Drones are a wonder to behold. Speedy, mobile and inexpensive, they open up all sorts of promising uses, from delivering packages to finding lost children to inspecting damage from natural disasters. But theres a potential downside. The same technology that can be so useful carries the risk of eroding privacy to the vanishing point particularly when government agencies are flying the drones.
A bill moving through the Illinois General Assembly, and supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, would allow police to use drones to monitor large groups of people, whether theyre watching a football game, attending a concert, or, well, protesting police abuses. But a bill that raises concerns isnt necessarily a bill lawmakers should reject. Let us explain.
Chicagoans have some experience with illegitimate spying on citizens for political reasons. For decades, the Chicago Police Department operated a unit that monitored radicals and other dissidents, violent or not. It compiled files on hundreds of thousands of people and thousands of organizations, including the NAACP. Its scary to think what it could have done with the help of drones.
That said, bill sponsor Sen. Martin Sandoval, D-Cicero, thinks drones could be invaluable in protecting public safety. I dont want Chicago to be the next Vegas-style outdoor terrorist attack, he says. This sort of surveillance could deter not only terrorism and mass shootings but identify individuals who commit those or other crimes. And, in contrast to police officers and helicopters, drones can be deployed routinely without much expense.
If the bill becomes law, consequences would be mixed. Drones probably wouldnt keep people away from the Fourth of July fireworks or Taste of Chicago. But they might discourage uninhibited partying at Lollapalooza. And they could intimidate citizens or people living in the country illegally from taking part in rallies for political causes that might offend authorities. Karen Sheley, director of police practices for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, argues that if there are drones hovering above First Amendment activities in Chicago, people will stay home. Would-be participants could be especially nervous if the drones were equipped with advanced facial recognition technology.
Those who turn out for marches understand that they may be recognized by passersby or police or caught on the many surveillance cameras operating in the city. But there is a certain anonymity in being part of a crowd something drones equipped with video equipment could eliminate. Imagine police departments having such recordings available, with the capacity to identify every individual by name. The bill would, though, require police to destroy footage after 30 days unless a recording includes information relevant to a criminal trial or investigation.
The ACLU wants lawmakers to exclude First Amendment activities from this sort of surveillance. If police want to use drones to watch a protest they fear will turn violent, Sheley argues, they should be required to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant to do so.
The challenge in regulating new gadgets is finding the right balance. Requiring probable cause that a specific crime will be committed could make it overly difficult for police to use drones for gatherings by extremists (of the right or the left) that carry a significant chance of bloodshed. As facial recognition software improves, it might make sense, instead, to limit when and where cops can use that capability.
The bill in Springfield, which was approved by the Senate and could clear the House as well, is an effort to balance existing technology with law enforcement priorities. We would vote for it. But we would do so with the realization that other legislation may have to follow if new technologies enable drones to aggressively pry or intimidate.
This bill, lawmakers, should be merely the start of your debate on how technology can enhance public safety without chilling freedom of speech and assembly.
Chicago Tribune
