HB1444

Opposition Testimony Against HB 1444 The proposed HB 1444 stands to disproportionately amplify state surveillance under the guise of security, unnecessarily profiting select manufacturers while neglecting the voices of impacted communities. As it currently stands, the bill largely aligns with a corporate agenda that seeks to prioritize profitability over public safety. The mandate to create a restricted list of drones, based on criteria that can be easily manipulated or obscured, raises concerns about the true motivations behind this legislation. This framework overshadows the essential need for transparency and accountability in surveillance technology, leaving marginalized groups vulnerable to increased monitoring and profiling. Oversight and Funding Implications The absence of dedicated funding sources in the fiscal note signifies a potential oversight in the legislative process. While the bill indicates substantial costs — estimating between $500,000 and $1,000,000 annually for implementation — it lacks a clear financial strategy to address these expenses. The anticipated reliance on competitive federal grants, which are often unreliable, exposes local communities to significant financial strain. This raises critical questions about the sustainability of the bill’s provisions and its long-term ramifications, especially in the context of local governments that may also face indeterminate costs related to compliance. Intersectional Considerations This bill notably lacks an intersectional framework that considers the diverse impacts on various communities, particularly those historically marginalized. Without addressing these disparities, the bill risks exacerbating existing inequalities under the pretext of security. The criteria for assessing drones as "non-threatening" remain vague, leaving room for biases to infiltrate this decision-making process. It is imperative that any framework directing the acquisition of unmanned aircraft systems is constructed with input from a broad array of stakeholders, especially communities who could face the brunt of its implementation. In moving forward, we should advocate for legislation that prioritizes equity, accountability, and community-based decision-making, rather than frameworks that further entrench systemic inequalities.

Position recorded without written comment.