Public comment on NOPD's Drone proposal
Recently NOPD announced it is looking for public feedback on a new drone policy: https://nopdnews.com/post/november-2023/nopd-working-to-adopt-drone-technology,-seeking-pu/
Here is my feedback on the specifics of the proposed policy as outlined on the city’s website: https://nola.gov/getattachment/NOPD/Policies/Chapter-43-5-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Drones.pdf
Purpose:
1. "expected to assist the agency as a force multiplier" - I would challenge this language. It is the same language used for facial recognition technology that Sgt Barnes advocated for in front of City Council in 2022. Since then, the use of FR has yielded one arrest. This is not a force multiplier, as it does not yield more results with less people.
2. "Improved operating cost efficiency" - I would challenge this language as well, since the cost of training and acquisition/maintenance of resources is not indicated anywhere in the mayor's recent budget proposal or with any publicly available documentation.
3. "Deployments of this technology will be in direct support of...crime scene and vehicular accident forensics collection" - this is not a violent crime, so the scope of this technology being used for property crimes is in direct contradiction to the policy statement that sUAS are to be "deployed only for specific public safety missions" and as defined under Section 147-2d as outlined in #28 under “Criminal Investigations and/or Surveillance Operations”.
Program Administration:
4. "situational awareness" - this is a blanket term that can be used for other purposes, such as crowd control & surveillance of mass protests and 1st amendment demonstrations (as covered in 26c), which is a violation of a number of civil liberties. While it is appreciated that the “Complaint Investigations” has a section for documenting complaints of civil rights violations, it does not provide any preemptive measures to ensure civil liberties are being protected, as was the case with the facial recognition policy that was introduced.
Auditing and Annual Reporting
I believe #11 should explicitly include spatial data - the purpose of drones is to dispatch them to specific locations for surveillance, yet there is no mention of location-based information on this entire section. “Flight logs” in #21 lists “location of the flight”, but it doesn’t indicate if that’s the GPS location of the entirety of the flight or a rough geographical area. For example, saying “New Orleans” would be a sufficient “location of the flight”.
Operational Procedures
Notifying the public in #22 should also include all official NOPD statements and not just “social media”. We have thousands of citizens who do not have access to the internet or mobile devices, so this is an inadequate method of reaching citizens that there’s going to be a drone hovering over them.
There seems to be contradictory instructions with #26l - “The sUAS may only be used during ongoing criminal investigations or for active surveillance operations pursuant to a valid search warrant or other judicial approval” and #26c where it “may be used for imagery during special events” such as parades or public demonstrations and #27 which outlines specifically first amendment assembly. This should be clarified to be more specific - are you able to surveil public gatherings that “potentially impacting public safety” or should it only be used for criminal investigations & where you need a warrant?
Criminal Investigations and/or Surveillance Operations
“The use of an sUAS for… active surveillance shall be authorized only for crimes listed under Section 147-2(d) or felony narcotic investigations” is contradictory to the entire section #26 where uses outside of 147-2(d), such as “Special Events / Public Safety Concerns” in #26c and #26f for “intelligence gathering”.
Other concerns:
Under Section 147-1, “surveillance technology” would categorize the use of sUAS under the definition “any electronic surveillance device, hardware, or software that is capable of collecting, capturing, recording, retaining, processing, intercepting, analyzing, monitoring, or sharing audio, visual, digital, location, thermal, biometric, behavioral, or similar information or communications specifically associated with, or capable of being associated with, any identifiable individual or group“ and “video and audio monitoring or recording technology, such as surveillance cameras” and as such is banned under Section 147-2a1 “No city official or city entity shall Obtain, retain, possess, access, sell, or use any prohibited surveillance technology or information derived from a prohibited surveillance technology”. This entire policy will require City Council ordinance to pass.
I appreciate the opportunity to give public feedback, but the limited time to do so (during a major holiday) is not particularly welcoming to extensive public feedback. If there was legitimate concern for public buy-in, there are significantly more open channels to deeply engage with the community. This seems like you’re sneaking this through.