Use of Drones
Dear Sir/Madam,
Privacy International (PI) is aware that drones are being used by police forces across the UK for surveillance purposes.
In 2020, as part of research into the Police use of drones, Drone Wars sent Freedom of Information Access Requests to 48 police services across the UK. Of the 42 that responded, 40 UK police forces confirmed they were using drones – 95% of respondents, or 83% of those FOIAed. According to these FoI responses, as of 2020, there were at least 288 drones operated by police forces across the UK. In the first 6 months of 2020, there were more than 5,500 overt uses of drones by the police within the UK.[1]
In 2021, it was reported by the Guardian[2] that drones were used by police to monitor political protests in England. The Surrey, Cleveland, Staffordshire, Gloucestershire and West Midlands police forces said they had used drones at Black Lives Matter protests.
Further, on the 16th March 2021 the Mayor of London confirmed that “drones have been deployed [by the Metropolitan Police Service] for coverage of crime scenes, providing aerial support for pre-planned operations, surveying premises and providing live footage of operational deployments to assist command decision making and therefore support a wider policing plan”.[3]
PI is also aware of drones being obtained by other public authorities such as Border Force and the UK Maritime[4] and Coastguard Agency.[5]
It is suspected that drones are being deployed to monitor migration at UK borders. In 2020, it was reported that drones sold by Portugese company Tekever were seen flying over the English Channel.[6] PI would also highlight a recently published procurement exercise by the Home Office for the future use of drones by Clandestine Channel Threat Command.[7]
In light of the above information, PI requests the following information by way of a Freedom of Information Act request. Please can you confirm the following:
1. If you are using drones for surveillance purposes, on which legal basis do you rely for the collection and storage of data collected by drones?
2. Please provide us with information regarding what payloads could be fitted onto the drones, such as the type of cameras, sensors or other tools that you have previously fitted onto the drones.
3. Please confirm if any of the drones have been combined with facial recognition technology?
4. Please provide us with the following:
a) any guidance and/or policy you are relying on for the the deployment of drones
b) Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in relation to the use of drones if one has been completed.
5. Please confirm which private companies you have used for the procurement of drones.
Yours faithfully,
Privacy International
[1] See: https://dronewars.net/2020/11/02/benchma...
[2] See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021...
[3] See: https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2021...
[4] See: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho...
[5] See: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/english-...
[6] See: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-drone...
[7] See: https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov....
Legal Services Directorate
Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,
Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ
Privacy International Our 840/22
Reference
[FOI #882521 email]
Date 22
August
2022
Dear Privacy International
I write in connection with your request for information dated 27^th July
2022 concerning drones.
I regret to inform you that Avon and Somerset Police have not been able to
complete its response to your request by the date originally stated.
The FOI Act obliges us to respond to requests promptly and in any case no
later than 20 working days after receiving the request. We must consider
firstly whether we can comply with Secttion1(1)(a) of the Act, which is
our duty to confirm whether or not the information requested is held, and
secondly we must comply with Section1(1)(b) which is the provision of such
information. However when a qualified exemption applies either to the
confirmation or denial or the information provision and the public
interest test is engaged, the Act allows the time for a response to be
longer than 20 working days, if the balance of such public interest is
undetermined.
In this case we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of
the public interest lies in respect of either of the above obligations. I
now advise you that the amended date for a response is no later than 22^nd
September 2022. I can assure you that every effort will be made to ensure
an appropriate response will be made within this new timescale.
Yours sincerely
Becky Berridge
Information and Disclosure Manager – Freedom of Information
Legal Services Directorate
Please note;
1. Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.
2. Whilst we may verbally discuss your request with you in order to
seek clarification, all other communication should be made in writing.
3. Avon and Somerset Constabulary provides you with the right to
request a re-examination of your case under its review procedure.
Legal Services Directorate
Force Headquarters, PO Box 37, Valley Road,
Portishead, Bristol, BS20 8QJ
Email [email address]
Privacy International Our 840/22
Reference
[1][FOI #882521 email] Date 30
September
2022
Dear Privacy International
I write in connection with your request for information dated 27^th July
2022 under the Freedom of Information Act.
Specifically you asked:
Privacy International (PI) is aware that drones are being used by police
forces across the UK for surveillance purposes.
In 2020, as part of research into the Police use of drones, Drone Wars
sent Freedom of Information Access Requests to 48 police services across
the UK. Of the 42 that responded, 40 UK police forces confirmed they were
using drones – 95% of respondents, or 83% of those FOIAed. According to
these FoI responses, as of 2020, there were at least 288 drones operated
by police forces across the UK. In the first 6 months of 2020, there were
more than 5,500 overt uses of drones by the police within the UK.[1]
In 2021, it was reported by the Guardian[2] that drones were used by
police to monitor political protests in England. The Surrey, Cleveland,
Staffordshire, Gloucestershire and West Midlands police forces said they
had used drones at Black Lives Matter protests.
Further, on the 16th March 2021 the Mayor of London confirmed that “drones
have been deployed [by the Metropolitan Police Service] for coverage of
crime scenes, providing aerial support for pre-planned operations,
surveying premises and providing live footage of operational deployments
to assist command decision making and therefore support a wider policing
plan”.[3]
PI is also aware of drones being obtained by other public authorities such
as Border Force and the UK Maritime[4] and Coastguard Agency.[5]
It is suspected that drones are being deployed to monitor migration at UK
borders. In 2020, it was reported that drones sold by Portugese company
Tekever were seen flying over the English Channel.[6] PI would also
highlight a recently published procurement exercise by the Home Office for
the future use of drones by Clandestine Channel Threat Command.[7]
In light of the above information, PI requests the following information
by way of a Freedom of Information Act request. Please can you confirm the
following:
1. If you are using drones for surveillance purposes, on which legal basis
do you rely for the collection and storage of data collected by drones?
2. Please provide us with information regarding what payloads could be
fitted onto the drones, such as the type of cameras, sensors or other
tools that you have previously fitted onto the drones.
3. Please confirm if any of the drones have been combined with facial
recognition technology?
4. Please provide us with the following:
a) any guidance and/or policy you are relying on for the the deployment of
drones
b) Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) in relation to the use of
drones if one has been completed.
5. Please confirm which private companies you have used for the
procurement of drones.
Our response:
1. Avon and Somerset Police use drones for overt surveillance. Drones
are used in accordance to the [2]Surveillance camera Code of Practice.
These codes apply to the use of surveillance camera systems as defined by
[3]Section 29(6) of PoFA 2012 that operate in public places in England and
Wales, regardless of whether there is any live viewing or recording of
images or information or associated data. The following answers below
relate to the overt use of drones.
2. This information is exempt.
3. No.
4. (a) As above, drones are used overtly in accordance with the
Surveillance camera Code of Practice and the [4]UK Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) operational authorisation.
(b) Please find the DPIA relating to overt drone use attached. You will
notice some redactions have been made. The exemption applicable to this
information is Section 31(1) relating to Law enforcement. As this is a
prejudice based and qualified exemption, the harm and the public interest
test can be found below:
Harm in disclosure
Disclosing any payloads such as the type of cameras, sensors or other
tools that can be fitted onto the drones we use would reveal operationally
sensitive information.
Public Interest Test (Section 31(1)
Factors favouring disclosure
Disclosing this information would improve transparency and accountability
in terms of allowing the public to see what tools we are utilising to
combat crime. It would allow public debate around how public money is
spent and how it is used to equip Avon and Somerset Police with
appropriate resources to enforce the law and keep our communities safe.
Factors favouring exemption
Disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act are disclosures to the
world, not just to the applicant. Without questioning the motives of the
applicant, disclosure decisions are made based on the knowledge that
criminals who are intent on committing crime can use the information
released to their advantage. Releasing operationally sensitive material
could hinder our ability to detect crime and apprehend offenders. With
specific knowledge of technical operational capabilities, they could alter
their activities to avoid detection. More crime could be committed and
public safety be put at risk as a result of disclosing the information.
Balance Test
Having considered the arguments both for and against disclosure, it is
determined that the public interest weighs in favour of maintaining the
exemption. Whilst it is important to promote openness and transparency
within the policing service, I believe the benefit in protecting our
operational tactics outweighs this.
5. I can confirm that the following providers have been used:
· Helliguy
· I-Red
· Evolve Dynamics
Avon and Somerset Police an neither confirm nor deny that any other
information is held with reference to the covert use of drones by virtue
of the following exemptions:
Section 23(2) – Security Bodies
Section 24(2) – National Security
Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Section 23 is a class-based, absolute exemption, therefore there is no
requirement to articulate the harm in disclosure or to consider the public
interest. Sections 24 and 31 are prejudice-based, qualified exemptions,
therefore, evidence of harm and the public interest considerations can be
found below:
Harm in confirming or denying that further information I held:
As you will be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at
large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or
denying that any other information is held regarding the use of drones for
covert purposes, would show criminals what the capacity, tactical
abilities and capabilities of the force are, allowing them to target
specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities.
Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the police
service may or may not deploy drones, would lead to an increase of harm to
covert investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the
detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in
providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored, and it is well established
that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain
intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. As such, it has
been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have
been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.
Confirming or denying that Avon and Somerset Police hold any other
information in relation to covert use of drones, or unmanned aerial
devices, would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists
would gain a greater understanding of the police forces’ methods and
techniques, enabling them to take steps to counter them. It may also
suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may
further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential
vulnerabilities. This detrimental effect is increased if the request is
made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local
criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised
crime throughout the UK, will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain
tactics are or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those
committing crimes. It would have the likelihood of identifying
location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police
tactics, operations and future prosecutions as criminals could counteract
the measures used against them.
Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used
to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that
undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely
affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security
and law enforcement.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 24
Any further information, if held simply relates to national security and
confirming or denying whether it is held would not actually harm it. The
public are entitled to know what public funds are spent on and what
security measures are in place, and by confirming or denying whether any
other information regarding the covert use of drones is held, would lead
to a better informed public.
Factors favouring Neither Confirming Nor Denying for Section 24
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would
render Security measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise
of ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infra-structure
of the UK and increase the risk of harm to the public.
Factors favouring Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the
covert use of drones would provide an insight into Avon and Somerset
police. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the
effectiveness of the police and about how the police gather intelligence.
It would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate,
which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation. Where public
funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and
justifying the use of public money.
Some information is already in the public domain regarding the police use
of this type of specialist equipment and confirming or denying whether any
other information is held would ensure transparency and accountability and
enable the public to see what tactics are deployed by the Police Service
to detect crime.
Factors against Confirming or Denying for Section 31
Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the
covert use of drones for maritime/border surveillance would have the
effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any
future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to
gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that
investigation and any possible future proceedings.
It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and
terrorists and so to confirm or deny any other information is held
concerning specialist covert tactics would lead to law enforcement being
undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques
during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed,
if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct
similar investigations.
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation
to the use of drones would hinder the prevention or detection of crime.
Avon and Somerset Police would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may
not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine
the law enforcement and investigative process. This would impact on police
resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed,
placing individuals at risk. It can be argued that there are significant
risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any
aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so
confirming or denying that any information is held, may reveal the
relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.
Balance Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and Avon and
Somerset Police will not divulge whether any information is or is not held
regarding the use of drones if to do so would place the safety of an
individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law
enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing
operations and providing assurance that Avon and Somerset Police is
appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various
groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of
operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is
appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional
circumstances. The use of drones in any covert capacity is a sensitive
issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion
that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether
any information is held regarding the use of drones is not made out.
However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any
information that would meet any future request exists or does not exist.
Yours sincerely
Becky Berridge
Information and Disclosure Manager - Freedom of Information
Legal Services Directorate. | Avon and Somerset Police
[5]www.avonandsomerset.police.uk | Follow us on [6]Twitter and
[7]Facebook
Please note:
1. Requests and responses may be published on the Avon and Somerset
Police website, some of which may contain a link to additional information
which may provide you with further clarification.
2. Avon and Somerset Police provides you with the right to request a
re-examination of your case under its review procedure (copy attached).
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
J Roberts left an annotation ()
Letter from the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner to all chief officers of Police England and Wales, 3 March 2023
Published 13 March 2023
'I am now seeking to clarify and develop the picture of the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) or ‘drones’ used by policing and law enforcement in England and Wales, and would be grateful if you could provide the following information in relation to UAVs deployed in or over your force area...
It would be very helpful if responses were received no later than 31 March 2023. '
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
The Guardian:
'Meanwhile, data revealed by the Telegraph on Tuesday found that two-thirds of the camera drones in use by British police are made by the Chinese company DJI, which is also blacklisted in the US.
DJI dominates the global market in civilian camera drones, in part because its technology costs much less than that of western rivals. But US officials warn that the information from them could be seized by Beijing with no notice under the country’s national intelligence law.'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/f...
The use of overt surveillance camera systems in public places by police forces in England and Wales: An assessment of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice
Updated 16 February 2023
'Unmanned aerial vehicle borne cameras (UAV – drones)
31. Thirty-one respondents said they used UAV-borne cameras, typically stating that they were able to record video (15 respondents), with a small number also being capable of recording audio (2). 26 drones have thermal imaging capability or night vision, and 14 have an optical zoom facility. DJI is the most commonly-cited manufacturer (17 respondents), with other drones deployed including Sky Mantis and Airvon. When specifically asked if they had any UAVs manufactured or supplied by surveillance companies outside the UK about which there have been any security or ethical concerns, at least 23 forces mention having such concerns about their use of DJI drones, however 11 mitigate this by stating there are no government restrictions in place prohibiting the use of these drones.'
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material Annual Report - January 2021 – March 2022
And
Surveillance Camera Commissioner Annual Report March 2021 – March 2022
February 2023
'161. The reports that some police forces are buying drone technology from the same companies who have reportedly facilitated genocide against Uyghur Muslims in China is a pressing concern that has attracted public attention this year, and raise the same issues that I have covered elsewhere in this report. I wrote to the NPCC Chair Martin Hewitt96 to record formally my concerns around the human rights and ethical considerations in the police procuring and deploying surveillance technology from companies with concerning trading history.'
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review
Digital Technologies - March 2023
Drones (p11)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...