While Australians have been willing to download the COVIDSafe app in large numbers, a more futuristic surveillance device is being used around the world for the enforcement of social distancing during the pandemic.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Only weeks ago the WA Premier Mark McGowan announced police would be using drones to make public service announcements appealing to people to abide by lockdown laws.
While the use of "eyes in the sky" can be an effective public safety measure in the midst of a pandemic, concerns about the ethical use of surveillance technology have inevitably been raised.
Dr Michael Richardson from the University of NSW believes drones can easily violate civil liberties because they can peer into public and private spaces and record what they see.
READ MORE
"Using drones to enforce social distancing rules could make people feel like they are under constant surveillance and so they might change their behaviour in unexpected ways, like becoming less likely to go out in public or taking steps to avoid being seen, which could have broader social ramifications," Dr Richardson said.
While Australians appear to be embracing the government's tracking app Professor James Harland from RMIT who researches the relationship between humans and robots, points out that the phone app and drone surveillance are significantly different because the phone app requires "informal consent".
The rewards of robotic surveillance rarely outweigh the risks of abuse and the loss of civil liberties
- Dr Michael Richardson
"The phone app is voluntary, you download it yourself, and if you're concerned with the consequences, you can opt out by deleting it.
"On the other hand drone surveillance is involuntary, and out of your hands," Prof Harling said.
The benefits of drone technology are becoming apparent in recent times, particularly in relation to bushfires, search and rescue procedures, protecting wildlife and keeping tabs on the environment. Globally, our current situation could benefit from drones transporting safe delivery of medical supplies.
Prof Harding said that in some ways using a drone to look for sharks, or observe dangerous conditions at the beach was not so different than monitoring the number of people on a beach.
"I don't see how a drone is very different from the police turning up and checking to see if current laws are being enforced," he said.
"On one hand it's not so different from a speed camera, but the question we have to ask is how can we be sure the information gathered is not a breach of privacy.
"As a society we need to implement the necessary checks and balances.
"It's largely about what's culturally acceptable."
"At present there is not a lot of legislation that supports integrated drone use in society.
"How do we control a public park where everybody has the right to have a drone.
People's fears that drones are capable of being vehicles of social control are not without some justification.
Dr Richardson points out that minority groups are often more heavily targeted for surveillance and policing in general and the use of drones is no exception. Police departments in Los Angeles use drones in Black neighbourhoods more than elsewhere.
"As the police use of drones expands in Australia, it's likely that Indigenous, Muslim and other communities will be more targeted too," he said.
"That can have negative effects on the community.
"Hearing the buzz of an airborne drone which can make anyone feel anxious under scrutiny but especially those who are often unfairly targeted because of their ethnicity or religion.
"The rewards of robotic surveillance rarely outweigh the risks of abuse and the loss of civil liberties."
