Hi everyone,
We are running a research survey on the use and misuse of conservation technology, and would value your input.
The study is a collaboration between the University of South Wales, University of Bath, University of Cambridge, Selati Research, Yale University, and the Zoological Society of London. We have ethical approval and are now in active recruitment.
The survey covers the full range of tools in our collective toolkit: UAVs, camera traps, acoustic sensors, GPS trackers, biologgers, thermal imagers, AI/ML, satellite remote sensing, eDNA, and more.
We are specifically interested in:
- Whether misuse risks are considered when technologies are deployed or published about
- Direct experiences of technology being misused or producing unintended harms
- What mitigation strategies people are actually using, and which ones are falling short
- Barriers to adoption of better safeguards
- UAV misuse specifically, including poacher exploitation of drone tech
One finding already shaping our work: we have confirmed directly with DJI that geofencing is no longer a viable mitigation option. If that surprises you, or if you have thoughts on what replaces it, we would very much welcome your input.
The survey takes around 10-20 minutes and is fully anonymous unless you choose to share your details at the end.
Survey link: https://bit.ly/49ueWQp
We are also planning a round-table discussion on misuse mitigation strategies. If you would like to be involved in that, or in the wider research, please get in touch directly with me at [email protected].
Please do share this with colleagues and networks who work with these technologies in the field. The more practitioner voices we capture, the stronger and more useful the outputs will be.
Thank you,
Emma
Lecturer in Ecology, University of South Wales
6 May 2026 10:52am
I've heard of a danger of unintentional misuse. That is where a camera trap is stolen an then all of the images provide information about animals that can then be used by poachers or other misuse. I know of cases where this has happened. not necessarily that the data was then used by poachers, but it was pointed out that this is a worry.
What we do here, which is very difficult to do on micro-controller based camera traps, is that we install a secure boot operating system with encrypted drives. This means that no data can be taken off any camera traps that are stolen. In addition, the trap cannot even be used by a different person or reinstalled with any other software, making the hardware not useful to them.
Additionally, something we intend to do. It's on our software roadmap but we are not there yet for applying the policy. We develop a system that can be used very effectively for helping with human-wolf conflict mitigation. It's very important that this use case has successes. So we intent that our first deployments have terms and conditions that they cannot be used to making hunting of wolves for killing more efficient or that the information gather be used as part of a process that would lead towards the death of an animal. Again there the technology we use and the remote VPN access that we are setting up means we are in a position to enforce this policy. Though... it could well mean that if we disabled such a device that we may have to take it back against some partial reembursement.
Some where on this forum their is a post from an Indian chap that was worried that the tech would be used by the authorities in ways that lead to human rights abuses. It would be worth searching for and reaching out to this person I think.
Kim Hendrikse