In a report published today, MSPs have recommended a number
of steps for the police and their oversight bodies to take
before the new technology can be introduced, in an effort to
ensure concerns around privacy, Human Rights, proportionality
and effectiveness are properly addressed.
Recommendations and findings include:
- The SPA should take a much more comprehensive oversight
role, probing, reviewing and monitoring any changes to
policing practice that have the potential to impact lives and
alter the relationship between police and the public – not
just those which cost more than the £500,000 threshold, as
seems to be happening too often now; the 18 months which
passed following the introduction of drones saw scant
monitoring of their roll out by the SPA, this was not good
enough;
- Use of both drones and body worn video cameras should be
subject to regular review, with their use checked against
what was initially proposed and approved (e.g. not using
facial recognition technology, being used to search for
missing people in remote areas). This does not seem to be
happening currently;
- The processes used so far in the purchase and rollout of
drones have not been nearly transparent enough, and do not
seem to have considered all impacts fully. The Sub-Committee
was particularly concerned by drones’ expanded use for
surveillance in populated areas, beyond searching for missing
people in remote areas, without any communications or
engagement on this point; the technical issues found meaning
drone use is restricted in wet weather due to safety
concerns; and very limited consultation;
- Evidence provided throughout this inquiry by Police
Scotland has been at times confused, contradictory and
incorrect. The Sub-Committee found this troubling, and would
ask that Police Scotland assure itself that information
provided to the Scottish Parliament is accurate and true.
Speaking as the report was published, Sub-Committee
Convener, , said:
“Technology undoubtedly has a place in
policing. However, we have serious concerns that gadgets have
been prioritised and introduced without some fundamental
questions being asked or answered – by either Police Scotland
or the bodies that exist to scrutinise them. This at a time
when police IT systems remain in sore need of improvement to
support basic policing functions.
“This is not the first time the Sub-Committee on Policing has
uncovered issues similar to these, so lessons must this time
be learned. Not only is the current situation far from best
practice or what we deem acceptable, there is a serious risk
that Police Scotland could find themselves on the wrong side
of privacy or human rights legal challenges.
“It is our sincere hope that our successors in the next
Parliament do not come across these same issues.”
Mr Finnie added:
“The fact that evidence provided to the Sub-Committee from
Police Scotland was found to be incorrect deeply troubled us.
The Sub-Committee expects witnesses, especially those from
Police Scotland, to be able to provide clear, and correct
information.”
Background
A copy of the report is attached.
There were a number of major discrepancies between the oral
evidence from Police Scotland at the Sub-Committee on Monday
18 January and subsequent information supplied by Police
Scotland to the Committee in writing, and through the Police
Scotland’ Data Protection impact assessment.
Contradictions and discrepancies include:
- What drones are used for,
- Possible covert use of drones,
- Where drones were to be used,
- The number of drones Police Scotland has,
- Actual Human Rights impacts and public concern.
