“Since the start of containment, the police have claimed to be assisted by drones to fight against crimes”, explain the League for Human Rights and La Quadrature du Net, an association which defends the rights and freedoms of Internet users. The two associations have appealed to the courts to end surveillance by drones which are used in particular for “Identify offenders, guide ground patrols and film people escaping from the police”, and this in “The absence of any specific and suitable legal framework”, they say.
We have just filed an emergency appeal with @LDH_Fr against the deployment of #drones by @prefpolice in Paris
This practice is done outside any legal framework and constitutes a serious attack on our freedoms: it must be stopped.https://t.co/N6LTCAjeRe pic.twitter.com/BEVsn899M1
– La Quadrature du Net (@laquadrature) May 4, 2020
The associations seized the administrative court of Paris of a “Freedom referred” which will be examined quickly but not at the hearing, as the procedure allows, La Quadrature du Net’s lawyer Alexis Fitzjean O Cobhthaigh said on Monday.
“Serious and illegal” violation
The applicants note a use “Massive and unprecedented” drones since the beginning of confinement, imposed on March 17 in France to combat the spread of the new coronavirus.
“According to a senatorial report, between March 24 and April 24, the national police triggered 535 thefts of drones, including 251 for surveillance”, they say, noting that in April, “The interior ministry has also published a tender for the acquisition of more than 650 new drones to more than double its fleet”.
This deployment “Is done in the absence of any legal framework specific to the use of filmed images “ (deadlines for deleting images, limiting access, etc.), thereby “Serious and manifestly unlawful interference” the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, according to the text of the appeal.
Associations want guarantees
The applicants stress that it is up to the legislator to define a legal framework for the use of such a device – as was the case with street video surveillance or on-board cameras during police operations.
They recall the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council, which ruled in 1995 that the “Video surveillance systems ensuring the transmission and recording of images taken on the public highway implemented by public authorities” were to be accompanied by guarantees likely to safeguard the exercise of freedoms.
“This jurisprudence developed for + fixed + video surveillance systems is a fortiori valid for + mobile + video surveillance systems, embedded in drones”, they plead.
– .
