial partners.”
It’s rosy language, but that signaling about the company’s enthusiasm to secure new law enforcement contracts has some watchdogs worried.
Privacy, precedents, and drone surveillance
In a 2013 research paper published in the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law, authors considered the inevitable circumstances forged by the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which aimed “to integrate drones into the United States national airspace by 2015.” Titled “Warrantless Government Drone Surveillance: A Challenge to the Fourth Amendment,” the study suggested that the FAA is not properly equipped to create regulations that properly consider individual privacy.
That paper also expressed “concern that knowledge that an individual’s daily movements will be under constant surveillance could lead to an overall chilling of First Amendment protected expressions,” and noted that the the American Civil Liberties Union also worried about “law enforcement drones being used for mass tracking and surveillance of civilians and the amount of time that images and data collected from drones will be retained.”
More than a decade later, Massachusetts still hasn’t addressed those issues legislatively. Alex Marthews, the national chair of Restore the Fourth, an organization that “stands against mass government surveillance,” said there are “very legitimate law enforcement uses for drones,” including when there is damage from flooding and disasters, but explained, “It’s trickier where you are getting into areas of monitoring protests, or using them to detain or harm individuals without probable cause.”
Marthews didn’t offer insight into Draganfly specifically, but said the broad policy context is that the Bay State is the “wild west,” since there’s no law dictating what law enforcement can or cannot do with UAVs (for example, there are no rules that “prevent them from being armed or equipped with flamethrowers.”) There are currently bills proposed in the Massachusetts House and Senate that would place restrictions on the use of unmanned aerial systems for surveillance, but comparable measures have failed on Beacon Hill several times before; last year, a similar bill died in the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means.
“For a long time, we have believed that law enforcement should obtain a warrant before using drones,” Marthews said in an interview. “In other words, law enforcement can and should use them for surveillance, but only when investigating an actual crime, not for the general purpose of keeping an eye on things. … As drones become cheaper to operate, and drone footage becomes cheaper to store and analyze, the risks grow of them being used as general-purpose mass surveillance tools.”
Without state oversight, accountability is left to the cities and towns where this tech is deployed.
Drone safety and past Boston deployments
According to Draganfly, the “company’s drone systems are equipped with advanced airspace management capabilities and precision controls, enabling compliance with the stringent safety standards set forth by the FAA.” It cites its own accomplishments as validation: “The FAA waiver reinforces Draganfly’s commitment to ensuring operational safety while pushing the boundaries of UAV applications.”
All waivers considered, the company claims it is poised to “lead the drone industry into a future where UAVs are seamlessly integrated into urban environments.” Privacy advocates and other critics of security surveillance be damned, Draganfly is fulfilling its mission. Marthews of Restore the Fourth said the press release about the waiver signals that “they are the good guys” with drones, and that characterization has precedent.
About a month prior to this latest announcement, Draganfly successfully completed “initial flights as part of a proof-of-concept, research-and-development drone delivery project for Mass General Brigham Home Hospital.” The initiative, which aimed to “demonstrate how drone deliveries could ensure timely access to critical medical supplies or laboratory samples, thereby minimizing traditional logistical delays,” was applauded by security industry sites as well as local outlets.
Though the more recent waiver news failed to register with mainstream news organizations, the semi-openness about surveillance marks a new approach in Boston, where in the past officials have hidden the use of such tools from the public, lied about deploying controversial tech like facial recognition software, and played shell games to skirt transparency policies. As one Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism report showed, after the Boston Police Department announced that it was indefinitely suspending the use of Automatic License Plate Readers due to privacy problems, the department continued tracking vehicles through the Boston Transportation Department.
In 2017, privacy advocates only discovered that Boston police had drones after officers were spotted flying one over a Jamaica Plain housing project. A subsequent inquiry by Kade Crockford of the Technology for Liberty Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts revealed the BPD had purchased three UAVs without informing the public. In an attempt to deflect embarrassment, a department spokesperson lied to one reporter who came asking questions, saying, “In keeping with how the BPD conducts business, any decision to adopt new technology would only be considered after first seeking and receiving extensive input and feedback from the community we protect and serve.”
At the time, Crockford wrote, “The Boston Police Department should have consulted with the public and our democratically elected representatives before buying these drones in the first place.” Nearly a decade later, in large part due to pressure from the ACLU, the city has a detailed policy in place that governs everything from authorized use conditions to data collection and retention for unmanned aerial systems.
With the FAA granting this “rare urban environment waiver,” it will be left to advocates, officials, and the public to address if those guidelines are adequate—or even followed in the first place—as Draganfly and its agency partners “[push] the boundaries of UAV applications” in Boston.