The Police and Border Guard Board is mulling the use of surveillance drones to monitor traffic violations, in tandem with existing camera systems, saying their use could help document violations at busy intersections or highways where enforcement is difficult. Drones could potentially be introduced as early as this year, but would require legal review as well as the right training for users.

Speaking to Vikerraadio's "Uudis+" Friday, Taro said: "I think we still need to analyze this legal framework issue. Experts have differing opinions here. Even within the administrative area of the Ministry of the Interior there are differing views on whether it is already possible today or not."

"In principle, we should use all effective technological means to ensure security, within reasonable boundaries. To do that, the legal framework may need to be tweaked. That way, the rules on how it can be done will also have been thought through. All privacy-related restrictions must be considered, as well as notification requirements or descriptions of situations specifying when one or another measure may be used, and how exactly it should be done," the minister continued.

"When we talk about traffic supervision in general, then traffic supervision is undoubtedly justified, as it is the most effective way to ensure safety on our roads. Plus considering how many people die in traffic every year — these are largely entirely preventable deaths if speed limits and all other rules are followed — then we certainly cannot manage without traffic supervision as such," he went on.

Taro also referred to cameras already operating in the public space, for example at intersections, whose use is governed by regulations such as the requirement that these must be clearly signposted, with notification nearby.

"As for all kinds of new solutions, this would require further legal analysis," Taro noted. More broadly, much concerning the law on drones is still poorly regulated in the context of Estonia's legal framework, Taro added.

"If we take a very general view, not only on traffic supervision, then the situation is not very good when people, even private individuals, can often do all sorts of things with drones, and other people may not like it. This is a broader situation that certainly needs to be resolved and clarified. It does not concern only traffic supervision."

When asked whether the current idea of using drone cameras originates from the police or from the ministry's leadership, Taro responded: "It seems that it has come from people who operate directly in the field, as it were acting tactically — they have wanted to try different possibilities. In itself there is nothing wrong with that. Whether it can actually be used for work, as I said, there is no certainty within the existing legal framework; it requires additional analysis. And once that analysis is completed, there must also be clarity about how exactly and under what conditions it could be done."

In Taro's assessment, however, drones are here to stay. "They are present in all areas, not only in the military sphere, where we talk about drones having a major role on the front line and about how we are trying to build drone defense and think through how we ourselves could operate with them. This is also the case in all other areas of life, so law enforcement will probably not remain untouched by it," the minister said. By way of an example, he cited the use of drones on rescue vehicles, in order to simplify the inspection of sites which rescuers cannot reach with a ladder or where it would be too dangerous to approach closely.

"It is, to some extent, a natural technological continuation. But a specific use, in a specific situation and for a specific purpose, requires legal analysis. Once that analysis is done, we will have certainty about whether and how the legal framework needs to be changed," Taro said.

In response to criticism from legal scholar Garri Ginter on the involvement of drones in traffic supervision, Taro said: "Traffic supervision is a compromise. A society based on freedoms does not mean that everything is permitted. As I stated, traffic supervision is generally necessary to ensure safety on the roads. There are simply not many other means of enforcing rule-compliant behavior if supervision is not carried out at all. Of course, one aspect is infrastructure construction and shaping the environment, but another is enforcing the rules, which simply does not work without oversight. Unfortunately, people drive themselves to death on the roads because they ignore speed limits, for example, and unfortunately other people are also killed who ignore nothing at all. The claim that traffic supervision in general is somehow evil seems somewhat exaggerated to me."

ERR had already reported in 2018 (link in Estonian) on the Police and Border Guard Board plan to introduce drones in traffic supervision and at accident scenes, mainly with the aim of apprehending dangerous drivers, but also those who obstruct traffic with their driving actions. Drones also make it possible to monitor trucks, for instance for roadworthiness and load distribution.

A driver in Tartu recently reported feeling unsettled after he was apprehended on the basis of surveillance camera footage, for running a red light. The PPA says the rooftop cameras monitor city space but are not watched continuously; they are used during targeted enforcement operations. The PPA in Tartu also plans to start using a drone for the same purpose this spring. The PPA says these drones would record violations, but would not follow or pursue vehicles; this would be down to PPA patrols and personnel.

Ginter has argued that Estonia has not given its consent to become a surveillance society, and raised concerns about privacy and how collected data would be stored or used.

Reform Party MP and former justice minister Madis Timpson said the issue should be the subject of public societal discourse, before drones get deployed in traffic enforcement.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!