The **SFPD**'s drone program has grown rapidly over the past two years, with its deployment strategy evolving faster than documented policy and evading critical oversight. This expansion raises significant concerns among privacy advocates and IT security professionals alike, given the potential for extensive data collection and general surveillance. The department's newly proposed policy has been criticized for failing to adequately protect privacy and civil liberties. At best, the draft offers vague guidelines for a powerful surveillance tool. At worst, if implemented, it could enable broad, non-targeted surveillance with minimal safeguards. **EFF** has consistently opposed the unchecked development of the **SFPD**'s drone program. The organization recently submitted a detailed comment to the Police Commission, the local civilian oversight body, outlining its objections to the proposed policy. ### A History of Sidestepping Oversight **SFPD**'s circumvention of drone oversight dates back to 2024. In March 2024, San Francisco voters approved **Proposition E**, a heavily funded measure aimed at expanding police access to surveillance technology. **Prop E** notably removed drones from the oversight requirements of the 2019 Surveillance Technology Ordinance. Despite this, the **SFPD** knowingly violated California’s **AB 481**—a state statute mandating local elected governing body approval for military equipment purchases, including drones—in its haste to acquire drones post-**Prop E**. The department eventually sought retroactive approval from the Board of Supervisors and subsequently announced its **drone-as-first-responder (DFR)** program. ### Mission Creep and Exponential Flight Increase San Francisco now has a critical opportunity to update the **SFPD**'s drone guidance to prevent it from quickly becoming obsolete, a pattern seen as the department steadily increases drone use cases. Initially, drones were identified for specific actions like vehicle pursuits and active criminal investigations. However, within a year, the **SFPD** expanded their use to include general patrol, unrelated to specific incidents. This mission creep has coincided with an exponential increase in drone flights: * Approximately 350 deployments in 2024 * Over 1,100 from January to August 2025 * Over 3,500 in just the first five months of 2026 ### Inadequate Policy Revisions and Community Pushback The initial draft of an updated policy presented by the **SFPD** to the Police Commission earlier this month provided limited specifics. It proposed treating drone flights as an extension of patrol capabilities, potentially enabling general surveillance, including of First Amendment-protected activities. This proposal met with significant community pushback, leading the **San Francisco Public Defender’s Office** to author a letter detailing the policy's shortcomings, which was signed by over a dozen local, state, and national groups, including **EFF**. Based on these concerns, the Police Commission deferred action, requesting that the **SFPD** address the issues. The **SFPD** then revised its proposed policy. However, this revision still falls short of providing practical guidance for officers and adequately protecting civil liberties, as highlighted in a follow-up letter from the Public Defender’s Office, signed by over 40 organizations, including **EFF**. ### The Data Collection Gap **EFF**'s additional comment to the Police Commission specifically calls out the significant gap in oversight concerning these rapidly increasing drone flights and the vast data collection they facilitate: > "The revised policy states that ‘[unmanned aerial vehicles] may be used as an asset in any situation in which a member may be deployed for a public safety response or when a member onviews criminal activity’ but fails to define what is meant by a ‘public safety response.’ The revised policy also provides a definition of ‘Drone as First Responders,’ but it fails to provide any more detail about appropriate DFR deployment. Without appropriate safeguards around deployment and use, drones could be deployed to every call for service, even in situations that are ultimately deemed nonincidents, collecting data along the way that is then stored for 30 days. This type of general patrol could effectively become general surveillance, which **SFPD** acknowledges is an inappropriate use of their drones and yet is still possible under the vague terms of the current DGO." The Police Commission is scheduled to consider this matter on October 14. Further details, including **EFF**'s full comment, are publicly available.