Prohibit purchase of drones made by a covered foreign entity
Impact
If enacted, SB180 will significantly impact procurement policies for public entities in Ohio, mandating that no state funds can be used to purchase drones from foreign adversaries. This includes a prohibition on the operating of such drones after a certain deadline in 2027. The legislation necessitates that the Ohio Secretary of State maintain a registry of foreign adversaries based on national security assessments, creating a systematic approach to monitoring and controlling the access of potentially harmful technologies within state operations. This could impede the use of certain drone technologies in various public service sectors, leading to delays or the need for alternative suppliers.
Summary
Senate Bill 180 aims to strengthen state security measures concerning the purchase and operation of small unmanned aircraft systems (commonly known as drones) that are manufactured or assembled by foreign adversaries. The bill seeks to restrict public entities, which include state and local government entities, from acquiring these types of drones, to mitigate risks related to national security and critical infrastructure. It establishes clear definitions of what constitutes a foreign adversary and outlines the conditions under which these aircraft systems can be procured or operated by public entities.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB180 appears to be generally supportive among lawmakers focused on national security, with proponents arguing that it is a critical step to protect state infrastructure from external threats. However, there may be concerns raised by stakeholders in the drone industry or those who rely on these technologies for public services, who argue that the bill could limit innovation and operational efficiency. Overall, the discourse seems to prioritize safeguarding against potential security threats over the operational benefits that these technologies may provide.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding SB180 revolve around the definitions of foreign adversaries and the clarity of the procurement restrictions. Critics may argue that the blanket prohibition on foreign-manufactured drones could offer less flexibility and limit the public entities' ability to procure the most effective technology available. Additionally, there could be discussions around the implications of increased regulatory oversight and how such regulations might affect local government budgeting and operations in implementing drone technology.