Drone Wars: Surveying the home front

8/12/2019 Drone Wars: Surveying the home front

1/47


2/47

May 2014This report is published by Statewatchand Drone Wars UK underISBN 978 1 8744 8126 0.

Personal usage as privateindividuals/fair dealing is allowed.

Usage by those working fororganisations is allowed provided theorganisation holds an appropriatelicence from the relevant reprographicrights organisation (eg. CopyrightLicensing Agency in the UK), with suchusage being subject to the terms andconditions of that licence and to localcopyright law.

Neither Statewatch nor Drones WarsUK hold a corporate view; the opinionsexpressed are solely those of the author.

AuthorChris [email protected]

Design and layoutChris [email protected]

AcknowledgementsThe author is grateful to Susan Bryant,Chris Cole, Ben Hayes, Caroline Parkes,Sam Smith and Frances Webber fortheir advice regarding aspects of thisreport.

StatewatchStatewatch is a non-profit-making voluntary group foundedin 1991. It is comprised of lawyers, academics, journalists,researchers and community activists with a network ofcontributors drawn from 17 countries. Statewatch encourages

the publication of investigative journalism and criticalresearch in Europe in the fields of the state, justice and homeaffairs, civil liberties, accountability and openness.

More information:www.statewatch.org | [email protected] 697 4266PO Box 1516, London, N16 0EW

Drone Wars UK Drone Wars UK is a small British NGO, founded in thespring of 2010, to undertake research, education andcampaigning on the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles andthe wider issue of remote warfare. Drone Wars UK hasbecome recognised internationally as a credible and reliablesource of information on the use of drones and unmannedtechnology. The research and information produced by DroneWars UK is used by journalists, NGOs, lawyers, humanrights organisations, campaigners and the general public.

Drone Wars UK has been one of the key voices publiclyexpressing serious concerns about the expansion of this newway to wage war.

More information:www.dronewars.net | [email protected] 243688Peace House, 19 Paradise Street, Oxford, OX1 1LD

Image credits The copyright notice on this report does not apply to the images used.(1) Cover : based on 'Great Britain and Ireland', NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 26 March 2012, https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/7021760921/(2) Preface : 'Reaper RPAS Aircraft Lands at Kandahar, Afghanistan', UK Ministry of Defence, 5 January 2011, https://www.flickr.com/photos/defenceimages/6642213265(3) Introduction : James Bridle, 'Drone Shadow 003', 2013, http://booktwo.org/notebook/drone-shadows/(4) Law and regulation : Andy Piper, 'Drone warning', 31 August 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/andypiper/9634141409;(5) Public funding, private gain? : William Warby, 'Pound Coins', 4 August 2010, https://www.flickr.com/photos/wwarby/4860332859(6) Private drones : Lee, 'AR Drone @ The Beach', 16 August 2013, https://www.flickr.com/photos/myfrozenlife/11584562226(7) Conclusion : Ruben Pater, 'Drone Survival Guide', http://dronesurvivalguide.org/

Some images licenced under Creative Commons:(1) Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode(2) and (5) Creative Commons Attribution 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode(4) and (6) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode


3/47

Preface: Boomerang effect 1

Introduction 5Law and regulation 8- Safety regulations 8- Surveillance law 9Public funding, private gain? 13- ASTRAEA 13- EPSRC funding 15- EU-funded drone research

Projects in the UK 16- Testing grounds 17- Summary 19Police drones 20- Police use to date 21- Owned, loaned, operated 22- The view from the centre 26- Secret surveillance? 28

- Section 23(5) 29- Summary 30Border control drones 32- The South Coast Partnership 33- The 3i project 34Private drones 37Conclusion 40

Table of Contents


4/47

The issue of drones has for some time beenhigh on the public agenda, largely due

to their controversial use by the UK andUS in the war in Afghanistan and in the USprogramme of targeted killings in Pakistan,Somalia and Yemen. 1 The issue of the use ofdrones domestically has also been the topic ofmedia reports, perhaps most notably around thetime of the London Olympics. Although droneswere initially largely developed for militaryuse, companies producing the technology areincreasingly looking towards the domestic

market, and private firms, public authorities andindividuals are increasingly interested for purposesranging from law enforcement to personalentertainment.

The uses suggested for drones by theirproponents are seemingly endless. A studyproduced for the European Commission (whichhas its own ambitious plans to introduce Europeanregulations allowing unfettered flight for dronesweighing above 150kg by 2028) 2 suggested

1. Drones are typically aircraft although land and sea-based vehicles are in development without a human pilot onboard. They may be controlled remotely, or operate semi- orfully-autonomously. The formal terminology tends to refer toRemotely-Piloted Aerial Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned AerialSystems (UAS) when referring to vehicles and ground controlstations, and Remotely-Piloted Vehicles (RPV) or UnmannedAerial Vehicles (UAV) when referring simply to vehicles. SeniorUK military figures and numerous industry representativeshave expressed annoyance at the use of the term drone, seeingit as pejorative and giving the impression of out-of-controlrobots. Here the term drone is used for ease of reading and forconvenient shorthand to encompass both vehicles and associatedcontrol systems, unless otherwise stated.2. Ben Hayes, Chris Jones and Eric Tpfer, Drones and theEuropean Union: a lobbyists paradise in Eurodrones Inc.,February 2014, pp.10-23, http://www.statewatch.org/eurodrones

drones could be used for law enforcement, bordercontrol, forest fires, emergency rescue, oil and gas

industry distribution, environmental monitoring,crop spraying, aerial photography and filmingand network broadcasting, amongst other things. 3 These markets are estimated to be worth hundredsof billions of pounds in total, but are yet to bebrought into existence: regulatory restrictions, inplace largely because of a lack of reliable safetytechnology, currently prevent unrestricted droneflights. Meanwhile, some potential customers inthe UK for example the police are currently

largely unsatisfied with the quality of the productsavailable.

This may change as military technologycontinues to flow into the civil sphere and becomescheaper and more effective. US military drones, forexample, have for some time been equipped withwide area surveillance systems, a technology thathas also attracted the attention of Frontex, theEUs border agency. 4 One US military system,Gorgon Stare, captures video footage from ninedifferent cameras and provides daylight andinfrared video of a city sized area several milesacross. A similar system, ARGUS, is now beingdeveloped for potential homeland security usein the US, 5 where as abroad it would allow

3. Frost & Sullivan, Study analysing the current activities in thefield of UAV Second element: Way forward, 2008, p.7, http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/eu/com-2007-frost-sullivan-2.pdf 4. Ben Hayes, Chris Jones and Eric Tpfer, Patrolling theborders: Frontex and drones in Eurodrones, Inc., February 2014,pp.65-73, http://www.statewatch.org/eurodrones5. Frank Colucci, Wide Area Aerial Surveillance TechnologiesEvolve for Homeland Security and Other Applications,DefenseMediaNetwork , 4 December 2012, http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/wide-area-aerial-surveillance-

PrefaceBoomerang

effect

1


5/47


6/47

scanners, 17 mobile phone data extraction systems, 18 and predictive policing software 19 to moremundane office software and IT systems. It is notuncommon to hear the argument that deploymentof new technologies will lead to the increasedprevention of crime and prosecution of offenders. 20

Yet the ability of technology and the policeforce as a whole to facilitate this remains highlyquestionable. The academic Robert Reiner arguesthat:

The political consensus that the policeshould be primarily engaged in crime fightingoverstates the ability of the police to controlcrime, when the drivers for crime and disorderlargely lie in deeper social causes. Thiscreates unrealistic expectations and diverts

attention from the polices more fundamentalpeacekeeping role. 21

Similar objections could be raised to otherproposed uses for drones. For example, a 2012report by the Knowledge Transfer Networkargues that the increasing pressure on farmersto constantly increase yields whilst reducingcosts are pressing growers to consider precisionfarming; the next step up being autonomousassistance. 22 Drones may assist with meeting the

17. UK: Police get new mobile fingerprint scanners linked toimmigration database, Statewatch News Online , July 2013, http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=32598; EU: Europespolice and immigration mobile identification enthusiastsprepare to regroup during Irish Presidency of the EU,Statewatch News Online, January 2013, http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=3209118. Dave Lee, Met Police to extract suspects mobile phonedata, BBC News, 17 May 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-1810279319. UK: Predictive policing comes to the UK, Statewatch NewsOnline , 5 March 2013, http://database.statewatch.org/article.

asp?aid=3218020. Rosalie Marshall, UK police forces must improve use oftechnology to win fight against crime, V3.co.uk , 3 October 2012,http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/analysis/2214446/uk-police-force-behind-the-times-in-use-of-it; Low-Tech Police Force LosingCrime Fight, Sky News , 30 August 2013, http://news.sky.com/story/1134934/low-tech-police-force-losing-crime-fight; KieranCorcoran, Fighting crime? Theres an app for that! Police splashout on thousands on iPads and other touch-screen gizmos for CSIand ARMED RESPONSE units, Daily Mail , 1 February 2014,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524148/Fighting-crime-Theres-app-Police-splash-thousands-iPads-touch-screen-gizmos-CSI-ARMED-RESPONSE-units.html21. Howard League for Penal Reform, Police have marginalimpact on crime rate, 24 January 2012, http://www.howardleague.org/police-have-marginal-impact-on-c/22. Aerospace, Aviation & Defence Knowledge Transfer Network,Autonomous Systems: Opportunities and Challenges for theUK Volume 3, Backing Research, 30 June 2012, http://www.

demands made on farmers, but it could equally beargued that the problem is the demands themselvesand the widespread model of mass, mono-cropagriculture that has been developed to supportthem. Similarly, drones have been proposed as apotential solution for traffic congestion: with aerial

monitoring, drivers can be directed to routes inwhich congestion is less likely to occur. Aside fromthe obvious safety implications of flying dronesover crowded roads, this again seeks to address asymptom, rather than the cause of road congestion- too much traffic.

Meanwhile, the use of drones for bordercontrol which already takes place in a varietyof countries and is being considered by EU andUK officials seems largely geared towards

finding more effective ways to prevent peoplefrom entering a country. Such criticisms havebeen levelled at the forthcoming European BorderSurveillance System, Eurosur, in which dronesmay well play a part. 23 Similarly, Richard Watsonof the National Police Air Service told a March2012 meeting of the Association of Chief PoliceOfficers UAS Steering Group that in the UK,drones could potentially be used for securingthe borders from refugees. This suggests

enthusiasm for a further tightening of the UK'salready highly restrictive border control regime,despite the idea of securing the borders fromrefugees offending against the spirit of boththe Universal Declaration of Human Rights andthe 1951 Geneva Convention. Despite this, theintroduction of aerial surveillance technology forborder control is an approach increasingly gainingacceptance in states across the globe.

This is not to say that there are no legitimate

uses for drones. They are already being usedfor surveying, mapping, aerial photography andfilming, and for monitoring offshore installations.However, the potential for widespread proliferationand increasing ease of use (and misuse), combinedwith a permissive legal and regulatory framework,suggests that there is a need for a wide-rangingand meaningful public debate on domestic drones.

statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/uk/ktn-2012-06-autonomous-systems-report.pdf23. Ben Hayes and Matthias Vermeulen, Borderline: The EUsNew Border Surveillance Initiatives, Heinrich Bll Foundation ,June 2012, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2012/jun/borderline.pdf; 'Eurodrones, Inc.', Statewatch/TransnationalInstitute , February 2014, http://www.statewatch.org/eurodrones

3


7/47

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Droneshas already raised a number of issues related todomestic drones through briefing papers andmeetings, and further similar initiatives should beencouraged.

Deputy Chief Constable Chris Weigh ofLancashire Police has stated that the usage ofUASs [will] certainly not become widespreaduntil there [has] been a public consultation and allaspects of human rights [have] been addressed. 24 The Ministry of Defence has also raised the needfor public debate on both military and civil drones,in particular with regard to the development ofautonomous technology:

The pace of technological developmentis accelerating and the UK must establishquickly a clear policy on what will constituteacceptable machine behaviour in future... Thereis a danger that time is running out is debateand development of policy even still possible,or is the technological genie already out ofthe ethical bottle, embarking us all on anincremental and involuntary journey towards aTerminator -like reality? 25

With regard to the development of military

drones, the UK already appears to have chosen itsposition: following a UN debate on autonomousweapons, it was the only state present to declareits opposition to the call for a moratorium or aban on fully autonomous weapons. 26 RAF Air-Vice Marshal Phil Osborn recently told the pressduring a PR offensive on drones 27 that:

I cant conceive a future where we wonthave unmanned systems in the air, on theground, and on and under the water, actually.

Unmanned systems, we can see, bring suchan advantage that we would not want to step

24. ACPO UAS Steering Group, Minutes, 15 September 2010,http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/uk/police-acpo-2010-09-15-minutes.pdf 25. Ministry of Defence, The UK Approach to UnmannedSystems, 30 March 2011, p.58-9, http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/uk/uk-mod-2011-03-approach-to-uas.pdf 26. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Consensus killer robotsmust be addressed, 28 May 2013, http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2013/05/nations-to-debate-killer-robots-at-un/27. Chris Cole, MoDs drones PR offensive continues as UKcommits to a drone filled future, Drone Wars UK , 17 January2014, http://dronewars.net/2014/01/17/mods-drones-pr-offensive-continues-as-uk-commits-to-a-drone-filled-future/

away from them, so, as we look forward, I thinkwell see a growth in unmanned systems. 28

This, along with so many other aspects ofthe UKs military drone program, will no doubtremain a target for peace and anti-militarycampaigners in the years to come.

As for the increasing use of drones withinthe UK, the government has not had much tosay. The question is, then, when and how exactlyconsultation and debate will take place, andwhether all the issues will be addressed in a seriousand meaningful way.

28. Press Association, RAF commander rejects drone term,MSN News , 16 January 2014 , http://news.uk.msn.com/raf-commander-rejects-drone-term

4


8/47

This report aims to contribute to the publicdebate on the use of drones within the UK. It

examines their use by both public and privatebodies, but the main body of the research examinesthe police and border control authorities. As wellas examining the current situation, the reportconsiders potential future developments and arguesin this respect that public discussion and debate isneeded before the use of drones in particular forsurveillance purposes becomes widespread.

Due to a lack of safety guarantees andregulatory framework the use of drones inthe UK remains limited, particularly amongstpublic authorities, although there are moves tointroduce them more widely. Currently it is privatecompanies dealing with surveying, mapping,photography, filming and safety inspection that usethe vast majority of drones licensed for operationwithin UK airspace. However, as technologydevelops and becomes more widely available thisis likely to change, and various attempts are beingmade to drive this development and capitalise on

what is perceived as a significant market for civildrones.

The first section of the report examines theregulations and law governing the use of drones.Strict safety requirements on the use of unmannedaircraft in domestic airspace are vital: in NewYork in 2013, a 19-year-old was killed after adrone he was flying in a park crashed and hit him.Drones have also crashed into crowds in Virginia,USA1 and Trinidad and Tobago, where two men

1. Nick Dutton and Alix Bryan, EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Dronecrashes into crowd at Great Bull Run, CBS6 , 24 August 2013,http://wtvr.com/2013/08/24/watch-drone-crashes-into-crowd-at-great-bull-run/

sustained serious head injuries when a drone fellout of the sky and landed on them. 2 Military

drones crash frequently, although generally notover densely-populated areas. 3

Safety issues, airworthiness and pilot trainingare dealt with in the UK by the Civil AviationAuthority, and broadly speaking it appears thatcurrent regulations address these issues forexample, propensity to crash relatively well.However, there are concerns over the use ofdrones weighing less than 7kg that remain out ofscope of CAA regulations, particularly with thegrowing construction, purchase and use of dronesby individuals.

The law governing the use of drones forsurveillance is subsequently examined. Thegovernment has argued that the Regulation ofInvestigatory Powers Act 2000 and a recently-adopted Surveillance Camera Code of Practicewill need to be taken into account should publicauthorities wish to operate drones. However,

both contain numerous shortcomings andneither applies to private bodies or individuals.Considering these inadequacies and in thelight of ongoing revelations about masstelecommunications surveillance by securityagencies and the highly controversial use ofundercover police officers in protest movements

there is arguably a need for a thorough revisionof the UKs legal and regulatory frameworksurrounding all forms of surveillance.

2. Cecily Asson, Fete patrons injured by falling drone, Trinidadand Tobago Newsday , 26 January 2014, http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,189745.html3. Drone Wars UK, Drone Crash Database, http://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/

Introduction

5


9/47

Public funding for research into dronetechnology and development is subsequentlyexamined. Over the last decade some 80 millionof public money has gone towards research for anddevelopment of domestic drones or the technologyrequired for their use, although given that research

into military drones may be applicable in thecivilian sphere, the total amount is likely to besignificantly higher. While it is unknown exactlyhow much funding private firms have put intodrone research and development over the sameperiod, for those projects examined here funded

jointly by public and private bodies, public fundinghas consistently been more generous. Whilethis differs little from many established modelsof public investment in technologies not yetconsidered market-ready, it remains worth notingthat it is ultimately private companies who willreap the financial benefits of the development ofthe supposedly multi-billion pound domestic dronemarket.

The UKs flagship research programme,ASTRAEA which received public funding of32 million and sought to develop the technologynecessary to allow routine drone flights indomestic airspace has had little to no regard

for privacy, data protection or other civil libertiesand human rights considerations, and appears tohave been drawn up and implemented by largearms firms and state officials with no democraticinput or oversight. Civilian drone use in the UKlooks set to further benefit over the coming yearsfollowing the September 2013 launch of theNational Aeronautical Centre, a private site whichwill enable the development, testing, evaluation,training and demonstration of UAS that can flybeyond visual line of sight. The launch of theCentre adds to pre-existing drone testing facilitiesin west Wales, until now primarily used for defencepurposes.

The report then moves on to examine theuse of drones by UK police forces. Responses toFreedom of Information requests issued to everyUK police force show that eleven forces are knownto have used drones, but that the technologyis only currently used by two Staffordshire

and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.Drones have been used by police forces for avariety of purposes, including the monitoring ofdemonstrations, the surveillance of poachers, and

in attempts to deter anti-social behaviour and trackcriminals. This section also compiles evidencewhich suggests that the Serious Organised CrimeAgency (now replaced by the National CrimeAgency) acquired the use of drone technology inlate 2012.

Over the years the police approach to unmannedtechnology has become increasingly centralised.An Unmanned Aerial Systems Steering Grouprun by the Association of Chief Police Officers(ACPO) and the National Police Air Service,established in October 2012, currently keeps chiefconstables from around the country up-to-date ondevelopments, and a single technical requirementfor police drones has been developed by the HomeOffice. While the National Police Air Service has

remained tight-lipped over what information itholds on drones, referring questions back to ACPO,it does not seem that the widespread acquisitionor deployment by police forces of drones is animmediate proposition meaning that the time fora meaningful debate on the issue should be now.

Revelations in 2010 that Kent Police and the UKBorder Agency were working in partnership withBAE Systems to develop drones for the monitoringof the UKs borders were met with concerns fromcivil liberties organisations, with other suggesteduses including monitoring fly-tippers and cashmachine thefts. That project known as the SouthCoast Partnership no longer exists. Kent Policehave, however, taken on a role in a cross-border,European Union-funded project with Frenchand Dutch authorities and institutions that hasa similar objective: the use of drones for bordercontrol, along with critical infrastructure andenvironmental monitoring. This project urgently

requires more public scrutiny.

The final section examines the use of drones byprivate firms and individuals. Drones are currentlyused most widely by private firms, and althoughtheir usage so far appears to raise little cause forconcern with regard to privacy or data protection,there is significant risk that it could do so. It is notobligatory for private companies to pay heed to thegovernments much-trumpeted Surveillance Codeof Practice. This leaves a significant gap in theregulatory framework.

Firms whose use of drones may raise even moresignificant concerns such as private security

6


10/47

companies or private investigators do not yetappear to have yet embraced the technology. Thereare many issues that are yet to be dealt with whenit comes to the use of drones by both privatecompanies and private individuals, something thatis likely to be an increasing problem for safety

and privacy as technology advances in years tocome, and the option of using drones as morethan simply flying cameras becomes increasinglyfeasible.

Ultimately, the report argues that the fearsraised in media reports in recent years skiesawash with high-powered state surveillance drones

have not yet come to pass. For this reason, it isurgent that a public debate on domestic dronestakes place sooner rather than later, and that

decisions on acceptable limits for their use aretaken in an open and democratic manner.

7


11/47

There are a number of concerns over thegrowing use of domestic drones. Chief

amongst these are safety and the possibilityof unfettered surveillance. Both areas are coveredby various laws and regulations, but questionshave been raised in particular over whether UKlaw governing surveillance provides a level ofprotection high enough to prevent the widespreaduse of drones for pervasive, intensive surveillance.

Safety regulations

The safety record of drones is not particularlyimpressive. Military drones crash regularly 1 andthe technology required to ensure safe autonomousor semi-autonomous flight in domestic airspace sense and avoid systems is not yet consideredof a high enough quality for such flight to be

permitted. 2 Even the use of drones operatedmanually and within the line-of-sight of theoperator is regulated fairly tightly, as these too areprone to system failures. Merseyside Police lost

1. Drone crash database, Drone Wars UK , http://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/2. One industry representative has said that usable sense-and-avoid technology, at least for the military, is a generation away:A Predator [drone] equipped with sense-and-avoid equipmentcant carry anything else, said Dave Bither, Mav6s vicepresident for strategic development. See: Dave Majumdar, U.S.Military, Industry Seek Ways To Fly Unmanned Planes AmidCivil Air Traffic, DefenseNews , 27 January 2012, http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120127/C4ISR02/301270008/U-S-Military-Industry-Seek-Ways-Fly-Unmanned-Planes-Amid-Civil-Air-Traffic

their drone in the river Mersey after it lost powerand fell from the sky (see Police drones, below); in

April 2013 a drone being used to film people waitingto audition for television programme The X Factor was flown deliberately into the river Thames by itsoperator after it began losing power; 3 and in NewYork in 2013 a 19-year-old was killed after a dronehe was flying in a park crashed and hit him. 4

The use of drones is therefore regulated by civilaviation authorities. In all European Union (EU)countries, the regulation in civil airspace of dronesweighing less than 150kg is left to national bodies. 5 In the UK that is the Civil Aviation Authority(CAA), whose document CAP 722 UnmannedAircraft Systems Operations in UK Airspaceprovides advice and guidance to those wishing tomake use of drones that weigh more than 7kg andless than 150kg. CAP 722 is updated frequentlyand the introduction notes that the CAA shouldclearly recognise the way ahead in terms of policyand regulations and, more importantly, in safetystandards. 6

3. Alistair Foster, Scuba diver rescues footage of X Factor afterairborne camera falls in Thames, Evening Standard , 11 April2013, http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/scuba-diver-rescues-footage-of-x-factor-after-airborne-camera-falls-in-thames-8568170.html4. Move along there please, Police Aviation News ,October 2013, p.28, http://www.policeaviationnews.com/Acrobat/210PANewsOctober2013.pdf 5. Those weighing over 150kg are subject to Europe-wideregulations, an issue which has received much attention froma number of public and private bodies in recent years asenthusiasts seek to permit the routine flight of weightier dronesin domestic airspace across the continent. For more information,see: Ben Hayes, Chris Jones and Eric Tpfer, Eurodrones, Inc.,Statewatch/Transnational Institute , February 2014, http://www.statewatch.org/eurodrones6. Civil Aviation Authority, Unmanned Aircraft SystemOperation in UK Airspace Guidance, CAP 722, 10 August

8

Law andregulation


12/47

The main points of the applicable regulationsare summarised by the academic Lachlan Urquhartas follows:

[T]he CAA follows the UK Civil AviationAuthority Air Navigation Order 2009/3015(ANO 2009/3015) which stipulates that dronescannot be flown outside the direct visual lineof sight of the pilot (below 400ft and within a500m range) in non-segregated airspace, unlessan approved detect and avoid system is fitted(to avoid collisions with other aircraft). Flightwithin 150m of built up areas or within 30mof people is prohibited and air traffic controlpermission is required to enter controlledairspace. Article 167 ANO 2009/3015 providesspecific guidelines for operators of small drones

used for data acquisition or surveillance. Theymust obtain permission from the CAA if theyare going to fly within 50m of a person, or150m of an organised open-air assembly ofmore than 1,000 persons or a congested area. 7

Between July 2012 and July 2013, 119organisations were granted permission to flydrones by the CAA, a minor increase on thenumber of permits granted between January 2009and October 2011. 8 Perhaps due to public interestand concern over domestic drones, the CAA hasrecently begun publishing quarterly statistics. 9 The majority of machines currently in use aremultirotor devices weighing less than 20kg. Thoseholding licences include surveying companies,photography and mapping firms, the ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency, StaffordshirePolice and West Midlands and Hampshire fireservices.10

2012, http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf 7. Lachlan Urquhart, The Aerial Gaze: Regulating DomesticDrones in the UK, SCL , 17 March 2013, http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed31354; see also Civil Aviation Authority,Unmanned Aircraft System Operation in UK Airspace Guidance, CAP 722, 10 August 2012, http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf and Civil Aviation Authority, AirNavigation: The Order and the Regulations, CAP 393, 11January 2010, http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf 8. Ryan Gallagher, Surveillance drone industry plans PR effortto counter negative image, The Guardian , 2 February 2012,http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/02/surveillance-drone-industy-pr-effort9. CAA, SUA Operators, http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90&pageid=1548410. CAA, list of drone operators provided in response to FOIrequest, 30 July 2012, http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_ files/drones/uk/caa-2013-07-spreadsheet.xlsx

Surveillance law

Drones can ostensibly be used for a number ofpurposes spraying crops is frequently suggestedas a possible use, and it has been suggested thatthey be used to deliver post and even pizza 11 buttheir most likely initial use is for video surveillance.Indeed, every single one of the 119 organisationsgranted CAA licences between July 2012 andJuly 2013 is listed as undertaking aerial work(photography) or aerial work (photography/observation). Even if that is not the directpurpose of use, it is likely that a drone wouldneed one or more cameras fitted in order for it tobe operated, which may lead to the collection orretention of imagery. The question of which lawsapply to the use of drones for surveillance, andwhat level of protection they offer, is thereforecrucial. While the government has set out itsposition, it is not clear that existing rules arecapable of taking into account the potentialsurveillance capabilities of unmanned drones.

In May 2013 the Conservative MP NicholasSoames asked Home Secretary Theresa May whatplans she has to authorise the use of unmannedaerial vehicles for intelligence gathering by UK lawenforcement agencies. Policing minister DamianGreen responded by saying:

Use of unmanned aerial vehicles wouldneed to comply with existing Civil AviationAuthority regulations. Covert use by a publicauthority likely to obtain private information,including by any law enforcement agency, wouldbe subject to authorisation under the Regulation

of Investigatory Powers Act [RIPA] 2000...Any overt use of a surveillance camera systemin a public place in England or Wales will besubject to a new code of practice preparedunder the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, onwhich the Home Office is currently consideringits response to statutory consultation. 12

The charity Big Brother Watch has asserted

11. Jimmy Nsubuga, Dominos trials new drone delivery systemfor pizzas, Metro , 5 June 2013, http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/05/dominos-trials-new-drone-delivery-system-for-pizzas-3829035/12. Nicholas Soames, Unmanned Air Vehicles, Hansard , 16 May2013, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130516/text/130516w0001.htm#13051676000033

9


13/47

that it is far from clear that the existing guidelineson RIPA actually address [the] challenge of[surveillance drones]. 13 Looking at the law morewidely, the charity JUSTICE has argued thatRIPA fails to provide adequate safeguards againstunnecessary and disproportionate surveillance

and is inadequate to cope with such developmentsas aerial surveillance drones, Automatic NumberPlate Recognition, deep packet interception, and,indeed the Internet itself. 14 More recently, theHouse of Commons Home Affairs Committeehas called for RIPA to be reformed in the wakeof numerous revelations about the activities ofundercover police officers used to infiltrate protestmovements. 15

Use by public authorities of intrusive

surveillance that which is covert and directed atactivities in residential premises or private vehicles

requires authorisation under RIPA. However,according to the legislation, surveillance ofresidential premises or private vehicles that:

[I]s carried out without that device beingpresent on the premises or in the vehicle, isnot intrusive unless the device is such that itconsistently provides information of the samequality and detail as might be expected to beobtained from a device actually present on thepremises of the vehicle. 16

Lachlan Urquhart has argued that:

This subjective dependency on consistency,quality and detail of drone obtained imagescould introduce uncertainty into classifyingthe nature of surveillance, and therefore theapplication of RIPA. 17

13. Big Brother Watch, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles andUnmanned Aerial Systems Briefing, undated, p.2, http://appgondrones.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/unmanned-aerial-vehicles-briefing-big-brother-watch.pdf 14. JUSTICE, Freedom from Suspicion: Surveillance Reform fora Digital Age, October 2011, p.155, http://www.justice.org.uk/data/files/resources/305/JUSTICE-Freedom-from-Suspicion-Surveillance-Reform-for-a-Digital-Age.pdf 15. Home Affairs Select Committee, MPs call for root-and-branch overhaul of RIPA, 1 March 2013, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/130301-undercover-policing-rpt/16. Article 26(5), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/2617. Lachlan Urquhart, The Aerial Gaze: Regulating DomesticDrones in the UK, SCL , 17 March 2013, http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed31354

Covert entry to premises or vehicles for theplacing of surveillance devices by police forces 18 and security agencies is further regulated by thePolice Act 1997 and Intelligence Services Act1994, which requires the issuing of a warrantby the Secretary of State to authorise such

entry.19

However, the use of drones for intrusivesurveillance would appear to sidestep the need forentry into premises or vehicles, thus bypassing theextra authorisation procedure currently in place formore traditional surveillance methods.

The Surveillance Camera Code of Practicewas published in June 2013, in order to addressconcerns over the potential for abuse of misuseof surveillance by the state in public places. 20 It contains twelve guiding principles, 21 and

18. After police forces have gathered information throughany means it is meant to be handled in accordance with theGuidance on the Management of Police Information, which wasintroduced in 2006 as part of an effort to establish intelligence-led policing practices. See: National Policing ImprovementAgency, Guidance on the Management of Police Information,2010, http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/information/2010/201004INFMOPI01.pdf19. Article 5, Intelligence Services Act 199420. Home Office, Surveillance Camera Code of Practice,June 2013, http://statewatch.org/news/2013/aug/uk-ho-surveillance%20camera-code-of-practice.pdf 21. The principles are: 1. Use of a surveillance camera system

must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit ofa legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressingneed; 2. The use of a surveillance camera system must takeinto account its effect on individuals and their privacy, withregular reviews to ensure its use remains justified; 3. Theremust be as much transparency in the use of a surveillancecamera system as possible, including a published contact pointfor access to information and complaints; 4. There must be clearresponsibility and accountability for all surveillance camerasystem activities including images and information collected,held and used; 5. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be inplace before a surveillance camera system is used, and these mustbe communicated to all who need to comply with them; 6. Nomore images and information should be stored than that which is

strictly required for the stated purpose of a surveillance camerasystem, and such images and information should be deleted oncetheir purposes have been discharged; 7. Access to retained imagesand information should be restricted and there must be clearlydefined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose suchaccess is granted; the disclosure of images and informationshould only take place when it is necessary for such a purposeor for law enforcement purposes; 8. Surveillance camera systemoperators should consider any approved operational, technicaland competency standards relevant to a system and its purposeand work to meet and maintain those standards; 9. Surveillancecamera system images and information should be subject toappropriate security measures to safeguard against unauthorisedaccess and use; 10. There should be effective review and auditmechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policies and standardsare complied with in practice, and regular reports should bepublished; 11. When the use of a surveillance camera system isin pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is a pressing need for itsuse, it should then be used in the most effective way to support

10


14/47


15/47

companies, in part to examine policies regardingthe collection and storage of data gathered viadrones. The report found that all policies stronglyemphasised safety, but:

[T]here was less emphasis within some ofthe policies on the need to protect data or respectprivacy, primarily due to the nature of the work,in other policies, there was relatively goodknowledge of the key legislation. 1

Notwithstanding any need for revision of thelegislation, there seems to be a clear a need toensure that the requirements of the Data ProtectionAct are adhered to by both public and private droneoperators. The majority of companies questionedwere using drones to undertake offshore oilinspections, landfill surveys or to monitor coasterosion, which could in passing collect personaldata for example, people on a beach or walkingon coastal paths. In the future their use may alsobecome attractive to more deliberately intrusiveactors, such as private investigators and securityfirms. The Chief Surveillance Commissioner notedin his 2012 annual report that there is no system ofregulation of surveillance for covert investigative,commercial or entertainment purposes. 2

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights would also apply tothe operation of surveillance drones, although itis legislation such as RIPA or authorisations fromthe CAA that will be used in practice. Given thepatchy and inconsistent nature of regulation ofsurveillance in the UK, a revision of the legal andregulatory framework surrounding drones andother surveillance means is arguably long overdue.The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee

have argued for a fundamental review of the lawgoverning undercover police operations, including[RIPA], 3 and JUSTICE have argued that RIPAprovides a wholly inadequate legal framework for

1. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drones, Background noteon the civil use of drones in the UK, June 2013, p.4, https://appgondrones.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/appg-background-note-civil-drone-use-in-the-uk.pdf 2. Chief Surveillance Commissioner, Annual Report 2012 ofthe Chief Surveillance Commissioner to the Prime Ministerand to Scottish Ministers for 2011-2012, July 2012, p.19,http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc04/0498/0498.pdf 3. MPs call for root-and branch overhaul of RIPA, CommonsSelect Committee , 1 March 2013, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/130301-undercover-policing-rpt/

surveillance. 4 More specifically, Big Brother Watchhave argued:

The regulation of UAVs appears to bedangerously lax where they do not weigh enoughto be covered by the main air rules, somethingwhich it appears many are keen to exploit. Weneed clear rules that establish what drones canbe used and why... the impetus is on lawmakersnow to ensure a framework is in place wherethe benefits of new technology can be realised,without the risks to liberty and privacy that leftunchecked could undermine trust in the entirelaw enforcement system. 5

4. JUSTICE, Freedom from Suspicion: Surveillance Reform fora Digital Age, October 2011, p.16, http://www.justice.org.uk/data/files/resources/305/JUSTICE-Freedom-from-Suspicion-Surveillance-Reform-for-a-Digital-Age.pdf 5. Big Brother Watch, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles andUnmanned Aerial Systems Briefing, undated, p.4, http://appgondrones.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/unmanned-aerial-vehicles-briefing-big-brother-watch.pdf

12


16/47

Considerable amounts of both public andprivate money have been invested in research

aimed at developing drones. Research forthis report suggests that around 80 million ofmoney from public bodies has gone into researchor development in the UK aimed directly orindirectly at developing the technology necessaryto make the use of domestic drones routine. Giventhat technology developed for military applicationscould well be used for civil drones, the actualfigure is probably far higher.

For many projects, major arms firms havebeen amongst the chief beneficiaries due to theirdominance in aerospace technology development.Given the significant profits made by thesecompanies (which themselves come frequentlythrough public contracts) it is unclear why theyrequire further subsidies to support research fromwhich they will benefit financially. In this respect,however, the approach taken by the state in the UKis little different from that followed elsewhere theEU, for example, has ploughed millions of euros

into drone-related research across the continent,including in the UK (see below).

Research into many emerging technologies isfrequently heavily subsidised by the state beforeprivate companies consider it worth investment.If such subsidies are what the public wish to seethey can hardly be criticised, but in none of thecases examined here is it clear what if any democratic processes are controlling the allocationof public money. It also remains far from clearexactly what benefits many of these projects haveto offer ordinary people.

ASTRAEA

ASTRAEA (Autonomous Systems TechnologyRelated Airborne Evaluation & Assessment) was apublic-private project led by seven companies (sixof which are major arms firms) 6 that operatedtwo lines of research separate assurance andcontrol and autonomy and decision-making in order to try and establish the technologies,systems, facilities and procedures that will

allow autonomous vehicles to operate safelyand routinely in civil airspace over the UnitedKingdom.7 It received 62 million in funding, ofwhich half came from the companies and half frompublic bodies, and ran over two phases from 2006to 2008 and 2009 to 2013.

The phase running from 2006 until 2008involved discussions with regulators, thedevelopment of technology, the production of ademonstration of the art of the possible and the

creation of an internationally recognised position6. The full list of participants provided on the ASTRAEAwebsite is as follows: public sector bodies: the TechnologyStrategy Board, Welsh Assembly Government, ScottishEnterprise, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Ministry ofDefence; universities: Bristol, Cranfield, Loughborough, Sheffield,Strathclyde; main private sector bodies: Unmanned Aerial VehicleSystems Association (the worlds longest established tradeassociation devoted exclusively to the UAS community), AOS(a firm specialising in autonomous decision-making software),BAE Systems, Cassidian, Cobham, Qinetiq, Rolls-Royce andThales UK; subcontractors and small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs): Aerosynergy, Conekt, Cranfield AerospaceLtd, DM Aviation Ltd, Ebeni, The Great Circle, IphestosSystems, Netherlands Research Laboratories, PHM Technology,Protographics, Roke Manor Research Ltd.7. Programme, ASTRAEA , http://astraea.aero/the-programme/

Public funding,private gain?

13


17/47


18/47

programme devoted to these issues. This was,of course, not the point. Speaking at the 2012ASTRAEA conference, Dr Chris Elliot remarkedthat privacy is about making sure our privacy lawswork. And thats not about UAVs... We should besorting out the privacy law, not the UAV law. 12

To some extent, he has a point as arguedabove, the UKs legal and regulatory frameworksurrounding surveillance is inadequate althoughthis argument fails to take into account theunique opportunities offered by drones for covert,pervasive aerial surveillance and data-gathering.

It is worth highlighting a point made by theEuropean Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) whenasked to consider the procedures necessary forallowing routine civilian drone flight across theEU. While it was happy to work on regulatoryissues, EASA went on to insist that operationaluse of UAV is a political decision. 13 EASA'spoint - which has barely been touched upon bypublicly-elected officials is the fact that theintroduction of, for example, policing drones,could massively increase the powers of thestate over the individual. It is not just technicaldiscussion, debate and decision-making that isrequired. Research on and development of newmeans of potentially highly intrusive surveillanceand monitoring should go hand-in-hand withpolitical considerations over the relevant legal andregulatory framework.

EPSRC funding

The Engineering and Physical Sciences ResearchCouncil (EPSRC) is the main UK governmentagency for funding research and training inengineering and the physical sciences, and investsmore than 800 million a year in subjectsranging from mathematics to materials science,

12. Dr Chris Elliot, audio recording of keynote presentation givenat ASTRAEA 2012 conference, available at: http://astraea.aero/presentations/presentations-from-astraea-2.html13. EASA, Advance Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA)No 16/2005 Policy for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)Certification, 2005, p.15, http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/eu/easa-2005-proposed-amendment-uav-policy.pdf

and from information technology to structuralengineering. 14

Research either aimed at directly producing,or which had the end result of producingbenefits for the further development of drones orcomponents required for drones, has received atleast 22.7 million in funding from the EPSRCin the last ten years. The research has examinedrobotics, software, flight technology, as well asthe application of drones for purposes such asenvironmental monitoring. A table containinginformation on the projects funded is available inAnnex 1 (available online). 15

Out of the 22.7 million, over 12.1 millionof that funding has gone towards unmanned aerialvehicles, 322,000 to unmanned ground vehicles,

just over 1 million to unmanned water vehicles,and nearly 9.2 million to projects that do notspecify what form of unmanned technology atwhich the research is aimed. 16 Much of the moneyhas gone to universities, but arms firms have alsofrequently been recipients of EPSRC funds, inparticular BAE Systems and QinetiQ, as well asRolls-Royce, Thales, and Boeing. 17

The projects have had a wide variety of aims.

One project, 'Advances in robust control methodsand applications to flying discs', received a grantof over 364,000 and argued that:

[F]lying discs are attractive becausethey can in the future lead to reliable andeffective Miniature Unmanned Aerial Vehicles(UAVs) which are important in a vast numberof applications, including surveillance,reconnaissance and increased border security. 18

Another received a grant of nearly 1.2 millionand sought to understand how and why insectwing shapes have such variation despite intenseselective pressure for aerodynamic performance,with the result that the researcher ended up

14. About us, EPSRC , http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/Pages/aboutus.aspx15. http://www.statewatch.org/backfromthebattlefield16. Figures obtained from the EPSRC Grants on the Webdatabase, http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBODefault.aspx17. There are also of course many close links between arms firmsand UK university departments. See: Campaign Against ArmsTrade Universities Network, http://universities.caat.org.uk18. Advances in robust control methods and application toflying discs, EPSRC , 16 April 2008, http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/F06022X/1

15


19/47

sitting on a NATO panel on Advanced VehicleTechnologies, taking part in knowledge transferwith commonwealth government departments(DTSO [Defence Science and TechnologyOrganisation] Australia) and was awarded astudentship as part of the PhD Programme

for Unmanned Aerial Systems at the UKgovernments Defence Science and TechnologyLaboratory. 19

One project highlights the concerns held bymany drone enthusiasts over public perceptionsof the technology. The Truth About UnmannedAerial Vehicles, run by the University ofNottingham from April 2007 until April 2008,was awarded nearly 70,000 in order to todispel some of the myths about what UAVs can

and cant currently do, and present informationabout historical developments, current technologyand applications and details of where academiaand industry plan to go in terms of research anddevelopment. Partners in the project were theRAF Museum, Newark Air Museum, and the armsfirm QinetiQ.

In May 2012 the EPSRC announced a 16million boost for UK robotics aimed at projectsthat would help develop smart machines thatthink that is, autonomous systems. 4 millionof the money will come from companies that aretaking part in the funding programme and theresearch will include:

[S]afe ways of monitoring in dangerousenvironments such as deep sea installations andnuclear power plants, nursebots that assistpatients in hospitals, and aerial vehicles that canmonitor national borders or detect pollution. 20

Projects that started in 2012 and 2013 andwhich involved institutes that were partners inthe smart machines that think projects wereworth just over 3 million. This leaves 9 millionpounds of public money for these projects unlistedin the ESPRC database, which would suggest thatthe total amount of EPSRC funding awarded tounmanned robotics projects is around 31 million.

19. Insect wing design: evolution and biomechanics, EPSRC ,10 June 2009, http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/H004025/120. 16 million boost for UK robotics, EPSRC , 10 May 2012,http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2012/Pages/robotics.aspx

The total may be even higher than this a 6.2million pound project called FLAVIIR (FLaplessAir Vehicle Integrated Industrial Research), alsounlisted in the EPSRC database, was jointly fundedby the EPSRC and BAE Systems, although it is notclear how much money was contributed by each

party.21

This led to a test flight in 2009 of an80kg jet powered unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV),by BAE Systems, called Demon. Matt Pearsonfrom BAE Systems explained that the test flightswill be used to determine which technologiesdeveloped by the researchers work best in action. 22

EPSRC funding, combined with the 31million awarded to the ASTRAEA project,means at least 62 million has been awarded inUK public funding to research into unmanned

technology in the last decade. While this palesin comparison to the nearly 2 billion that hasgone into defence-related research since 2007, 23 itis a significant amount of money, much of whichis geared directly at highly contentious activitiessuch as border control. It must also be recognisedthat technology developed through expenditureon military research may well be used for civilianapplications as well.

EU-funded droneresearch projects in theUK

Generous EU security research funding hasalso benefited projects undertaken by UK firmsand institutions aimed at developing or usingdrones. 24 The Seventh Framework Programme

21. Were flying without wing flaps and a pilot, EPSRC , 21March 2006, http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2006/Pages/flyingwithoutwingflaps.aspx; FLAVIIR website, http://www.flaviir.com/22. Demon of the skies gets ready for its maiden flight, EPSRC ,18 September 2009, http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2009/Pages/maidenflight.aspx23. Shelling Out: UK Government Spending on UnmannedDrones, Drone Wars UK , September 2012, http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/shelling-out-uk-spending-on-drones.pdf 24. Values in this section will be given in pounds and euros wherethey are sum totals, e.g. for research fund budgets or the total

16


20/47

for Research and Technological Development(FP7) was, from 2007 to 2013, the EUs maininstrument for funding research in Europe.It had a total budget of over 42 billion (50billion).25 1.2 billion (1.4 billion) of this wasearmarked for the European Security Research

Programme (ESRP), which had the twinobjectives of enhancing public safety throughthe development of security technologies andfostering the growth of a globally competitiveEuropean Homeland Security market. 26 The2009 report NeoConOpticon argued that the entireEuropean Security Research Programme wasshaped by prominent transnational defence andsecurity corporations and other vested interests. 27 FP7s successor, Horizon 2020, will run from2014 until 2020 and with a budget 60.4 billion(73.4 billion) is the worlds largest research fund.3.1 billion (3.8 billion) of this is earmarked forsecurity research.

10 projects based either partly or wholly inthe UK and aimed at developing or making useof drone technology have received a total ofover 17 million (21.2 million) from FP7 funds.40,000 was also awarded under FP7 predecessorthe Sixth Framework Programme to a project

aimed at promoting the use of embedded visionsystems and neural architectures to developintelligent control systems that are typical ofrobotic applications. 28 A full list of projectsand funding is contained in the table in Annex 2(available online). 29

FP7 projects have had a variety of aims,ranging the University of Bristol-run

value of funding given to a set of projects. For ease of reading,

euros alone will be used when referring to funding awards forindividual EU-funded projects, as this was the currency in whichfunding awards were made. Their value in pounds can be foundin the table in Annex 2 (available online, http://www.statewatch.org/backfromthebattlefield). All comparative values in poundsare given according to exchange rates given on 28 February 2014by XE Currency Convertor: http://www.xe.com/ucc25. European Commission, What is FP7? The basics, http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/understanding/fp7inbrief/what-is_en.html26. Statewatch, Observatory on the European Security ResearchProgramme (ESRP), http://www.statewatch.org/Targeted-issues/ESRP/security-research.html27. Ben Hayes, Neoconopticon, Statewatch/Transnational Institute ,2009, http://statewatch.org/analyses/neoconopticon-report.pdf 28. CORDIS, DESIRE - The use of Digital Embedded Systemsin Robotics Engineering, http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/82068_en.html29. http://www.statewatch.org/backfromthebattlefield

CHIROCOPTER (awarded 231,283), whichaimed to develop a drone to mimic the behaviourof bats in order to develop a bio-inspiredalgorithm for echo based navigation to explain thenavigation capabilities of bats, 30 to OPARUS,awarded 1,188,312 and which, run by French firm

Sagem and with the involvement of BAE Systemsand a number of other military and securitycorporations, aimed at developing:

[A]n open architecture for the operationof unmanned air-to-ground wide area land andsea border surveillance platforms in Europe...based on analysis of concepts and scenariosfor UAV-based aerial surveillance of Europeanborders. It takes into account the emerginglegislation for insertion of UAS into controlled

civil airspace.31

Numerous other FP7-funded projects that

have not involved UK organisations have alsoinvestigated the use of drones for purposes such asborder control and policing. 32

Testing grounds

The development of both military and civiliandrones has benefited over the last decade from theuse of significant tracts of land in west Walesfor test flights. In 2001, businessman Ray Mannbought a former military airfield, rechristenedit West Wales Airport and established the onlyfacility in the country where military and civiliandrones can be tested. Currently 500 square milesof segregated airspace over land and 2,000 squaremiles over sea are available for test flights. 33 The

impetus for Manns initiative came following the11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US:without 9/11 there would have been no war on

30. CORDIS, CHIROCOPTER A remote controlledhelicopter for investigating the echoes experienced by bat duringnavigation, http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/107981_ en.html31. CORDIS, OPARUS - Open architecture for UAV-basedsurveillance system, http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/95504_en.html32. Ben Hayes, Chris Jones and Eric Tpfer, EU-funded droneresearch, Eurodrones, Inc , February 2014, pp.26-38, http://www.statewatch.org/eurodrones33. Worlds first civilian centre for operating unmannedaircraft systems launched, 9 September 2013, http://www.nationalaeronauticalcentre.co.uk/latest_news/20130905%20UAS%20LAUNCH%20RELEASE.pdf

17


21/47

terror, and no rapid need to develop UAVs, he toldWired magazine in November 2012. 34

In July 2012 the site was rebranded as theNational Aeronautical Centre (NAC) and inNovember 2012 a partnership with OklahomaState University was announced in order toadvance the operation and regulatory developmentof Unmanned Aerial Systems. 35 In December ofthe same year the NAC expanded further through apartnership with Newquay Cornwall Airport. TheNAC also has a partnership with QinetiQ, whoseWest Wales UAV Centre provides UAV supportservices for both civil and military customers. 36 In September 2013 QinetiQ signed a contractwith the government that would allow it to usea former RAF base at Llanbedr, in Snowdonia, as

a drone testing site, further expanding the spaceafforded to drone tests in Wales. 37 QinetiQ notedthat use of the site will enable UAS developmentin support of both civil and defence relatedopportunities. 38

The NAC also incorporates the publicly-fundedParcAberporth business park, which opened in2005 and houses facilities run by Thales, SelexES and the Ministry of Defence. 39 According toBBC News , in 2005, the aim was to create 230 jobs[at the business park] in the first three years, butcould eventually create up to 1,000. A documentposted on the website of the UK industry lobbygroup, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems

34. Mark Piesing, Former WW2 airfield in Wales transformedinto drone testing ground, Wired , 5 November 2012, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/05/drones-wales; atimeline on the West Wales Airport website lists a number ofimportant firsts achieved at the site. See: West Wales Airport,News, http://www.flyuav.co.uk/wwa_news/index.html35. National Aeronautical Centre, Unmanned civilian

flights draw nearer, 14 November 2012, http://www.nationalaeronauticalcentre.co.uk/latest_news/NAC%20announces%20US%20partner.pdf 36. QinetiQ, MOD awards QinetiQ contract to deliver part ofthe major Watchkeeper UAV programme at ParcAberporth, WestWales, undated, http://www.qinetiq.com/news/pressreleases/Pages/mod-awards-qinetiq-5m-watchkeeper-contract.aspx; WestWales UAV Centre, http://www.wwuavc.com/37. Drone tests at Llanbedr airfield will bring jobs to area,BBC News , 24 September 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-2422628738. QinetiQ Invests in ParcAberporth UAS Test RangeExpansion, UASVision , 12 September 2013, http://www.uasvision.com/2013/09/12/qinetiq-invests-in-parcaberporth-uas-test-range-expansion/39. Excellence aircraft centre opens, BBC News , 7September 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4221114.stm; National Aeronautical Centre, http://www.nationalaeronauticalcentre.co.uk/

Association, states that the ParcAberporthdevelopment was borne out of the imperative todevelop and maintain sustainable economic growthin West Wales. 40

The promised jobs are yet to materialise.A February 2011 response to a Freedom ofInformation request submitted to the Welshgovernment said that there were 37 peopleemployed at the site, an additional 75 peopleinvolved in training activities are accommodatedfrom time to time in relation to the Ministry ofDefences Watchkeeper drone project, and that atotal of 17,482,148 in public funding had gone tothe development. 41 A February 2013 article in theDaily Mail claimed a total cost to the public purseof 21 million, with one local resident referring to

the site as a scandalous waste of money.42

While the facilities in west Wales are aimed

at both military and civilian development, it isfar from certain that the civilian market will everreach the heights promised by its enthusiasticproponents. Military spending, meanwhile, hasbeen found by a number of research studies tocreate the fewest jobs. If the money were spenton either education or public transportation, morethan twice the number of jobs would be createdthan with military spending. 43

The NAC site has played host to the testing ofnumerous military systems, and reportedly over1,000 drones in total. 44 Most prominent of theseis the long-delayed Watchkeeper surveillancesystem being developed by U-TaCs, a jointventure between Israels Elbit Systems and ThalesUK on behalf of the UK Ministry of Defence. 45

40. Wales Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) Environment

Understanding the Potential Requirements; a prcis paper,undated, http://www.uavs.org/document.php?id=61&ext=pdf 41. Bus86 ParcAberporth costs, 22 February 2011,http://wales.gov.uk/about/foi/responses/dr2011/business/5873403/?lang=en42. Ian Drury, The drone zone: Seaside towns peace is shatteredby the testing of unmanned aircraft used to tackle the Taliban,Daily Mail , 16 February 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279491/The-drone-zone-Seaside-towns-peace-shattered-testing-unmanned-aircraft-used-tackle-Taliban.html43. Frank Slijper, Guns, Debt and Corruption: Military spendingand the EU crisis, April 2013, p.9, http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/eu_milspending_crisis.pdf 44. Nick Hopkins, Welsh airfield at the centre of Britains dronerevolution, The Guardian , 6 May 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/06/welsh-airfield-drones45. Chris Cole, Waiting for the Watchkeeper?, Drone Wars UK , 3March 2011, http://dronewars.net/2011/03/03/waiting-for-the-watchkeeper/; Chris Cole, MoDs drones PR offensive continues

18


22/47

Originally intended to be used in Afghanistanby the Army (as opposed to the Royal Air Force,which operates the UKs armed Reaper drones), theproject is nearly three years overdue and it seemsunlikely that the drones will be used before Britishtroops are due to leave Afghanistan in December

2014.At the end of February this year, Watchkeepers

were given permission to fly over Wiltshire as partof a final testing phase. The drones will take offfrom Boscombe Down airfield in unsegregatedairspace the first time military drones have beenallowed to do so in Britain before being flown tosegregated military airspace over Salisbury Plain. 1

Elbits Hermes (on which the Watchkeeperis based) and Selexs Falco have also been testedat the NAC. Numerous peace and anti-militaristgroups have staged protests at the site, mostrecently in September 2013 to coincide with theDefence Security and Equipment Internationalarms fair and a one-stop shop drones conferenceheld beforehand. 2 Protesters will have their workcut out for them September 2013 was the samemonth that West Wales Airport was officiallyrebranded as the NAC, and the company is clearlythinking in the long term:

The centre is open to civilian and militarycontractors and operators and has thecapacity to deliver the necessary services andaccommodation for all sizes of UAS envisagedfor production and development over the next20 years. 3

as UK commits to a drone filled future, Drone Wars UK , 17January 2014, http://dronewars.net/2014/01/17/mods-drones-pr-offensive-continues-as-uk-commits-to-a-drone-filled-future/1. Armys new Watchkeeper drone to patrol Wiltshire skies,BBC News , 24 February 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26320927; Chris Cole, Watch out! Watchkeepers overWiltshire, Drone Wars UK , 22 February 2014, http://dronewars.net/2014/02/22/watch-out-watchkeepers-over-wiltshire/2. UAV protest outside drone testing base in Aberporth, BBCNews , 9 September 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-24018746; Boom time for drone deals at DSEi, Stop the

Arms Fair , 27 August 2013, http://www.stopthearmsfair.org.uk/boom-time-for-drone-deals-at-dsei/3. Worlds first civilian centre for operating unmannedaircraft systems launched, 9 September 2013, http://www.nationalaeronauticalcentre.co.uk/latest_news/20130905%20UAS%20LAUNCH%20RELEASE.pdf

Summary

At least 80 million of public funding fromboth UK and EU institutions has gone towardsthe development of drones or the technologyand facilities seen as a prerequisite for their use.Far more will likely be spent in the future aconsortium led by BAE Systems has just receivedan undisclosed amount to investigate unmannedaviation in the civil market as part of a 60million push to keep Britain at the forefront ofthe global aerospace market. 4 In many casesthis research is largely benign for example, thataimed at environmental or biological research. Yetmany projects are geared towards technologiesthat seem most useful for law enforcement andborder control purposes. While the developmentof technology is being backed by numerous publicand private interests, there appears to have beenrelatively little if any thought given to thepolitical issues raised by the potential widespreadintroduction of domestic drones. This furtherpoints to the need for a wide-ranging public debateon the current and future possibilities for droneuse, surveillance, and the combination of the two.

At the same time, given that many of the jobspromised by the ParcAberporth development haveclearly not materialised despite over 20 millionof public investment the subsidising of high-tech defence and security technology industries asa means to employment and economic developmentshould also be called into question.

4. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 60 millionaerospace projects cleared for take off , gov.uk, 25 Februay 2014,https://www.gov.uk/government/news/60-million-aerospace-projects-cleared-for-take-off

19


23/47

The use of drones by police forces across theUK has caught the attention of the press

a number of times in the last few years. InMay 2007 The Daily Telegraph reported the firstpolice use of a drone in the UK, by Merseysideconstabulary. The paper noted that if theexperiment works, other forces will follow suit furthering Britains reputation as a Big Brothersociety.5 In February 2009 The Telegraph wasagain reporting on the issue, claiming that policecould soon use unmanned spyplanes like those usedto track enemy troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

for surveillance operations on British homes.6

The Guardian revealed in early 2010 a projectbetween Kent Police and BAE Systems calledthe South Coast Partnership, which would seedrones deployed for border control as well as forthe routine monitoring of antisocial motorists,protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in asignificant expansion of covert state surveillance. 7 In November 2011 The Independent reported onwhat would become a common theme in the run-up to the London Olympics: that drones wouldbe flown across the skies of London during theevent. 8

5. Philip Johnston, Police spy in the sky fuels Big Brotherfears, The Telegraph , 22 May 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552253/Police-spy-in-the-sky-fuels-Big-Brother-fears.html6. Murray Wardrop, Remote-controlled planes could spy onBritish homes, The Telegraph , 24 February 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4790389/Remote-controlled-planes-could-spy-on-British-homes.html7. Paul Lewis, CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones, The Guardian , 23 January 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones8. Jerome Taylor, Drones to patrol the skies above OlympicsStadium, the Independent , 25 November 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/drones-to-patrol-the-skies-above-olympic-stadium-6267107.html

The papers predictions did not quite work out,which is perhaps indicative of the way in which

headline-grabbing stories can serve to obscure adebate.9 In 2010 Merseyside Police were forced toground their drone by the Civil Aviation Authority(CAA) as they had not obtained a licence for it. 10 The South Coast Partnership dissolved in 2010when BAE Systems ceased development in thecivilian use of unmanned aerial systems in the southcoast area, according to Kent Police. 11 During theOlympics civil liberties were curtailed amidst a vastshow of force, and there were sombre warnings

from the military that [u]nmanned dronescarrying deadly poison could be used to carry outterror attacks, 12 but there is no evidence that therewere any drones in the skies above London, whetheroperated by the police or anyone else. 13 The polices

9. It is perhaps due to the nature of many media stories thatDetective Chief Constable Chris Weigh told the ACPO UASSteering Group in March 2012 that [t]here is clearly a belieffrom the public that UASs are far more widespread than they arereality. [sic] http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/uk/police-acpo-2012-03-16-minutes.pdf

10. Unlicensed Merseyside Police drone grounded, BBC News ,16 February 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8517726.stm11. Kent Police, response to FOI request, 16 August 2013, http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/uk/police-kent-2013-08-16-response.pdf 12. ANI, Unmanned poison drones are latest new threat forLondon Olympics: expert, Yahoo! News India , 6 May 2012,http://in.news.yahoo.com/unmanned-poison-drones-threat-london-olympics-expert-080636170--spt.html13. Numerous media reports claimed that police were preparingto deploy drones to help secure the Olympics. However, at aMarch meeting of ACPOs UAS Steering Group, Gerry Corbettfrom the CAA asked whether any Police service intend to use aUAS during the Olympics. RW [Richard Watson of the NationalPolice Air Service] answered no to this question. If drones weredeployed, the police were very tight-lipped on the matter. In anycase, talk of poison drones and newspaper stories about eyes inthe sky at least served the purpose, whether intentionally or not,

20

Police drones


24/47

efforts with drones to date have, more often thannot, been unsuccessful.

This does not mean that there is no causefor concern. While the current position of theAssociation of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is thatthere any no plans anytime soon to universallyintroduce UASs into daily police business, ACPOsUnmanned Aerial Systems Steering Group hastaken on a coordination role by bringing togetherdifferent police forces and other agencies, liaisingwith the Civil Aviation Authority on regulation, andby remaining sighted on developments elsewherein the world, with regard to both civil and militarydrones. The launch of the National Police AirService (NPAS) in October 2012 means that there isnow a single agency responsible for the operation

of aircraft by and on behalf of police forces aswell as the provision of staff, aircraft, equipment,air bases, ground control facilities, maintenancefacilities and other resources necessary for suchair operations. 14 The Home Offices Centre forApplied Science and Technology has also produceda standard set of technical requirements for policedrones in an effort to push industry ttowardsmaking more police-ready products. At the sametime, EU institutions and other organisations are

working on Europe-wide domestic drone regulationfor machines weighing over 150kg. 15

Drones have been used by a number of policeforces frequently in trial form, with the technologysubsequently dropped but they are employed byat least two forces. There is also some evidence tosuggest that the Serious Organised Crime Agency(SOCA, which recently became part of the NationalCrime Agency (NCA)) may have acquired a dronetowards the end of 2012. The varied use of

drones by police forces across the country to datemakes clear many of the problems raised by thetechnology, and many of the obstacles that still needto be overcome to allow for regular flight.

of distracting from the facts of over-the-top and discriminatorypolicing on the ground and attempts by community organisationssuch as the Newham Monitoring Project to ensure respect forbasic civil liberties. See: Monitoring Olympics policing duringthe 2012 Security Games, December 2013, https://netpol.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/monitoring-the-security-games-final-report.pdf 14. The Police (Collaboration: Specified Function) Order2012, legislation.gov.uk , http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1690/contents/made15. Ben Hayes, Chris Jones and Eric Tpfer, Eurodrones, Inc .,February 2014, http://www.statewatch.org/eurodrones

It remains a significant possibility that the useof drones by the police could become widespreadand normalised. Just as there is an ongoing outcryabout Britains use of and participation in dronewarfare operations abroad, the frequent publicationof news articles around the theme of big brother

and eye in the sky drones demonstrates a deeppublic unease about their potential introductionwithin the UK. Many people are well aware ofthe potential dangers of pervasive, intrusivesurveillance and the further militarisation ofdomestic law enforcement. In the US, a number ofstates have already sought to tightly regulate theuse of drones by law enforcement authorities. 16 The American Civil Liberties Union has made anumber of recommendations on the governmentuse of drones in the US that could serve asinspiration for regulation in the UK. These arereproduced in Annex 4 (available online). 17

Police use to date

As part of the research for this report a total of50 Freedom of Information requests were issuedto UK constabularies as well as ACPO, the BritishTransport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary,the NPAS and the Port of Dover Police. Therequests asked whether, between 1 July 2009 and30 June 2013:

the force had used or considered using drones;

the force had undertaken any trials, and if so,details of those trials;

the force had produced any plans ortimetables in relations to drones;

any meetings between force representativesand industry had taken place, and if so, detailsof those meetings; and

the force had received any advice or

16. [A]lmost all of the bills proposed or passed in the US sofar require law enforcement to get a probable cause warrantbefore using a drone in an investigation. See: Allie Bohm, Statusof Domestic Drone Legislation in the States, American CivilLiberties Union , 15 February 2013, https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/status-domestic-drone-legislation-states17. http://www.statewatch.org/backfromthebattlefield

21


25/47

information on the use of drones from local orcentral government. 18

Out of 50 responses received, 19 34 forces (68%)said they had not used or not considered usingdrones in the last three years, or that they held noinformation relevant to the request. Nine (Avon &Somerset, the British Transport Police, Derbyshire,Dyfed Powys, Essex, Merseyside, Staffordshire,Strathclyde (now amalgamated into Police Scotland),and West Midlands) confirmed that they haveowned and/or used drones. This number rises to 11when forces who refused to provide information butare known to have used drones (the MetropolitanPolice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland)are included. Wiltshire Police have also made use ofa drone, although their sole deployment (during the

summer solstice celebrations at Stonehenge in June2009) fell just before the period covered by the FOIrequests. Twelve forces in total are therefore knownto have used drones, but the extent to which theyhave done so differs widely.

Four forces (Dorset, Norfolk, Suffolk and theCivil Nuclear Constabulary) have apparentlyconsidered the use of drones but have taken nofurther steps to deploy them. Three other forces(Hampshire, Sussex and West Yorkshire) did notprovide any information. ACPO is not in a positionto own or operate drones, but is coordinating workacross England and Wales through its UnmannedAerial Systems Steering Group (UASSG), while theNPAS referred requests for information to ACPO.

Of the refusals, Hampshire, Sussex and thePolice Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) declinedto answer requests on the grounds of cost. TheMetropolitan Police and West Yorkshire issued

refusals on the grounds of security: they refusedto confirm or deny whether they held any ofthe information asked for, claiming that it couldprejudice law enforcement, national security, and/orthe activities of the security services (Articles 24(2),23(5) and 31(3) of the Freedom of Information Act2000, respectively). The use of neither confirm nordeny notices under Article 23(5) was a commontheme and is discussed below.

18. The request to ACPO asked for the minutes of meetings ofthe UASSG between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2013.19. A breakdown of the responses is available inAnnex 3, available online: http://www.statewatch.org/backfromthebattlefield

Owned, loaned,operated

Of the 12 forces identified as having ownedor operated drones, 20 it seems that only two Staffordshire and the PSNI are still using them, orhave used them recently. Those that no longer usethem, or have merely undertaken trials, no longermake use of the devices for a number of reasons.

Although the PSNI turned down an FOI requestissued for this report on grounds of cost, it isknown that the force owns and operates drones. Thisdevelopment first came to light in the run-up to the

June 2013 G8 summit in County Fermanagh. It wasconfirmed in April 2013 that the Northern IrelandPolicing Board had approved the purchase of threesmall drones at a combined cost of around 1m.While their initial deployment was in the context ofpublic order policing at the demonstration againstthe G8 a vast operation involving 8,000 officersfrom Northern Ireland and a further 3,600 frommainland UK they are also intended to be used insearches for suspects and missing persons. Policing

Board spokesman Robin Newton told BBC News that the use of unmanned aerial systems will alsobe useful in helping to cut back on the costs thatarise from the deployment of helicopters. 21

The Journal reported that Assistant ChiefConstable Matt Finlay said at a press conferencethat he preferred not to use the term drones as ithas a particular resonance with some of the othermethods of delivering armaments and weve seenthat in Middle Eastern conflicts. In September what

appeared to be a drone was seen flying over Belfast,although the PSNI said at the time that they are notyet operating UASs over public areas. 22 According

20. An article by Anna Minton from February 2010 claims thatAirRobot UK has already supplied 12 UK constabularies withdrones, with seven more placing orders with the company in thelast six weeks. These numbers do not tally with what researchfor this report has uncovered, but it may be that a greater numberof forces than we have identified have used drones prior to thetime period covered by our FOI requests. See: Expect the dronesto swarm on Britain in time for 2012, The Guardian , 22 February2010, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/22/doesnt-work-didnt-ask-why-cameras21. PSNI drone purchase gets green light, BBC News ,11 April 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-2210601722. Rebecca Black, Mystery over strange object seen flying

22


26/47

to reports, the first use following the G8 was inNovember 2013 in Belfast as part of an operation todefuse a bomb.23

The Metropolitan Police refused to provideinformation in response to an FOI request issuedfor this report, taking the same stance they havedone previously: claiming that it could harmnational security and law enforcement if they wereto confirm or deny that they held any relevantinformation. This position was publicly criticised inNovember 2012 when they made use of it despitetwo drone manufacturers telling the BBC they hadbeen in talks with the force. 24 The AirRobot website,for example, hosts photos taken from one of thefirms drones during the 2008 Olympic HandoverCeremony on The Mall in central London, an area

under the jurisdiction of the Met, as well as a photowith the caption AirRobot works with London MetPolice CBRN Team. 25 However, despite it beingwidely suggested in the media that drones under thecontrol of the Met would be deployed over Londonfor the 2012 Olympics, there is no conclusiveevidence that this happened.

Merseyside Police are probably the most famousof the UKs police forces for their foray into theuse of drones. In May 2007 they began a three-month trial using a drone produced by the firm MWPower. 26 At some point in 2009 the force acquiredan AirRobot drone equipped with a thermal imagingcamera, which was deployed 57 times betweenJuly 2009 and February 2010. 27 Prior to its launch

above Belfast ... but police deny its one of their drones, BelfastTelegraph , 17 January 2014, http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/mystery-over-strange-object-seen-flying-above-belfast-but-police-deny-its-one-of-their-drones-29578208.html23. Bomb found as PSNI use drone for security alert search,

BBC News , 4 November 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-2481241224. Metropolitan Police should clarify drone position, BBCNews , 11 November 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20287073. The BBC report doesnt mentionthe companies by name, but one shot shows a man wearing ahi-vis jacket with Sky-Futures written on the back. Sky-Futuresprovide safe, cost effective and experienced Unmanned AerialVehicle (UAV) industrial inspection services. See: http://www.sky-futures.com/25. Images, AirRobot UK , http://www.airrobot-uk.com/air-robot-images.htm26. James Orr and agencies, Police send spy drone into the skies,The Guardian , 21 May 2007, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/21/ukcrime27. Merseyside Police, response to FOI request, September 2013,http://www.statewatch.org/observatories_files/drones/uk/police-merseyside-2013-09-response-additional-docs.pdf andresponse to FOI request, 2012, http://www.statewatch.org/

claims were made that it could be used for anythingfrom hostage situations to monitoring large publicevents. 28

Following what was presumably its 57 th deployment in February 2010, a car thief inthick undergrowth was located and subsequentlyarrested. Five days later the force received a tickingoff from the CAA and had to ground the droneover concerns it was being used illegally withouta licence.29 It is unclear what happened to thearrestee when it emerged that the surveillance thatwas instrumental in his capture was illegal. Theforce said in response to FOI requests issued for thisreport that it had not operated drone [sic] sinceFebruary 2010. The last known usage was duringa training exercise, when it crashed into the river

Mersey after losing power.30

Staffordshire Police own a drone which until

April 2013 was the only one currently in usewithin the police service in the UK, according toACPOs lead officer for the NPAS, Hampshire ChiefConstable Alex Marshall. He has said it is used aspart of searches for missing persons in hazardousenvironments or to support planned operations, 31 which includes regular use at the V Festival, 32 hunting for poachers, 33 road collisions, crime scenesand rooftops which are inaccessible without usinga working at heights team. 34 The force has alsohad requests around anti-social behaviour andburglaries overnight. It has been deployed 70 timesover the last three years, 35 is not intrusive and

observatories_files/drones/uk/police-merseyside-2012c-foi-response.pdf 28. Police drone crashes into River Mersey, BBC News , 31October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-15520279

29. Unlicensed Merseyside Police drone grounded, BBC News ,16 February 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8517726.stm30. Police drone crashes into River Mersey, BBC News 31. Alex Marshall, Drones, 9 October 2012, http://www.acpo.police.uk/ThePoliceChiefsBlog/201210AlexMarshallblog.aspx32. James Randerson, Eye in the sky: police use drone to spyon V festival, The Guardian , 21 August 2007, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/21/ukcrime.musicnews33. Hi-tech drone device to catch poachers on Cannock Chase,Express & Star , 17 January 2014, http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2013/06/27/hi-tech-drone-device-to-catch-poachers-on-cannock-chase/drone11/34. ACPO UAS Steering Group, Minutes, 15 September 2010,http://www.state

Documents

Drone Wars: Surveying the home front