Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Malcolm Byrne for his work on this legislation. I get nervous when phrases such as "surveillance technology" are used. I could come in here and speak about the scourge of illegal dumping. We can point to it and speak about its impact on communities, where it is, what it is and what it costs to pick it up. We always fail to speak about the mechanisms we will use to address it. The mechanism in the Bill is to introduce a technology. I know how the Senator has come at this with regard to some aspects of civil liberties. When we think about this we have to talk about the technology. Technology advances very quickly. The Senator's intention is to give powers under relevant offences, such as waste management and litter pollution Acts, and for this to be very particular. However, once something is introduced, the next Government and Governments after that can add to it. I understand the intention of the Bill but where it can go is another story.

I had a contribution ready for the debate. I then went back over the Bill and wrote a few notes on the conversation we will need to have on Committee Stage on the use of technology and what it will look like. I ask the Senator to note some of them and put them on the record.In respect of surveillance technology, the Bill needs to specify what the surveillance technology is, drone or otherwise, and that it cannot be used in combination with AI algorithm technology or facial recognition software of any kind. We probably need to specify that only certain sizes and types of drones are allowed. They should be large enough to be visible to the naked eye. That can also act as a deterrent in and of itself because somebody can see that the drone is there and they have to make another choice. It should not be the case that the drone is not that noticeable and the person commits the crime and is done for it retrospectively. Will the drone carry certain visible markings to identify it as belonging to the State?

In respect of certain calibres of drone camera technology, what will be allowed and what will not? What will the quality of them be? Will they unreasonably impinge on people's privacy from a great distance? Should high-power zoom lenses and night vision be banned? What about see-through radar imaging? The Bill should provide for details about use of surveillance technology to be published on an accessible website managed by the relevant Department. It might be necessary to look for permission to contract the operation of drones and cameras out to private companies. Will that be part of the Bill? Maybe we need an annual report laid before the Houses which specifies analysis of whether surveillance technology has been used to target particular places or people.

I went back and looked at where this type of technology has come into play in other countries such as America, also for reasons of necessity like this one in respect of illegal dumping. The American Civil Liberties Union reports repeatedly highlight the problem of mission creep. For example, when drones were introduced in the US for seemingly innocent activities such as monitoring wildfires, they were quickly embraced by law enforcement around that nation for more controversial purposes.

I think we can strengthen the Bill and tease out some of the technologies and its remit. It is not that I am against the legislation in any sense, but I do worry that we are focusing on the illegal dumping aspect when there are really important components of the legislation in terms of introducing powers to use technology. We have to do that in the safest possible way. We know how bad it can get in the use of technology. Just because that is not the Senator's intention does not mean other governments will not begin to expand those powers.

I often hear politicians speak about the use of CCTV in particular communities where there are anti-social hotspots and that stuff is really scary to me. What we do is begin to look for crime, detect crime. It is not that a crime has happened and a court case happens and we have a warrant issued to pull that information. It is being used to detect crime as it is happening. That may be what Senator Boyhan was getting at when he was talking about retrospective crime versus that kind of live-action stuff. When we use cameras or anything to do with technology, we have to make sure that everybody understands the scope of the technology being used and what it can and cannot be used for. Hopefully, we can have that level of conversation when the Bill makes it way to Committee Stage.