Vermont looks to get in front on drone privacy

Rep. Kevin Christie, D-Hartford, holds a remote controlled helicopter, similar to smaller unmanned drones that law enforcement agencies across the country are seeking to acquire. Photo by Andrew Stein.

Rep. Kevin Christie, D-Hartford, holds a remote-controlled helicopter, similar to smaller unmanned drones that law enforcement agencies across the country are seeking to acquire. Photo by Andrew Stein.

A growing number of law enforcement agencies around the country are using unmanned, aerial drones — from Mesa County, Colo. to Lakota, N.D. and beyond.

Anticipating the spread of drones to Vermont, a group of lawmakers spanning the political spectrum introduced a bill last week that would place controls on how Vermont law enforcement officials use the surveillance machines.

“It’s a safety question around privacy,” said Rep. Kevin Christie, D-Hartford, who spearheaded the bill. “Without having regulations, they can capture whatever (images) they want, and the technology is there.”

House bill 540 would require law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before using a drone, except in an emergency situation where there could be “an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to any person.” In such cases, law enforcement would need to obtain a warrant within 48 hours after the drone’s use.

The legislation would prohibit drones with weapons and the use of facial recognition on all people except targets. H.540 would also mandate strict reporting of drone use.

Allen Gilbert, director of Vermont’s American Civil Liberties Union, has been following the progression of domestic drone use since 2011, when the federal government began flying training missions over the Adirondacks.

“It’s technology. It’s valueless. It’s all how it’s used,” Gilbert said. “Technology can be used for good things and bad things, and what the bill is trying to do is make sure that drones are not misused by police.”

To effectively control drones, Gilbert said, the information that the flying vehicles catalog must be strictly regulated.

“This is a machine that’s never off,” he said. “It’s collecting information whether you want it collecting or not. The question is: What happens to those images?”

Keith Flynn, commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, is concerned that the legislation is too narrow in scope and would prohibit using drones for uses other than crimes. He also indicated that the bill is a bit premature.

“We don’t have drones,” he said. “I have no immediate plans to get them. One of the things I think is important to realize is drones have more uses than just surveillance of suspects. A number of other states are using them for search and rescue missions.”

Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, who sponsored the bill, said establishing privacy protections before drones become commonplace is just the point.

“It isn’t often we can see a potential problem in advance,” she said. “So, when we know there’s something likely to evolve, it’s a good time to intervene rather than stepping in after the fact.”

Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, is chair of the House Judiciary Committee and another sponsor of the bill. In the post-9/11 era, he said, law enforcement’s increasing surveillance to protect people has also “pushed the limits of privacy.”

Moving deeper into the 21st century, Lippert speculates that privacy rights will become an increasingly important issue for Vermonters, and he said legislators might need to step in to balance out law enforcement’s use of technology.

“Unless or until there is a broader discussion around privacy rights and privacy issues,” Lippert said, “we face the possibility that our privacy rights will erode until the point that they are hard to get back.”

H.540 was introduced with less than two weeks left in the 2013 session and days after Florida’s governor signed into law a similar provision. Despite the bill’s late proposal, House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, and the House Committee on Rules allowed the introduction of the bill.

Rep. David Deen, vice chair of the Rules Committee, said its members wanted to tee up the legislation for major consideration next year, in the second half of the legislative biennium.

“This is Vermont,” Deen said. “You live and let live. You don’t spy.”

Andrew Stein

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • James McGurn

    We do have drones, though not under the auspices of the Department of Public Safety. They are patrolling every part of our borders, north and south. We do not know the extent of their surveillance and they do need to have strict surveillance by an alert state entity. The potential for evil intrusion is definitely there.

  • kevin lawrence

    State controls are relevant and important to pursue. What would such legislation do to control the federal government, now that the military has permission to team up with local, county, or state law enforcement operations, as seen in Boston, Miami, Dallas, and Los Angeles in 2013? I doubt very much that the Feds will give up any power, and I regret their expanding police state powers more than any other group.

  • Kathy Nelson

    I live in northern Vermont and have seen the Border Patrol drones operating. They are not hard to pick out. I have also seen them flying as far south of the border as Island Pond and I question why they have to be over those areas.
    I want to see this bill passed before Vermont authorities get the idea that spying on people with drones is the way to keep innocent people tense and worried about their privacy. The bill can be the basis for Vermont’s stance against federal intrusion as well (if that is even possible anymore).

  • Paul Bogosian

    There is no more important (polypartisan) thing we could do, before the deluge.

  • jim morgan

    I have seen a drone over essex jct. It is unfortunate but legislation will do little to protect our privacy.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Vermont looks to get in front on drone privacy"