EFF to San Francisco Police: Drones are Powerful Surveillance Tools That Require a Robust Policy
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) began regularly deploying drones two years ago and has since expanded their use in a way that has outpaced its documented policy and evaded existing local and state oversight of these devices. The department has a new proposed policy, which continues to be grossly inadequate in protecting privacy and civil liberties. At best, the draft policy continues…
The San Francisco Police Department has been using drones for surveillance purposes since 2022, but their use has vastly exceeded the scope of their documented policies. The department's proposed policy to govern drone usage is still lacking in protections for privacy and civil liberties. The draft policy allows police officers to use drones for general surveillance, which could lead to widespread monitoring of citizens without adequate oversight.
In March 2024, San Francisco voters passed Proposition E, which removed drones from the 2019 Surveillance Technology Ordinance's oversight requirements. As a result, the SFPD violated California's AB 481, which requires approval from local elected officials before acquiring military equipment like drones. The SFPD has since launched a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program, significantly increasing drone flights from 350 in 2024 to over 3,500 in the first five months of 2026.
The original draft of the updated policy allowed police to use drones for any public safety response but failed to define what constitutes a "public safety response." The SFPD's revised policy still lacks specificity, stating that drones can be used in any situation involving a police deployment or observing criminal activity but does not offer further guidance on appropriate drone deployment.
This lack of clear policies puts citizens at risk of being subjected to general surveillance, which SFPD acknowledges as inappropriate. The Police Commission is scheduled to discuss the matter on October 14, and EFF has provided a comprehensive comment on the issue.
Written by urgent.news from EFF Deeplinks's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
