Several towns and cities in the U.S. are experimenting with Flock’s Drones-as-First-Responder (DFR) system, which employs remotely operated drones that automatically launch from rooftop docks. According to Military.com, these units are integrated into emergency services systems, which can send drones in response to a 911 call, license-plate reader notification, or gunshot-detection alert. Once in the air, these units stream live footage to dispatchers and officers in the field.Flock initially gained this capability when it purchased drone firm Aerodome, which sells drones with high-definition video, thermal imaging, and other onboard capabilities. It’s also not the only company advertising similar services, with one startup advertising a Starlink-connected first responder drone that lets it operate outside the range of its base station.Some of the cities that are considering, have run a pilot project, or have signed a contract with Flock for its DFR system include Fort Worth, Texas; Castle Rock, Colorado; Dunwoody, Georgia; Fulton County, Georgia; and Middletown, Connecticut. Fort Worth said that during the two-month pilot program, the drone was deployed to 162 emergency 911 calls, with an average response time of 112 seconds. It was also the first unit to arrive in 76 of these calls and even allowed the authorities to clear 11 of them without needing to send officers to the scene. Furthermore, the city said that these units only respond to calls and do not patrol the skies over Fort Worth, and that the cameras on board their drones are pointed at the horizon until they reach the scene.The company has recently been surrounded by controversy, especially when it comes to the misuse of its system and the apparent lack of security, despite the company maintaining that it has never suffered a data breach. Despite that, Middletown Police Chief Erik Costa was quoted telling CT Insider, “The drone’s purpose is not surveillance; it’s first response.” He also added that drone footage from the city “would not be shared…outside the building unless there is a search warrant” and that unused video recordings “would be erased within 30 days.”Other cities have considered and turned down offers to run Flock’s DFR service within their jurisdictions. Berkeley, California, said no to a $2-million proposal that would have expanded its existing license-plate cameras to include drones, more cameras, and software, while Bridgeport, Connecticut, rejected a $500,000 lease for two DFR drones. Even the mayor of Middletown declined to sign the contract despite the city having approved a trial earlier this year. The most common reasons cited for these refusals include privacy concerns and fears that the data gathered in their areas of responsibility could be shared with or accessed by federal authorities without a warrant, even as Flock claims that it does not work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).While emergency responders find DFR and other similar services useful, the primary reason people oppose Flock’s service isn’t the drone units themselves, but the lack of trust in the company and the institutions that use them. So, unless the authorities address the underlying concerns, it’s likely that any type of surveillance — whether strapped to a pole or flying overhead — will always face some kind of resistance from the public.