Spies in the sky

It's been busy at Trash towers what with the start of term and the addiction that is Twitter; so apologies for the lightness of blogging.

Below is a piece I've just had published by The Big Issue in the North on the police use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Since this came out, Staffordshire have overturned their inital refusal to tell me how much tye spent on buying a UAV. It was £19.500.

Two police forces in the north are leading the way in what is expected to be an increase in the use of spy drones to combat crime and terrorism.

Merseyside and Staffordshire have both deployed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on operations. More forces are expected to follow their lead as the security industry learns lessons gained from their use in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However concerns have been raised about both the civil liberty implications and the safety of the craft. And the police themselves seem reluctant to disclose exactly what it is they are using.

The Big Issue in the North submitted Freedom of Information requests to all police forces asking for details on any UAVs they had trailed or bought. Initially Merseyside and Staffordshire said that it was necessary to secret details on their spy drones otherwise it would aid criminals and costs were a commercially confidential.

Following an appeal by the Big Issue, Merseyside relented and disclosed that it had spent £55,523 on hiring and buying a UAV since August 2007. Its drone, purchased from AirRobot, has been deployed 16 times this year.

The AirRobot is about the size of a dustbin lid and weighs 1.7kg. It is equipped with cameras and recording equipment and is controlled by a ground operator using a laptop and joystick. It can be ready to fly in minutes. The force has three uniformed police constables trained to operate the system and a further seven are undergoing training.

Staffordshire is still withholding its information but is considering and appeal. It would only say that its UAV, bought for an undisclosed sum following a trail at the 2007 V Festival, has: “only been used for missing person searches, exercises, to assist in event planning and for post incident photography”.

Staffordshire Police Authority member Christina Jebb told the media last year: “It’s really good news that we are investing in even better equipment to cut crime levels in the county.”

The drone can also be loaned out to other members of Staffordshire’s resilience network, set up to tackle any civil emergencies.

Andy Marshall, Director of Civil Contingencies, said: “The drone belongs to the police but will be available for joint operations. “It can be used in many situations, for example, allowing us to quickly get real time video footage of a flooded area.”

There has been plenty of speculation that more police forces will start using the spy planes, especially following the technical lessons learned through their deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The most well-known UAV used out there is the Predator which can fire missiles, carry out surveillance and has been used on a number of occasions for targeted assassinations. There have also been a number of crashes as the tough terrain has affected avionics. In one case a US plane had to shoot down a Predator which had gone out of control.

Although the UAVs record abroad is mixed their increased use by the police in the UK is seen by the Home Office as inevitable. The 2012 Olympics is expected to be a showcase their potential.

The Home Office’s current science and innovation strategy says: “…(UAVs) are likely to become an increasingly useful tool for police in the future, potentially reducing the number of dangerous situations the police may have to enter and also providing evidence for prosecution and support police operations in real time.”

One idea that has been suggested by a Home Office advisor is a central fleet of UAVs that could be deployed as forces require them.

Despite this enthusiasm, the take-up by police forces has been low. Apart from Merseyside and Staffordshire, Essex Police is the only other force believed to have purchased a drone. It bought one last summer but it has yet to be deployed.

In 2007 Strathclyde Police undertook a year-long trial of a UAV in the remote and mountainous Argyll area for search and rescue purposes. The craft couldn’t take the wild conditions and it was sent back to its manufacturer. No Scottish or Welsh forces have UAVs.

Avon and Somerset Police spent £350 on a short trial last year but have not taken it any further.

Kent police have been in discussion with arms firm BAe and the UK Border Agency on using drones to monitor the coastline to combat drug and immigration offences.

The British Transport Police in Northumbria have used a Microdrone to help combat thieves stealing metal from the railways and the Ministry of Defence police is considering whether to buy one.

One of the hold-ups is that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has strict rules on airspace use. It says: “A significant increase in both civil and military UAV flying is anticipated, much of which will require routine access to all classes of airspace if it is to be commercially viable and/or operationally effective.”

According to a report released this week from the pressure groups Statewatch and the Transnational Institute: “The air traffic control community is particularly suspicious and demands that UAVs adhere to equivalent safety standards as their manned counterparts, which some argue render UAV systems too expensive to implement.”

However it is their spying ability which has alarmed some.

Small and manoeuvrable, UAVs can perch silently and record still, moving and thermal images. They can fly in to buildings if necessary. Specialist software has been developed that allows them to scan large areas quickly for particular vehicles or record number plates or faces and compare them against databases.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: “It’s a grave step in any democracy to use military surveillance methods against your own peacetime population. Where I the lawful authority for this policy? When was the parliamentary debate?”

Weapon of choice

The UAV of choice for police forces appears to be the AR100B from AirRobot - a German company which has its UK offices on a former RAF base in Wiltshire.

The makers of the drone say: “The AR100B can fly silently through the air or hover while transmitting live images to the operator at the ground station.

The silent operation and size of the platform allows aerial surveillance to be carried out in built up residential urban areas as well as rural locations without causing any disturbances.

"The unit can also ‘perch and stare’ from a solid platform allowing the operator to capture hours of footage from an out of view vantage point.

"The AR100B is the perfect device for any covert or overt aerial surveillance mission.”

One AirRobot system was used to provide aerial surveillance at the London Olympics 2012 handover ceremony last year. It was deployed near The Mall and Buckingham Palace to provide real time images to emergency services at the event. However it did not fly directly over people for safety reasons.

During its five hour deployment it captured still images and high quality video which was streamed to a command team.

Other forces which have tested an AirRobot include Derbyshire which used one to monitor a BNP gathering this August. It is believed to be considering jointly buying one with neighbouring Nottinghamshire Police.

Wiltshire hired one to monitor this year’s summer solstice at Stonhenge. It cost them £1,500 and shot ten minutes of video footage and “a number of low definition digital pictures”. An AirRobot also took part in a massive exercise involving more than 700 emergency services and military personnel in Wiltshire last year.

The operation was conducted at the UK Centre for Homeland Security in Wiltshire; where Airrobot is based. The exercise simulated a mid air collision between a Harrier Jump Jet and VC10.

The UAV was able to provide aerial surveillance of the site and found bombs, dangerous cargo, aircraft wreckage and casualties. It also deployed a thermal imaging camera to help detect any possible heat sources from buried victims.

Comments

[Heather Brooke]

Have you seen the FOI request I made about this?

http://www.yrtk.org/?pagename=secret-squirrel/drones

Best,
Heather

[PhilC]

I did Heather (and I should have put a link to this; thanks for remedying that).
The officer you dealt with at Staffordshire was the same I dealt with.
And I had pretty much the same experience.
What I found unusual was that in three cases were they initially refused information this was overturned in the internal review. Cynically I generally thought they just rubber-stamped the original decisions but in this case it has worked.
Also; the British Transport Police told me they didn't use UAVs but a newspaper clipping quoting them says otherwise. I've sent that to them asking if they can explain the contradiction - no reply a month later.