Question – Drone Acquisition and Deployment
Questions asked by Hon Meg Webb MLC on 13 August 2019 answered for the Government by Hon Mark Shelton MP, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management on 15 October 2019
In relation to the 16 remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, recently purchased for deployment across Tasmania as announced by Mark Shelton, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management in his media release of 6 July 2019 –
QUESTION (1) In the media statement from the minister of 6 July 2019, reference is made to ‘official authorization’ – what is the ‘official authorization’ referred to?
ANSWER: The Government values the rights of all Tasmanians to go about their private business with minimal interference or intrusion. However, Tasmania Police acknowledge that various developments in technology assist them to keep Tasmanians safe.
The use of ‘drone’ technology (or more accurately Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) is another means by which Tasmania Police intend to improve public safety. Recognising that there is a necessity to use this technology in an accountable and safe manner, various safeguards and processes have been implemented.
As with any new initiative, the systems and processes in place will be constantly monitored to ensure that they are being used appropriately and effectively in the pursuit of public safety.
(1) Any request to operate a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System from frontline members or investigators is considered by senior police within those areas. The requests are discussed with Remotely Piloted Aircraft System pilots and also the Chief Remote Pilot prior to authorisation. Every aspect must be lawful prior to the flight being approved.
QUESTION (2) What source of legal authority does the government rely upon for using drones to –
(a) surveil the community; and
(b) maintain ‘public order’?
ANSWER: There are various ways in which legal authority to use Remotely Piloted Aircraft System may be gained – this could include consent, crime scene declaration under the Police Offences Act 1935 or by search warrant, as examples.
Police Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems have recently been used very effectively at the scene of serious and fatal crashes. These examples have included use over public land and roads to assist in determining the cause of the crash and providing evidence of the aftermath.
Permission would be sought from a member of the public recorded by a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System camera, or private landowners, where such permission is appropriate. However, there are clear examples of where seeking permission is not sought due to operational reasons such as the urgent protection of life or property, or where unlawful behaviour is the subject of investigation.
Where legally required, persons would be notified of their capture on Remotely Piloted Aircraft System footage. Again, I would like to point out that the footage is very specific and is of particular incidents, not of general members of our community going about their daily business.
As an example, when compared with CCTV footage, where CCTV is supplied to police as evidence of a crime (for example, an armed hold-up in a service station) every person depicted in that footage may not be notified unless they can assist with that specific investigation.
(a) Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems are not being used for random or general surveillance. This resource is being used lawfully and safely under strict guidelines, to assist policing functions and ultimately help keep all Tasmanians safe. Police Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems have not been utilised to conduct general surveillance on the community, rather they are tasked to provide aerial support at live police incidents.
(b) Police Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems have not been utilised to maintain public order. However, if a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System was utilised for this purpose the vision would be no different to CCTV footage which is often provided to police by businesses and from private residences. Whilst the vision captured by Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems is viewable by the operator in real time, it is only recorded where specific vision is requested.
QUESTION (3) Noting Civil Aviation Safety Authority – CASA – rules extend to the physical safety of people, aircraft and property but not privacy, what provisions are being put in place to stop unjustified invasions of privacy by the police?
ANSWER: Tasmania Police has appointed a Civil Aviation Safety Authority – CASA – approved and appropriately qualified Chief Remote Pilot. The Chief Remote Pilot is required to authorise every Remotely Piloted Aircraft System deployment.
Any request to operate a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System from frontline members or investigators is considered by senior police within those areas. The requests are discussed with Remotely Piloted Aircraft System pilots and also the Chief Remote Pilot prior to authorisation.
QUESTION (4) What permissions do police require for –
(a) surveilling people who are on private property;
(b) using thermal imaging of people who are on private property; and
(c) surveilling public spaces?
ANSWER: Permission would be sought from a member of the public recorded by a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System camera, or private landowners, where such permission is appropriate. However, there are clear examples of where seeking permission is not sought due to operational reasons such as the urgent protection of life or property, or where unlawful behaviour is the subject of investigation.
Where legally required, persons would be notified of their capture on Remotely Piloted Aircraft System footage. Again, I would like to point out that the footage is very specific and is of particular incidents, not of general members of our community going about their daily business.
As an example, when compared with CCTV footage, where CCTV is supplied to police as evidence of a crime (for example, an armed hold-up in a service station), every person depicted in that footage may not be notified unless they can assist with that specific investigation.
In relation to thermal imaging, this technology is highly valuable for incidents such as search and rescue or searching for suspects evading police. Thermal imaging reveals a heat signature that can be interpreted and the size and shape of the signature indicates whether the object is human or otherwise. A person cannot be identified from thermal images alone.
QUESTION (5) In regards to permissions referred to in 4 (a), (b), and (c) –
(a) who or what gives this permission;
(b) is that decision reviewable;
(c) if reviewable, who can request a review; and
(d) what is the legal authority police rely on?
ANSWER: Tasmania Police have strong processes in place to ensure data security. Members are trained in relation to the lawful processes for access to various forms of information and the accountability processes that surround this access. Audit processes are in place to ensure compliance, and members are subject to review by senior managers as well as the Professional Standards Command. Members are also subject to review by the Integrity Commission, if requested.
QUESTION (6) In relation to drone footage and data held by Tasmanian authorities –
(a) What will happen to the digital or physical records of drone footage taken in –
(i) public spaces; and
(ii) private spaces?
(b) What security measures will be used to protect the footage and data?
(c) Who will be responsible for –
(i) data security; and
(ii) reviewing access to the data or footage?
(d) What format will the footage or data be stored in and where will it be stored?
(e) How long will the footage be retained?
(f) How will data retention be managed?
(g) How will the data be deleted and on whose authority?
(h) Does the public have a right to review the footage?
(i) Do any other authorities have the right to review the footage? If yes, please specify all the authorities or individuals that have this right.
ANSWER: There are strong safeguards in place for the security of Remotely Piloted Aircraft System footage. Systems have been implemented to ensure the security of Remotely Piloted Aircraft System footage – both by means of secure database, as well as processes to allow for use of the footage (for example, providing evidence in court or to create a three-dimensional representation of a motor vehicle crash scene).
Still images are saved to the secure Tasmania Police Forensic Register application. Video footage and three-dimensional maps are provided to investigators on non-rewritable discs for attachment to court and coroner’s files.
Data retention is managed in the same way as all other data requirements are managed by Tasmania Police, including existing legislated requirements, such as the Evidence Act 2001, Forensic Procedures Act 2000, Archives Act 1983, and internal practices authorised by the Commissioner of Police.
The footage recorded is subject to right to information legislation. Some footage may be shared with other organisations (for example, Tasmania Fire Service or Parks and Wildlife Service) where a joint operation is occurring.
QUESTION (7) When drone footage is collected, will the people in that footage be notified –
(a) before the footage is collected;
(b) after the footage is collected; and
(c) if not, why not?
ANSWER: Where legally required, persons would be notified of their capture on Remotely Piloted Aircraft System footage. Again, I would like to point out that the footage is very specific and is of particular incidents, not of general members of our community going about their daily business.
As an example, when compared with CCTV footage, where CCTV is supplied to police as evidence of a crime (for example, an armed hold-up in a service station), every person depicted in that footage may not be notified unless they can assist with that specific investigation.
QUESTION (8) Will people captured by drone footage or thermal imaging have a right to have that material removed from the record if taken in –
(a) a private space; and
(b) a public space?
QUESTION (9) If the answer to either 8(a) or (b) is yes, what is the procedure for having the material removed or deleted and on what basis can it be removed?
ANSWER (8) and (9) : Data retention is managed in the same way as all other data requirements are managed by Tasmania Police, including existing legislated requirements, such as the Evidence Act 2001, Forensic Procedures Act 2000, Archives Act 1983, and internal practices authorised by the Commissioner of Police.
The footage recorded is subject to right to information legislation.
QUESTION (10) If the answer to either 8(a) or (b) is no, will police be able to use footage that was incidental to a police operation or captured as part of general surveillance?
QUESTION (11) How will drone footage be used in policing activities and prosecutions?
QUESTION (12) (a) Will the drones be deployed to public gatherings on public land, for example street marches?
(b) If so, on what grounds?
(c) How will any drone footage from public gatherings be used?
QUESTION (13) In what places can Tasmanians reasonably expect they will not be observed by police surveillance?
ANSWER (10, (11), (12), & (13) : The premise of questions (10), (11), (12) and (13) are covered by the answers already given. As I have outlined, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems are not being used for random or general surveillance. This resource is being used lawfully and safely under strict guidelines, to assist policing functions and ultimately help keep all Tasmanians safe.
