Drones are becoming a state-of-the-art trend in policing. However, their implementation may face some difficulties regarding privacy and information security. Chavis (2021) claims that police used helicopter flyovers to gain information, and additionally, some police departments started utilizing more sophisticated tools of aerial surveillance such as drones. Although such a feature is obvious progress in policing and allows to obtain more evidence on committed crimes, it is also related to private information disclosure and citizens’ personal life interruption.
For example, utilizing a drone as an alternate way to have a face-to-face conversation with a hostage-taker is a controversial decision with its benefits and challenges. On one side, the implementation of these unnamed aerial vehicles depicts a secure way of communication with the criminal. It means people’s lives safety as police officers are not required to take so much risk anymore. Drones with micro cameras allow to evaluate the situation inside the dangerous area and develop a more effective operation or storm strategy. On the other side, the commutation of the “alive” negotiator with a machine usually is not the best way out. For example, the presence of a police officer or negotiator in the room can give the hostage a feeling of safety or protection, which is essential in a critical situation. It can discourage the hostage-taker as well, and police will get the opportunity to handcuff the criminal. Drones may be useless as a tool of negotiation in certain situations, for example, when the hostage-taker plucks off all communication devices after setting their conditions.
In the second situation that is connected to the utilization of drones to help locate a missing person in a crowded amusement park, risks and benefits can be estimated as well. The idea of finding lost people with the help of modern technologies, especially UAVs, is an innovation in policing. However, it can cause various problems regarding the privacy of those missing people. On the one side, if looking for a child or an infant who cannot be contacted in any way, the utilization of drones might be pertinent. On the other side, flying devices cannot be on all occasions, such as being lost in an amusement park. Adolescents, teenagers, adults, and elderly people might have some secrets that should not be disclosed even to their relatives. For example, drones can record information concerning cheating, financial problems, health issues, and other data that should be kept private. Therefore, even when implemented for missing people search, all the information recorded requires to be deleted after the end of the operation. In this case, UAVs may be utilized; however, the security of the collected data and people’s privacy should be provided.
In certain types of activities, the use of drones is more beneficial than in others. Flying devices can be utilized while spying on the suspect, chasing, looking for missing cars, and estimating the risks in critical situations. This will facilitate the police officers’ job as the presence of policemen in those situations will not be needed. However, if the situation concerning sexual harassment, murder, or any other kind of issue can affect the emotional state of the victims, drone utilization may be inappropriate without the victims’ agreement. Therefore, in any situation, on the basis of the estimation of social, psychological, and physical factors, a conclusion about UAVs’ implementation should be made.
Reference
Chavis, K. (2021). Transformative policing technologies: balancing public safety, privacy, and community consent in vulnerable communities in the United States. A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(1), 425-439. Web.