During a recent Portland City Council meeting, significant concerns were raised regarding the proposed expansion of the Portland Police Bureau's unmanned aerial system (UAS) program, which has been characterized as a domestic surveillance initiative. Critics, including community members and activists, voiced strong opposition to the expansion, citing serious implications for privacy and civil liberties.

One speaker emphasized the need for revised transparency requirements and clarified rules, arguing that the current proposal's vague language—allowing drone use under the broad directive of \"enhancing the protection of lives and property\"—could lead to misuse. They highlighted that the police already deployed drones in residential areas without proper authorization, raising alarms about potential overreach and the erosion of civil liberties.

Dan Handelman from Portland Cop Watch echoed these sentiments, recalling previous warnings about the rapid growth of drone technology within law enforcement. He pointed out that the initial pilot program was presented as limited in scope, primarily for traffic incidents, yet the current proposal seeks to expand its use significantly. Handelman noted that only a small percentage of drone deployments were related to traffic incidents, raising concerns about racial disparities in enforcement practices.

Brian Conley, a digital security trainer and city council candidate, also raised alarms about the risks associated with using consumer drones for police operations. He recounted an incident where a consumer-grade drone was used inappropriately during a police operation, emphasizing the potential for civil rights violations and public safety risks. Conley urged the council to delay any expansion until a comprehensive standard operating procedure (SOP) is established to safeguard against misuse.

The council's discussion highlighted a growing unease among community members regarding the implications of expanding surveillance technologies in policing. As the meeting concluded, the proposal moved to a second reading, but the concerns raised suggest that the debate over the balance between public safety and civil liberties is far from settled.