TL;DR: EFF researchers Beryl Lipton and Saira Hussain told the San Francisco Police Commission on September 28 that the SFPD's revised drone policy, DGO 10.12 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations), lets officers deploy a drone to "any situation in which a member may be deployed for a public safety response" and does not define what a public-safety response is. SFPD flew drones roughly 350 times in 2024, more than 1,100 times between January and August 2025, and more than 3,500 times in the first five months of 2026. EFF's argument: as written, the policy turns a tactical surveillance tool into general surveillance. The Police Commission is scheduled to take the matter up on October 14 [1].
The Flight Numbers Tell the Story
EFF's submission, written by Beryl Lipton and Saira Hussain and published September 28, lays out a deployment curve that crossed from targeted tool to routine platform inside two years. San Francisco voters approved Proposition E in March 2024, a heavily funded, billionaire-backed measure that sought to expand police access to surveillance technology and removed drones from the city's 2019 Surveillance Technology Ordinance. After Prop E passed, the EFF submission states, the SFPD "knowingly violated California's AB 481, a state statute requiring law enforcement agencies to get approval from their local elected governing body before purchasing military equipment, including drones," and then sought retroactive approval from the Board of Supervisors [1].
The flight totals, drawn from EFF's review of SFPD disclosures, run from roughly 350 deployments in 2024 to over 1,100 from January to August 2025, then to over 3,500 in just the first five months of 2026 [1]. The expansion matches the program's stated mission creep. EFF describes the original justification as drones for "specific actions such as vehicle pursuits and active criminal investigations," then notes that "within a year, the SFPD expanded use cases to include patrol, i.e. unrelated to a specific incident" [1]. The agency subsequently announced a Drone-as-First-Responder (DFR) program, a model for which, according to EFF's July 23 piece, over 1,000 public safety agencies had received FAA waivers as of February 2026 [2].
What DGO 10.12 Actually Says
The policy in front of the Commission is DGO 10.12, the department's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations general order. EFF's concern is not the existence of the policy; it is what the revised draft permits. EFF's comment quotes the revised text: "[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," then flags that the policy "fails to define what is meant by a 'public safety response'" [1]. EFF's framing: "Without appropriate safeguards around deployment and use, drones could be deployed to every call for service," and "this type of general patrol could effectively become general surveillance" [1].
The data side of the policy is the second EFF objection. Drone-collected data is stored for 30 days [1]. EFF's point in the September 28 submission is that drones sent to every call for service, including calls that turn out to be nonincidents, would collect data along the way that is then kept for that period.
Who Else Is Objecting
EFF is not the only voice the Commission will hear. The San Francisco Public Defender's Office authored a letter describing the policy's shortcomings after the original draft drew pushback, and EFF's submission references a follow-up letter signed by more than 40 organizations, including EFF itself [1]. The initial letter on the original draft had been signed by over a dozen local, state, and national groups, also including EFF [1]. The coalition growth from over a dozen on the original to over 40 on the revised version is the kind of local pushback the EFF submission explicitly anchors the policy fight on: it describes the original proposal as having "received significant community pushback" before the Public Defender's letter landed [1].
Why It Matters
The argument EFF is making is structural rather than incident-specific. A drone-as-first-responder program is the same camera-in-the-sky architecture already running in Chula Vista, California, and in October 2024 the Campbell, California police department announced what it described as the first FAA approval for beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations at night [2]. EFF's July 23 piece also notes that a recent leak of drone footage from the San Francisco Police Department illustrated the ease with which surreptitious drone flights could observe innocent individuals [2]. The flight counts EFF documents in the September 28 submission, and the agency's own policy language permitting general-patrol use, mean SFPD's program is the kind of platform where the difference between a targeted tool and a citywide sensor is the policy text, not the hardware [1]. The October 14 hearing will show whether the Commission adds safeguards such as a definition of "public safety response," or adopts the revised policy as written.
What to Watch
The October 14 hearing. Watch for whether the Commission defines "public safety response," changes the 30-day retention period, or returns the policy to the department for further revision. The Commission is the civilian gate between the policy and deployment [1].
The AB 481 retroactivity question. EFF's submission says SFPD purchased drones before getting Board of Supervisors approval and then sought retroactive approval. Watch whether the Commission or the Board revisits the AB 481 compliance path, which is the same California statute that governs military-equipment oversight at departments statewide [1].
The "public safety response" definition. EFF's comment specifically flags that the revised draft does not define the term. If the Commission defines the term, every drone deployment in San Francisco becomes measurable against a written standard. If it does not, the policy language governs as written [1].