Police tout first-responder drone tech as lifesaving for officers and community members
DFRs serve as an eye in the sky, police say, streaming footage to officers before they enter a potentially dangerous situation.
One of the hardest aspects of policing is that in calls for service, 'we don't have crystal balls, we don't know what we're going into', said Roxana Kennedy, chief of the police department in Chula Vista, California.
There is no public list of law enforcement agencies that have adopted the programmes, and grey areas around what constitutes a DFR versus a different kind of drone programme makes creating a definitive count difficult.
Around 50 agencies launched DFR programmes between 2018 and 2024, said Charles Werner, a retired Charlottesville fire chief who founded DroneResponders, an advocacy group that promotes responsible drone use.
The technology is gaining ground fast: 'A handful of departments per week' are adopting it, said Divy Shrivastava, chief executive of Paladin Drones, a DFR manufacturer.
The FAA has approved waivers for at least 300 agencies to adopt drone first responder programmes so far this year, according to Werner, who said he meets regularly with representatives of the federal regulatory agency.
'The FAA made the review process faster by removing duplicate steps and giving first responders updated guidance on how to submit waiver requests,' an FAA spokesperson said in an unsigned statement to the Washington Post.
Captain John English, who leads the DFR programme for the Chula Vista Police Department, called the drones the 'single greatest integrated piece of technology' for policing. His agency became the nation's first adopter of the programme in 2018.
DFRs are different from the tactical drones long used in policing, drone experts said.
Unlike some earlier drones, DFRs can be launched from docks positioned around a city and controlled from inside police stations.
They don't need to be within an officer's line of sight, which is why they require a special waiver from the FAA as part of a regulatory process meant to prevent collisions and other hazards.
The drones can arrive on the scene of emergencies far faster than squad cars, police chiefs told the Washington Post.
Kennedy's department, Chula Vista, said its drones' average response time is under two minutes, consistently outpacing patrol units.
In Redmond, Washington, drones arrive to the scene before an officer about 75% of the time they are deployed, according to municipal data. In Elk Grove, California, that rate is 70%.
The incident that 'changed everything' for Kennedy, she said, was when a drone responded in 2019 to a call about a man who appeared to be erratically waving a gun.
Before officers arrived, the drone footage showed the object was not a gun, but a cigarette lighter.
'It could have ended up in a shooting,' Kennedy said.
Police officials whose departments have adopted DFRs said the programmes are invaluable.
In May, a drone in Redmond helped locate a missing diabetic elderly man. Officers on foot had searched the area where he was ultimately found but couldn't see or hear him, said Darrell Lowe, the city's police chief.
Lieutenant Romy Mutuc, who heads the new DFR programme in Laredo, Texas, said his department has equipped its drones with Narcan - a nasal spray that can treat narcotic overdoses.
In an overdose scenario, Mutuc said, an officer could drop a dose onto the scene and talk a bystander through the process of applying it through the drone's loudspeaker.
DFRs are also widely deployed for low-priority calls, like about a suspicious person walking near private property.
Sometimes the drones help police realise it's unnecessary to send an officer to the scene in-person.
In nearly 20% of incidents where the Chula Vista department has deployed a DFR, the agency has cancelled officer response after the drone's arrival, according to English.
But there are concerns among critics, who say drone first responders can encourage police intrusion in places they couldn't normally view.
'Drones and aerial cameras could be used to surveil political protests, and it could even be deployed for other purposes to see who is seeking healthcare in California from another state or used to track who's coming and going at an immigration courthouse,' said Jacob Snow, a technology and civil liberties lawyer at the ACLU of Northern California.
'So the idea that we should all be assured that law enforcement is just saying, 'Don't worry, it's only for a narrow purpose' flies in the face of what's happened historically.'
In Chula Vista, a lawsuit filed by a local newspaper publisher seeks to force the police department to release the drone video footage collected in one month of 2021. The publisher, Art Castanares, is concerned that police could be infringing on people's privacy, said Cory Briggs, his lawyer.
Privacy advocates say police departments may promise to use the DFRs only to respond to calls for service or certain kinds of emergencies, but once the technology is out of the bottle, it will be hard to put it back in.
Drone industry representatives and cities that have adopted DFR programmes have offered assurances that they have implemented guardrails to address privacy concerns.
Some departments said they keep the cameras pointed towards the horizon while en route to an incident. Some don't turn on the camera's recording function until the drone arrives at its destination, said Werner.
And agencies said they aim to be transparent about the technology's use, including through public dashboards that log flight maps.
Skydio, a DFR manufacturer, works with agencies to help develop policies surrounding drone use, 'and more importantly, how they do not intend on using drones', said Noreen Charlton, the senior manager of public safety marketing at the firm.
In Redmond, the city's policy 'prohibits the department from using drones for general surveillance, harassing or discriminating against individuals or groups, or conducting personal business'.
Those concerned about excessive surveillance remain sceptical.
Lipton, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she hopes there are 'consequences for when there is abuse or misuse' of DFRs.
Part of that, she said, could involve 'annual reviews by the city council and public meetings to discuss what reasons the surveillance tools were used for and whether there were any violations'.
In the same vein, independent oversight bodies and local government could help assuage some of the concerns by imposing strict limits on the programmes, said Jay Stanley, a privacy and technology policy analyst at the ACLU.
'This is really a brand-new technologyand the jury is still out on it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Instagram Map stirs debate on location-sharing and privacy among Gen Z
Location apps often get installed because of parents' safety concerns. As those teenagers who often grumbled about being surveilled by their parents grew up and moved out, they began using Find My or Life360 to check on their friends in potentially risky situations. Laura Kelly, a 23-year-old who works as a prison re-entry case manager in Boston, shares her location with her friends in case of a potential emergency, such as when someone goes missing from a large group or if they're Ubering home after drinking too much. Over time, she's amassed 45 people on her Find My account. 'There's been times where one of my friends got way too drunk and was a wanderer, so we were like, 'Oh, just checked her location and tracked her down,'' Kelly said. 'I found her on a stump and I was like, 'Thank God.' It reminded me why I do it.' As Gen Z's parents and grandparents get older, the roles have reversed, with their children now keeping tabs on them. It's helpful for the same reasons that tracking friends can be, whether that's figuring out if someone is running late or going somewhere unexpected. For Kelly, looking at Find My is useful to see if her parents are busy. 'Whenever I call them, I'll check beforehand to see if they're home because I feel like they're more likely to answer,' she said. 'If they don't answer my call, I'll look and be like, 'Well, what are they doing if they're not talking to me?'' For many, tracking a friend's location is just an extension of stalking someone's social media. You don't have to ask to know what swank new restaurant your friends are trying, where they're seeing a concert that night or if they're hanging out with your other friends that you have on Find My. The Instagram Map correctly assessed people's desire to see what their friends are doing in real time, while adding an additional layer of public posts about any given spot. And yet nearly everyone the Washington Post spoke to is uncertain about the point of Instagram Map. Some said it feels like an inevitable end point for a deeply surveilled, voyeuristic culture. Nearly every day, Rachel Suleymanov checks in on her friends' locations. She described the Find My map as a form of social media, even without the input of Instagram. As a 24-year-old Manhattanite whose friends live in Brooklyn, she's gotten used to seeing hangouts that she can't make it to on the Find My app. To trade locations with the current 25 friends she tracks, Suleymanov said, 'was almost like saying 'I love you' in a relationship'. But Instagram Map is a step too far, she said. 'I just think about the amount of people that are following me that I barely know,' Suleymanov said. 'I feel like the point of Instagram is that I can post about where I am, should I want to do that. I don't know if a Snapchat map equivalent is necessary in any way.' Location sharing goes hand in hand with Gen Z's quest to be authentic online, Jessica Maddox, an associate professor of media studies at the University of Georgia, said. But, she argues, many don't necessarily trust Instagram parent company Meta. 'They've been on social media long enough, and have been wronged by social media enough, that they are right to be suspicious of this Instagram feature,' Maddox said. 'I think back to earlier this year, when TikTok was going to be banned, right? [Young] people literally joined a Chinese app instead of going to Instagram.' Gladden uses Find My to check in with friends who don't use social media as regularly. But she isn't sure those more private friends would appreciate her snooping: 'If I check their location, I can never say anything about it because they might unshare it.' The fear of an unshared location is real for Find My obsessives, especially because they get a notification if a friend drops them. For Caty DuDevoir, a graduate student of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, unsharing a location usually results in tension in the friendship. 'When you unshare your location with someone, it feels wrong,' DuDevoir, 23, said. 'It feels like a hiccup in a relationship, in a friendship. Are you hiding something? What does this mean for our friendship? That is sort of weird because it's just not that deep. We're on a floating rock. If someone wants to stop sharing their location, I don't think it's a big deal. And yes, it sometimes feels hurtful.' While there are safety and social benefits to tracking friends, it gets tricky if you catch them in an ill-advised situation. Surprising hook-ups, hanging out with disliked friends and embarrassing hobbies are all noticeable if someone has your location. 'We found out that [a friend] was back with her ex-boyfriend via the Find My Friends thing,' Montse Cuetos, 23, who recently graduated from IE University in Spain, said. 'I was scrolling through and I was like, 'What? You didn't tell us that was happening.'' It varies from person to person, but Find My users often find themselves unsure of what to do if they spot a situation unfolding from a map's-eye view. Confronting a friend about something seen on the map would be a violation of privacy for DuDevoir, even if the location was shared freely. 'I just wait for that person to tell me the story that goes behind why they were in a certain place,' she said. 'If they don't feel comfortable, it's not something that I'm going to push them on.' That balance becomes a problem, especially as Instagram and Snapchat have made people's locations so readily available. Besides, isn't there something magical about naturally running into a friend at the coffee shop? Cuetos thinks so, despite her collection of 21 friends on Find My. 'Having unrestricted access to so much information about your social environment is kind of messed up,' Cuetos said. 'It's like if you had super powers, would you want to read minds? No, it would ruin everybody for you.'
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Something to drone on about
A headline in the Washington Post this week caught the eye of Civis: "Police nationwide are embracing a new first responder: drones." Just last week, another headline grabbed attention: a drone dropping a bicycle to help an isolated Ukrainian soldier escape. Well, I never. What next? Perhaps it's time for a little drone about drones because they really are everywhere. A fascinating, and somewhat frightening, development is how drones are revolutionising modern warfare. Will they one day rank alongside chariots, composite bows, phalanxes, heavy armour, Roman engineering, and the longbow of Agincourt? Could they match the impact of gunpowder (the death knell for castles) or muskets, artillery, bayonets, rifles, railroads, machine guns, and ironclad ships? The modern accelerating pace of change is clear when you consider 20th century innovations: tanks, aircraft, carriers, radar, the atomic bomb, missiles, jets, and precision-guided munitions. The 21st century has already brought drones and unmanned systems, along with cyber and electronic warfare. Now, AI and autonomous weapons are rapidly emerging. Drones deliver low-cost, high-impact capabilities. They can loiter for hours as reconnaissance outposts and overwhelm defences in swarms. Ukraine has demonstrated how drones cripple armoured columns, strike infrastructure and reshape strategy. The drone's hum, like the whine of an artillery shell before it, has become one of the most chilling sounds of modern combat. ★★★ Like any major technology, drones come with both benefits and risks, and we're seeing both on display. Matariki celebrations in Dunedin over the past two years have been lit up by dazzling LED drones dancing in complex patterns — a shining alternative to fireworks and a better bang for our buck. Aerial photography and videography can be striking, and drones feature at weddings, in real estate marketing and promotion campaigns. Surveying and mapping are changing course, and agriculture boasts a growing list of uses. Search and rescue, disaster response, infrastructure inspection, and environmental monitoring have all been transformed by drones. Civis found some unusual and innovative uses: firing seed pods in remote areas to replant forests, acting as robotic bees to pollinate crops, and even patrolling beaches as shark spotters. Tracking athletes from above and delivering emergency supplies are also on the rise. And Civis wonders, how many farmers now use drones to herd sheep or cattle? New Zealand holds a special place in drone history. In November 2016, Domino's Pizza and drone company Flirtey successfully delivered two pizzas by drone to a customer in Whangaparaoa, just north of Auckland. This was one of the world's first commercial food deliveries by drone, a clear example of the potential. The event made headlines worldwide. For the record, the pizzas were peri-peri chicken and chicken and cranberry. Flirtey devoured another slice of the action and global attention soon after when it delivered medical supplies in Nevada. Commercial drone deliveries never truly took off, perhaps for the best. We don't need buzzing drones crowding our skies and assaulting our ears. Fortunately, rules stand in the way of widespread use in such circumstances. Many fail to realise how circumscribed their legal use is in New Zealand. Operators are "pilots" of "unmanned aircraft". Drones are banned near airports, generally over private property or people without permission, and in national parks. The regulations are extensive and complex. They have flown a long way from their beginnings as toys — even conveying that rescue bike in the middle of a war zone. civis@
NZ Herald
6 days ago
- NZ Herald
Police tout first-responder drone tech as lifesaving for officers and community members
'When you have a camera in the sky that can see things that police officers can't normally see, that offers a huge potential for privacy invasion,' said Beryl Lipton, a senior researcher with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group. DFRs serve as an eye in the sky, police say, streaming footage to officers before they enter a potentially dangerous situation. One of the hardest aspects of policing is that in calls for service, 'we don't have crystal balls, we don't know what we're going into', said Roxana Kennedy, chief of the police department in Chula Vista, California. There is no public list of law enforcement agencies that have adopted the programmes, and grey areas around what constitutes a DFR versus a different kind of drone programme makes creating a definitive count difficult. Around 50 agencies launched DFR programmes between 2018 and 2024, said Charles Werner, a retired Charlottesville fire chief who founded DroneResponders, an advocacy group that promotes responsible drone use. The technology is gaining ground fast: 'A handful of departments per week' are adopting it, said Divy Shrivastava, chief executive of Paladin Drones, a DFR manufacturer. The FAA has approved waivers for at least 300 agencies to adopt drone first responder programmes so far this year, according to Werner, who said he meets regularly with representatives of the federal regulatory agency. 'The FAA made the review process faster by removing duplicate steps and giving first responders updated guidance on how to submit waiver requests,' an FAA spokesperson said in an unsigned statement to the Washington Post. Captain John English, who leads the DFR programme for the Chula Vista Police Department, called the drones the 'single greatest integrated piece of technology' for policing. His agency became the nation's first adopter of the programme in 2018. DFRs are different from the tactical drones long used in policing, drone experts said. Unlike some earlier drones, DFRs can be launched from docks positioned around a city and controlled from inside police stations. They don't need to be within an officer's line of sight, which is why they require a special waiver from the FAA as part of a regulatory process meant to prevent collisions and other hazards. The drones can arrive on the scene of emergencies far faster than squad cars, police chiefs told the Washington Post. Kennedy's department, Chula Vista, said its drones' average response time is under two minutes, consistently outpacing patrol units. In Redmond, Washington, drones arrive to the scene before an officer about 75% of the time they are deployed, according to municipal data. In Elk Grove, California, that rate is 70%. The incident that 'changed everything' for Kennedy, she said, was when a drone responded in 2019 to a call about a man who appeared to be erratically waving a gun. Before officers arrived, the drone footage showed the object was not a gun, but a cigarette lighter. 'It could have ended up in a shooting,' Kennedy said. Police officials whose departments have adopted DFRs said the programmes are invaluable. In May, a drone in Redmond helped locate a missing diabetic elderly man. Officers on foot had searched the area where he was ultimately found but couldn't see or hear him, said Darrell Lowe, the city's police chief. Lieutenant Romy Mutuc, who heads the new DFR programme in Laredo, Texas, said his department has equipped its drones with Narcan - a nasal spray that can treat narcotic overdoses. In an overdose scenario, Mutuc said, an officer could drop a dose onto the scene and talk a bystander through the process of applying it through the drone's loudspeaker. DFRs are also widely deployed for low-priority calls, like about a suspicious person walking near private property. Sometimes the drones help police realise it's unnecessary to send an officer to the scene in-person. In nearly 20% of incidents where the Chula Vista department has deployed a DFR, the agency has cancelled officer response after the drone's arrival, according to English. But there are concerns among critics, who say drone first responders can encourage police intrusion in places they couldn't normally view. 'Drones and aerial cameras could be used to surveil political protests, and it could even be deployed for other purposes to see who is seeking healthcare in California from another state or used to track who's coming and going at an immigration courthouse,' said Jacob Snow, a technology and civil liberties lawyer at the ACLU of Northern California. 'So the idea that we should all be assured that law enforcement is just saying, 'Don't worry, it's only for a narrow purpose' flies in the face of what's happened historically.' In Chula Vista, a lawsuit filed by a local newspaper publisher seeks to force the police department to release the drone video footage collected in one month of 2021. The publisher, Art Castanares, is concerned that police could be infringing on people's privacy, said Cory Briggs, his lawyer. Privacy advocates say police departments may promise to use the DFRs only to respond to calls for service or certain kinds of emergencies, but once the technology is out of the bottle, it will be hard to put it back in. Drone industry representatives and cities that have adopted DFR programmes have offered assurances that they have implemented guardrails to address privacy concerns. Some departments said they keep the cameras pointed towards the horizon while en route to an incident. Some don't turn on the camera's recording function until the drone arrives at its destination, said Werner. And agencies said they aim to be transparent about the technology's use, including through public dashboards that log flight maps. Skydio, a DFR manufacturer, works with agencies to help develop policies surrounding drone use, 'and more importantly, how they do not intend on using drones', said Noreen Charlton, the senior manager of public safety marketing at the firm. In Redmond, the city's policy 'prohibits the department from using drones for general surveillance, harassing or discriminating against individuals or groups, or conducting personal business'. Those concerned about excessive surveillance remain sceptical. Lipton, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said she hopes there are 'consequences for when there is abuse or misuse' of DFRs. Part of that, she said, could involve 'annual reviews by the city council and public meetings to discuss what reasons the surveillance tools were used for and whether there were any violations'. In the same vein, independent oversight bodies and local government could help assuage some of the concerns by imposing strict limits on the programmes, said Jay Stanley, a privacy and technology policy analyst at the ACLU. 'This is really a brand-new technologyand the jury is still out on it.'
