Drones may help inspect primary flood defences, such as dikes, dunes, and other barriers that protect the Netherlands from flooding by the sea, lakes, or rivers. But how can privacy and transparency be safeguarded at the same time? To explore these ethical aspects of drone deployment, Wetterskip Fryslân (Water Authority Friesland) used the DEDA tool (The Ethical Data Assistant).
Annet Wieringa, Programme Manager for Digitalisation at Wetterskip Fryslân, and Ingrid Hazelhoff, Data Ethics Advisor at Wetterskip Fryslân, share what DEDA brought to this case study.
This article is an adaptation of ‘Data ethics in the air: Wetterskip Fryslân on drones’ in IBDS Magazine issue 12 (Dutch).
Ethical considerations in deploying drones
The case involved using drones to inspect the primary flood defences on the Frisian Wadden island of Schiermonnikoog. These defences are hard to evaluate from the ground. Furthermore, the areas often involve people, animals, recreational users, or sensitive sites, such as a military cemetery and an ambulance landing site in this case. This highlights how drones can be an effective way to monitor these crucial parts of water safety infrastructure.
However, deploying drones for this purpose also raised questions about data ethics: How should privacy be managed? What if people are recognisable in the footage? Who owns the data collected? And how can transparency be maintained without jeopardising the security of vital infrastructure?
DEDA: A broad perspective
To address these questions, the water authority organised a session using De Ethisch Data Assistent (DEDA) (Dutch). DEDA helps organisations discuss and weigh ethical issues in a structured way.
The session gathered a diverse group: a drone pilot, data analysts, privacy officers, legal experts, managers, HR specialists, innovation and digital transformation project leaders, and communications advisors. The range of perspectives fostered lively discussions and unexpected insights.
“Wait, that’s me down there!”
Other issues included: What if a drone records an offence? Should it be reported? And what does that mean for the drone pilot, who may become personally involved? Values such as the pilot’s privacy and government transparency sometimes conflicted.
Both the drone pilot and enforcement officers shared their views. Hazelhoff explains: “Participants felt more accountable and involved during the session, and they gained a clearer understanding of each other’s viewpoints. For instance, the drone pilot exclaimed, ‘Wait, that’s me down there!’ which caught everyone’s attention, especially since many are office workers. In large organisations, responsibility is often fragmented, increasing the risk of unethical actions. This discussion helped us identify ways to distribute responsibility more effectively.”
Deploying technology in line with public values
Using the DEDA method, the group developed action points to address data ethics in this case, focusing on ways to deploy technology that align with public values.
“These action points were useful, and some have been successfully put into practice,” says Wieringa. “For example, better communication for drone requests and installing signs to inform the public about drone flights. But I found the conversations we had during the session even more valuable. The group’s diversity expanded our viewpoints. Not just on that day, but we all took that experience back into our daily routines.”
Impact and follow-up
6 months after the session, an evaluation was conducted. The main outcome: increased awareness. The conversations had an impact, and the action list helped to take concrete steps. Participants reported a better understanding of each other’s perspectives.
In short, at Wetterskip Fryslân, using DEDA for drone deployment led to heightened awareness, improved collaboration, and a culture where dilemmas can be openly discussed. “There isn’t always a solution,” says Hazelhoff, “but when people feel heard, progress can be made.”
