#Drone Aid: A useful tool with a toxic image — by Michiel Hofman, Senior Humanitarian Specialist, and Jonathan Whittall, Head of Humanitarian Analysis | MSF UK
▻http://www.msf.org.uk/article/opinion-and-debate-drone-aid-a-useful-tool-with-a-toxic-image
Drone technology – that can gather data on ‘suspicious behaviour’ – can now be used to identify potential ‘terrorists’ and drone targets. The #SCHIEBEL Camcopter-S100 surveillance drone has come under recent scrutiny for its ability to easily be converted into a drone that can fire missiles. This ‘Camcopter’ is one of the most prolific drones in the world, serving in at least 11 militaries [3]
Initially the #MOAS website proudly displayed the partnership with #MSF alongside the logo of SCHIEBEL and a Marine oil company as ‘sponsors’ of MOAS. (...) MOAS has been using this new partnership also to promote its association with the drone manufacturer. The founder of MOAS, who owns a insurance/risk management/intelligence company ‘TANGIERS[4]’ in Malta on his blog for MOAS in April published an article called ‘humanitarian drones: bots without borders’[5]
(...) some of the Italian and British press reported that data from the MOAS/MSF drone was shared with Italian law enforcement agencies in order to identify smugglers.[6]
(...) data shared with the EU authorities can now be considered as #military_intelligence. Combined with the type of drone used – the Schiebel ‘camcopter’, MSF is now the first international humanitarian organisation to be associated with military grade drone equipment in an area of military operation.
This leaves the image of MSF particularly vulnerable. Very quickly the reputation of the small ‘search and rescue’ cam-copter has become one of the many military drones deployed in order to hunt down and destroy people smugglers. The fact that MSF does not pay for the drone, that the MSF logo has been removed from the SCHIEBEL/MOAS webpage, that MSF itself does not give information to the military authorities does not matter if MSF does not very loudly say so. SCHIEBEL continues to market the partnership with MOAS/MSF to profile civilian use for its equipment, whilst MSF stays silent on the issue.
The military association with drone use in the Mediterranean is illustrative of the dangers of drone technology for humanitarian actors in general. Specifically for MSF, the debate is on whether or not the negative image associated with drones means that even the use of small scale drones in Papua New Guinea or the Philippines should be discontinued. Drones may be very useful, but for humanitarian use, their reputation may just be too toxic for MSF.