Swedish Administrative Court Bans Drones With Cameras (abc.net.au)

An anonymous reader writes: The ruling of the Swedish administrative courts forbids anyone to fly a drone equipped with a camera as long as its not "... to document crime or prevent accidents...". They also rule that there is no exception for the ban for commercial use or in journalistic purposes. According to the court the issue with the drones is that is not "controlled locally"

The ban could cause a great problems for the drone industry within Sweden and the UAS Sweden has taken a stand against the ruling because of how it "... strikes against an entire industry that employs thousands of employees."

Comments

Easy Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's illegal to fly a drone with a camera, unless you want to document a crime.. like flying a drone with a camera?

Just make a lot of short youtube documentaries about gangs of criminals underground drone racing with illegal camera equipped drones!

Re:Easy Solution

[thebullshitpatrol]

Emerging market -- aerial photographers now hiring criminals to commit crimes during their shots.

Re:Easy Solution

[Rei]

That could be an interesting legal paradox. Build two identical drones and have them take off at the exact same time filming each other, then send in the video as evidence of a crime. Because they were used to document a crime, both were legal; but then there was no crime being committed, so they weren't being used to document a crime, and were thus illegal... and thus both were documenting a crime, and thus legal...

Re:Easy Solution

[TWX]

In that case the nature of intent comes into play, and they very much would be considered criminal.

Re:Easy Solution

[TechDroo]

I like it. You would still have to apply for a permit to use the drone as a surveillance camera so that kind of defeats the philosophical argument here I'm afraid. So would be super legal for only $78 per camera and a few week of waiting time. What is interesting is that I think that they would not approve the application if you told them the camera was permanently attached to a drone instead of a wall. Which is the reason that the court classified it as a surveillance camera in the first place. Would be really interesting to see someone try.

Re:Easy Solution

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's how the police think at least... they will take maximum advantage either by following the letter of the law (forcing people to unlock phones with a fingerprint is not self-incrimination), or by interpreting the spirit of the law (two drones filming each other violating the law does not make their actions lawful)

Re:Easy Solution

[nedlohs]

That it was used to document a crime doesn't make it legal. It is illegal without a permit. Surveillance just happens to be the thing they'll grant a permit for.

So sadly no, we don't get a paradox...

Re:Easy Solution

[mark-t]

Perhaps what you really mean to say is that if you need glyphs that are not part of ascii to express something, then perhaps /. isn't the platform you need.

Referring to a textual glyph as an "image" is not really accurate. Heck, the classic smiley icon is more of an image than a thorn is, and you can type that using plain ascii.

Re:Easy Solution

[Rei]

And the intent would be to film the criminal activity, hence a fully legitimate use of the drones ;)

Re:Easy Solution

[Rei]

"Images"? Thorn is a letter.

Re:Easy Solution

[Rei]

Why can't you apply for a permit for each drone before starting?

Re:Easy Solution

[nedlohs]

You can and then each is either illegal or legal depending on whether the permit is approved, again without a paradox.

Re:Easy Solution

[Rei]

So you get a permit once, and then every flight of the drone is legal regardless of whether or not you're actually using the drone within the guidelines that the permit was approved for, is that what you're saying?

Re:Easy Solution

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

That could be an interesting legal paradox. Build two identical drones and have them take off at the exact same time filming each other, then send in the video as evidence of a crime. Because they were used to document a crime, both were legal; but then there was no crime being committed, so they weren't being used to document a crime, and were thus illegal... and thus both were documenting a crime, and thus legal...

Yes, no, won't fly (pun intended). The law in question, the Swedish camera surveillance law, has a few well defined exceptions for surveillance to prevent crimes. They're too numerous to list, but it's basically banks, post offices, stores, parking garages and the like, and the camera in those cases (with the exception of parking garage funnily enough) have to be fixed and with a fixed lens (i.e. no zoom).

You still have to report to relevant authorities that you have a camera, and you have to clearly mark it. Since drone is mobile, and the only oversight I could find from "fixed with a fixed focal length lens" was a parking garage, I don't think you'd get away with your drones filming each other, any place else, and not even there. Sweden doesn't apply a litteral interpretation of the law, but looks at what the legislators meant if the law is unclear (reading the documentation that was written in preparation of the law). Chances are they'd find that the mobile/zoom requirement was really meant for parking garages as well.

Still a stupid law/interpretation. However, in a related judgement, dash cams are now OK! They're considered "maneuvered at the site", by you activating them with the ignition. So one small step forward at least.

Re:Easy Solution

[nedlohs]

You would have to comply with whatever the conditions of the permit are. Otherwise you don't have a permit for what you are actually doing after all.

Re: Easy Solution

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Well, with courts, who knows? It hasn't been tried.

But probably not. The law as written e.g. forbids taking a family portrait with a camera on a tripod triggered by a self timer, but I have a hard time seeing a court siding with that interpretation. If you just throw it up in the air, I'd think most courts would make a reasonable interpretation that it's similar enough that it'd be deemed not infringing.

But again. Who knows?

"thousands of employees."

[Anonymous Coward]

In china.

Re:"thousands of employees."

[bev_tech_rob]

In china.

Damn...where are my mod points when I need them?? Mod parent INSIGHTFUL.

nooooo

[thebullshitpatrol]

Sweden now cut out of the loop on beautiful aerial videography. 50ft cranes are still a viable option for anyone with $20k to spend.

Re:nooooo

[Z00L00K]

It applies to drones, but a balloon on a string is not a drone.

There will always be a way around rules like that.

And considering that the cops here in Sweden are way too busy with other stuff this would be low on the list as long as it's not used to create child porn.

In a country with a 6 months data retention law...

[MindPrison]

...they dont want YOU to see anything, even if it is just pixels on the ground, but theyre perfectly fine with storing all the data traffic of every citizen for 6 months. Yay for the double morals.

Still allowed in Coventry

[sinij]

As long as drones with cameras are still allowed in Coventry, we can continue "monitoring" Lady Godiva.

Re:Still allowed in Coventry

[Rei]

Necrophilia much?

Re:Sweet tears

[SvnLyrBrto]

It's no worse than all the self-important narcissists who rail against things like quadcopter drones and Google Glass because the only reason they can conceive for a camera to be attached to technology used in public is that the user wants to secretly record them.

Remote shutter control messes up clasification

[TechDroo]

I read through the verdict. The main point seem to be that the camera is considered attached to the drone and that you can see people in their natural public habitat. And that it is remote controlled from far away - compared to the millions of cellphone cameras that we use fingers to control. The fact that the person controlling the drone is required to be able to see it while piloting seem not to matter at all. As the pilot would have to have very long arms to convince the court that it is not recording using it as a surveillance camera compared to a just as a camera... Hopefully this will get solved in a better manner soon. Also, why not use criminal intent as a basis for determining criminal behavior instead of just forbidding the entire setup :/

Re: Remote shutter control messes up clasification

[Anonymous Coward]

I read it too, and the summary is wrong. It doesn't ban camera bearing drones, but requires that they have a permit when used in public places, which have a particular legal definition. I am not an expert on Swedish law (IANASL) but this is likely to include places like a park but may not necessarily include a mountain. It certainly won't include your back yard or an area for playing with drones, building surveys, etc. And it does allow locally permitted uses (checking in your reindeer herd or Amazon deliveries?).

In many ways it seems very similar to the newer rules suggested by the FAA, and an allowance for the Swedish police for relatively specific use cases.

Re:Remote shutter control messes up clasification

[drinkypoo]

The fact that the person controlling the drone is required to be able to see it while piloting seem not to matter at all.

No, it doesn't matter at all, because the legal requirement does mean that people won't be doing it.

Also, why not use criminal intent as a basis for determining criminal behavior instead of just forbidding the entire setup :/

Yes, that's much more relevant.

Re:Sweet tears

[TWX]

The user of Google Glass is immediately identifiable because he has to be present. The owner of an RC aircraft with a camera on it may not be identifiable because that person does not have to be in line-of-sight to the people being filmed by the RC aircraft in order to control that RC aircraft.

Don't panic

[c]

If you're flying a camera drone in Sweden, just tell them you're documenting the crime of flying a camera drone in Sweden...

Re:Don't panic

[MrSteveSD]

A computer should then be used to determine whether you have committed a crime or not. Then afterwards it can work on the "Barber shaves all men who do not shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?" problem :)

Stickers...

[RyanFenton]

Now available in my "NotExista' store page, I have large stickers featuring the following civic-minded messages:

"Remember kids, look both ways before crossing the street, to prevent accidents!"

and

"Be on the lookout for police brutality! It's all our jobs to record police in order to prevent crime!" ...along with the FINEST of google-translated Swedish-language versions. Yours for only 50kr! Or get 2 for 80kr! Some shipping and taxes may apply.

Transform your old-fashioned 'drone' into the latest in mobile crime-prevention and accident-prevention platforms today!

Ryan Fenton

In related news

[presidenteloco]

Swedish citizen bans overreaching government. Vows to ignore silly laws and go about life.

Maybe not such a good argument:

[Anonymous Coward]

... has taken a stand against the ruling because of how it "... strikes against an entire industry that employs thousands of employees."

This argument could be applied to so many different illegal activities...

WTF is with this summary?

[thegarbz]

Why do we cover Swedish events with a link to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who couldn't be any farther away if they tried?

Additionally why are there 3 links in the summary to the same article. There's only 3 sentences, each one doesn't need a link.

Re:WTF is with this summary?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

As people in sweden speak swedish and Slashdot usually only link to english news sources.

So swedens media articles about it are not linked too.

As for the decision I think its good that there are laws stopping not needed public survelliance.

Re:WTF is with this summary?

[thinkwaitfast]

Sweden is Nirvana for millennials.

Re:WTF is with this summary?

[thegarbz]

As people in sweden speak swedish and Slashdot usually only link to english news sources.

Yep there's no closer country to Sweden than Australia which has English as a native language?

Re:Sweet tears

[SvnLyrBrto]

Your argument still presumes, though, that the only reason for the camera to be on the drone is to film the people in the FOV of the camera. And really, it doesn't matter if the operator is present or not. The principle is the same. The cameras are required for very legitimate and perfectly innocent reasons that have nothing to do with spying on anyone. A drone needs a camera to manually navigate the thing whilst out of line-of-sight. And (the eventual successors of) Google Glass requires a camera for augmented reality overlays within the user's FOV to function.

Re:Sweet tears

[zlives]

digitize the video to wire frame before relaying it for control. privacy solved?

Strangest argument

[TimothyHollins]

"The ban could cause a great problems for the drone industry within Sweden and the UAS Sweden has taken a stand against the ruling because of how it "... strikes against an entire industry that employs thousands of employees."

So, it shouldn't be illegal because it generates a lot of money? What about sex trafficking, cocaine smuggling, or ransomware? Is it fine to break the law if you get rich doing it?

I for one would hope that the judicial branch does not set the bar by what makes the most money.

Re:Strangest argument

[barc0001]

So it should be illegal because someone MIGHT use it to film someone without their consent? Great! Let's ban cameras and any phones with cameras next. Cuz ya know, those can be used to do the same thing and are way cheaper and quieter.

Re:Strangest argument

[nedlohs]

You honestly can't see the difference between campaigning against a law and just breaking the law?

And yes usually government policy is supposed to be to the benefit of the people and so arguments that a policy is harmful to some group is perfectly reasonable.

You would prefer the government just to make up policies and laws and if the people don't like it, tough?

Re:Strangest argument

[Solandri]

There are actually three stances here, not the two you're implying.

• Can't ban something because it generates a lot of money.
• Ban something regardless of how much money it generates.
• Some things that make a lot of money are worth banning, some things shouldn't be banned regardless of making a lot of money.

As for the money-making activities you've cited, those are banned because their productivity generation is a net negative. The money the sex trafficker or cocaine dealer or ransomware author makes is less than the cost paid by the other party (sex slave loses freedom, drug addict suffers degraded productivity, ransomware victim should never have had to pay ransom). One party is making money at the expense of the other.

Legitimate business activities like, say, drone manufacturing are a net positive. The revenue the drone manufacturer gets from selling the drone is more than their cost in parts and labor. And the money the drone purchaser makes from the utility or enjoyment of using the drone exceeds the purchase price. Both parties benefit from the transaction. Until some government floozy decides because some screwdrivers can be used to help pick locks, that all screwdrivers should be banned. Except for very rare cases, bans should be on activities, not on tools which can be misused.

Re:Strangest argument

[John.Banister]

Ah, but wait until there's a trade agreement where an "Investor - State Dispute Settlement" court gets to make these decisions. Then you only need for cocaine manufacturers to issue stock.

Re: Remote shutter control messes up clasificatio

[Traxton]

Swedish video surveillance laws are extremely strict. I am not allowed to on my own property place a camera that monitors my lawn, because said lawn can be visited by the public. I can only, without a permit, monitor locked areas never available for the public. A shop owner is not allowed to put a camera that is only on when the shop is closed. In my home town, an unmanned gym that is open 24/7 has repeatedly been denied a permit and have opted to keep paying the fine for their cameras. Fines are incredibly low, about 10k USD, so they don't care.

Awesome law

[holophrastic]

You know, I've been certain that these things would be illegal somehow. Of course it's illegal surveillance. It's not like taking photographs with your camera. It's like mounting your camera to a lamp post and leaving it there.

As for the stupidest whine I've ever heard: "but it's a whole industry of employees" -- you jumped the gun in a very-fast moving industry that didn't read the existing laws. You're now upset that an established law that you could have read years ago exists? Congrats. Learn to research before you invest.

Get it off my lawn, and out of my window. You don't get to record my private property remotely. I totally agree.

Re:Awesome law

[JaredOfEuropa]

The reaction to people mounting a camera to a lamp post and leaving it there is to ban doing that, take those cameras down, and fine the owners if you can find them. Not to ban cameras.

Drones with cameras have many legitimate purposes that do not violate the privacy of anyone. The first reaction should be to ban unacceptable use of such drones, not to ban the drones themselves. Only if there is widespread abuse and no practical way to prevent it and/or punish the owners should you consider banning them outright or only allow operation under a license. The reaction to drones flying into the path of other aircraft was not to ban them, but to get drone manufacturers around the table to discuss ways to keep drones out of no fly zones.

Re:Awesome law

[holophrastic]

We've done exactly that. We've made it illegal to have cameras operating without an operator present to whom one could speak. That's the drone in the air problem -- you can't approach the operator.

Re:Awesome law

[JaredOfEuropa]

Does that mean there is no legitimate (lawful) purpose of drones with cameras in Sweden?

Re:Awesome law

[kwbauer]

No, the problem is claiming that somebody standing in the public square has any expectation of privacy.

Re:Awesome law

[holophrastic]

That's not the discussion. If your legitimate purpose -- e.g. checking out your own roof to see if shingles need replacing -- has you accidentally recording your neighbour's roof, and his bathroom window, what's your neighbour to do? He can't approach you to tell you not to upload it to youtube -- because he doesn't know that it's you. That makes it surveillance without head-nod consent (which is a real thing in casual photography).

You're creating a world where anyone can take your photograph, at any time, without your approval, without your knowledge, and without your even being able to know who's done so.

Now let's look at the other side. The benefits. It's photography. There are rarely any actual benefits beyond straight-up employment dollars. It's entertainment. Sometimes it's research, but that's not what anyone's discussing here.

And, of course, all of this requires someone to complain that you've done it. Doing it won't get you into any trouble. Like your car's licence plate cover concealing part of your state's slogan. It's illegal. It's not enforced unless your name is capone. So you've got to be flying your drone, with the camera, recording your roof shingles, and someone needs to notice, and complain, to authorities, who then also need to care, and come find you, be able to find you, and then give you a warning.

I vote yes. Yes I should get a warning if I photograph someone else's property with my drone.

Re:Awesome law

[gTsiros]

"You don't get to record my private property remotely."

damn... and i just bought this telescope and a 20 MP DSLR to mount on it and was planning on shooting UHD videos of anything and everything visible from right behind my window, where nobody could ever find out about it... Guess my plans have been foiled.

the law will certainly help you to not get your private property remotely recorded by a kid that flies his toy quad for his enjoyment. The "drone" he is flying has a camera, you say?! Unacceptable! So what if it doesn't record, but it is just a camera for FPV flying with the image quality of a battered 80s VCR http://i.imgur.com/hufds6g.jpg ? BANNED!

keep hugging the law book as if it's a security blanket, while the world around you moves on

when you realize that in this day and age, whether you like it or not and whether you accept it or not, the only time it is possible for you to be "in private", is inside your home with your blinds completely shut. Anywhere else, someone, somehow, from somewhere, is recording you. Possibly in stereo.

Re:Awesome law

[holophrastic]

Maybe where you live, but not where I live. Very rarely is anyone looking through my window. And I've news for you: it's been illegal to point a telescope into someone's window for quite some time.

Re:Awesome law

[gTsiros]

how, exactly, will you find that i have a telescope pointing wherever the fuck i want? the telescope is completely hidden from outside observation.

Re:Awesome law

[holophrastic]

Enforcement is independent of legislation. But you'll upload it to youtube anyway.

Re:Awesome law

[gTsiros]

Yes, legislation is -sadly- unrelated to legislation and water is wet, we agree on that.

Further on.

Are we talking about:

1. using a remote camera with live viewing but no recording (fpv),
2. recording video or
3. publicizing?

Because no matter how much you legislate or (legislate and enforce), what i described in the previous circumstances is (and very likely will remain, even in the future) pretty much impossible to detect or enforce *with current technology*.

don't know what you mean by "you'll upload it anyway". That i can be found out of i upload the video? Sure, but that's irrelevant to the method i used to obtain said video. A completely unrelated action.

can't see how you will get anywhere with this

Paradox

[JesseMcDonald]

The ruling of the Swedish administrative courts forbids anyone to fly a drone equipped with a camera as long as its not "... to document crime or prevent accidents...".

The Swedish administrative courts have created a legal paradox. If it is a crime to fly a drone with a camera, then by doing so one is automatically documenting a crime... which apparently makes the drone legal, ergo no crime exists to be documented, ergo flying the camera-drone is illegal. The drone thus exists in a superposition of legal and illegal states, threatening to tear the entire Swedish legal system to pieces. (One can only hope.)

Re:Paradox

[Kkloe]

yeah and if you try to defend yourself with that "paradox" the court will laugh and sentence you guilty

Re:Paradox

[Ravaldy]

RTFA.

From the article: "Sweden places ban on drone filming without surveillance permit"

The only exception is dashcams. That's confusing to me since dashcams have nothing to do with drones.

Re:Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Swede here, and my father used to fly drones to take aerial photographs.

In general: The reason to require a surveillance permit is to limit the amount of filming of places to which the pubic has access.

You are allowed to film/photograph such spaces if you are actually holding the camera. However, you need to apply to "Länsstyrelsen" for a surveillance permit if you want to mount a camera to film an area that the public can access. So I am not allowed to mount a camera in my apartment that films my motorcycle on the street. I would be allowed to film my motorcyle if it was on my yard and the scene being captured on the film did not include the street.

A dashcam, is here considered to fall under the case of you actually holding the camera, so no surveilance permit is needed.
Flying a drone is not considered as if you are holding the camera. If you could fly in such a way that you only film your property, it would be allowed.

- This is a link to Q&A:s on the topic from The Swedish Data Protection Authority, In Swedish though. http://www.datainspektionen.se/lagar-och-regler/kameraovervakningslagen/fragor-svar-om-kameraovervakningslagen/

Re:Paradox

[JesseMcDonald]

Flying a drone is not considered as if you are holding the camera. If you could fly in such a way that you only film your property, it would be allowed.

This is what doesn't make sense. You are allowed to photograph public areas, and not just your own property (as long as you don't use a drone). They're putting hobbyist drones in the same category as CCTV cameras and other devices which are left in place to record continuously. Most of the drones affected by this law are not the expensive, semi-autonomous sort which can fly on their own using GPS waypoints, and even those only fly for a short time before the batteries are depleted. You can't just set them up to fly around and record for an extended time while the operator is not present. They require an active pilot. Most of them require line-of-sight, though some might be equipped for FPV. Either way, their presence is obvious from the noise, and the operator has to be fairly close by. To say that these drones would make lousy "surveillance" devices is a massive understatement. A person could accomplish much more effective and privacy-invading "surveillance" by hiding a cheap, disposable smartphone in the bushes. No hobbyist drone is going to be recording anyone surreptitiously.

Re:Sweet tears

[TWX]

A drone needs a camera to manually navigate the thing whilst out of line-of-sight.

And there is your problem. Operating it out of line-of-sight. Perhaps the Swedish ruling is based on the nature of constitutes acceptable use, and out of line-of-sight does not meet their criteria.

As to the argument about acceptable use versus unacceptable use, while the courts and legislatures often do side with if something has an acceptable use then it won't be banned for having an unacceptable use, there are exceptions, and those exceptions are often based on the nature of the unacceptable use, and how widespread that unacceptable use is compared to otherwise. Often that kind of consideration is based on how the unacceptable use affects other people.

Re:Sweet tears

[SvnLyrBrto]

> And there is your problem. Operating it out of line-of-
> sight. Perhaps the Swedish ruling is based on the
> nature of constitutes acceptable use, and out of line-> of-sight does not meet their criteria.

And that would be a fine and sensible restriction. I have my own doubts about bandwidth and autopilot issues on consumer-level kit operated by uncertified amateurs that make that sound like a reasonable safety precaution. And if I were to drop... What do they start at? $800?... on essentially a toy, I don't think I'd want to let it out of sight while flying it anyway.

But if the issue really is out of line-of-sight operation, then that's the restriction that should be put in place, not the one on cameras. And don't cater to the "ZOMG, everybody wants to record me, ME, ME" mob.

2nd amendment

[OrangeTide]

In America we have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. This solves the problem of nosey drones nicely. People could have a safe FPV drone hobby that was self-regulating if only Sweden armed their citizens (and had a manic gun culture).

Re:2nd amendment

[ScentCone]

The rights protected by the Second Amendment don't grant you protection from prosecution when you destroy someone else's property (with a gun, or a chainsaw, or fire, or your fists). It's a federal felony to shoot at an aircraft, and the FAA now considers any drone (or RC plane, etc) over 9 ounces to be an aircraft.

And for what it's worth, the FPV hobby in the US is essentially now illegal. Operators cannot fly unless they are observing the aircraft with their own un-aided eyes at all times.

Re:2nd amendment

[OrangeTide]

Responding to trespassing tends to grant a fair bit of leeway on property damage and personal injury.

It's still not clear that the FAA is even allowed to consider a drone to be an aircraft, and therefor under their regulatory purview, as this contradicts other parts of the same regulation. AMA is playing it safe and telling all us hobby pilots to register our UAS, but the legality of what has happened is still contested. (perhaps mainly by armchair layers). I think without settling the matter in court and establishing a ruling, we won't really know for certain. If you haven't guessed, I'm in the camp that does not consider hobby RC UAS to be aircraft. (which is true)

Also, I have to point out that flying FPV is still legal. But as most people interpret the regulations it's limited to hobbyists, things get complicated if FPV were to become a competitive televised sport and people start having sponsors. (likely violates FAA at that point)

Re:Sweet tears

[SvnLyrBrto]

Maybe it'd solve privacy in reality. But it wouldn't solve privacy in the minds of the narcissists who think the camera is there to record them. And if their minds were grounded in reality instead of their self-importance, they'd already realize that the vast and overwhelming majority of people don't care about them and aren't trying to spy on them in the first place.

Re:In a country with a 6 months data retention law

[Ravaldy]

6 months? What data is that. I've heard of 3 years with some location data.

Adding a layer

[SuperKendall]

I would more specifically say you saw a different drone flying, so launched a drone to document the crime.

Oops, too bad it came up with no footage of said drone! Well at least you tried.

It really opens up all kinds of fun possibilities, to get someone else to commit a crime so that you can fly a drone to record it... kids should have a lot of fun with this one! No-one said you couldn't profit off documenting crime... :-)

Re:Privacy Defined

[ADRA]

You US point of view isn't shared internationally. Know your rights and don't be an ass assuming everyone follows the same laws:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/...

The definition of private also varies widely depending on country (there are probably a few more measures now that drones exist and are cheap and ubiquitous).

As for the rest of your panacea arguments, the sad fact is most laws are passed because people abuse them without it. Having separate bodies making vs. enforcing laws makes for an essential barrier to limit making a law just for sake of it.

We have privacy laws because we don't want to be micro-scoped and shamed for being different. This is NOT a bad thing. We should be different, and we shouldn't be shamed if someone wants to do something against some social norm in their bedroom, or in their covered back yard. The laws in place attempt to strike balance between two unrealistic alternatives: Full surveillance where nothing is secret vs Complete autonomy where even just crimes cannot be addressed without violating one's personal refuge.

Re:Privacy Defined

[slew]

Anything that another person can see, or hear, or record, simply is not private. We have established a few exceptions such as talking to one's doctor, or minister. But what we have going on is a situation in which people are demanding the right to lie, to be secretive, to do wrong, or to be able to deny their own behavior. Frankly if you sun bathe, nude in your back yard an airplane can snap a photo easily these days. there is simply no real difference between a plane at 2,000 feet and a drone at 100 feet. There is a reason that Trump could molest or that Cosby could drug and rape people. Imagine if voice recordings and hidden cams were totally legal in all situations. How much fraud on a used car lot could be prevented? And we don't even want to think about the number of cheating wives and husbands would be caught and exposed.
              If the TRUTH shall set us free we must do everything humanly possible to allow total scrutiny of every individual so that truth permeates every aspect of our lives . Imagine every word in a business being live and available for anyone in the world to watch and preserve. Maybe your talcum powder that just killed you would not have contained asbestos. And how low would your taxes be if all economics were wide open for all to inspect?
              The real issue is not about drones. It is about whether we like a world filled with lies and crimes or a world in which truth permeates every bit of everyone's lives.

Let's see... If "the truth" would permeate all interactions, I suspect that authoritarian regimes would rule the world as they would be able to quash all opposition before they could get organized... I suspect that people trying to leave dominating relationships (assuming the actually abusive ones are caught by authorities), would have their efforts thwarted by their partners. The only reason you want to hide is from the person who has the power which could be the government but it could easily be your mother, father, or spouse...

Not so sure I want to live in that zero privacy world. But if you want to be a Borg, you are welcome to it...

Re:Sweet tears

[HornWumpus]

$50 for a FPV quad with 802.11 and a HD camera.

You supply the smartphone viewer.

Re:Privacy Defined

[OhPlz]

There is no US point of view. Consent is a state issue and the laws vary quite a bit from state to state.

Making criminals from honest people

[Nogami_Saeko]

Yes, and we all know how well it works when governments over-regulate rather than being smart about it. People will just ignore the law and continue to fly anyway.

What about the drone war?

[jbn-o]

Will the US play along with this and not expand the extrajudicial assassination by drone program to Sweden? There's a high likelihood the next US administration will continue the drone war (which the US would call "state-sponsored terrorism" if any other country were doing has been doing). Terror Tuesday is coming up fast but we all know murder-by-drone is lighthearted humor except for its victims and anyone who thinks killing is wrong. Like Obama said, "Turns out I'm really good at killing people. Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine". Paving the way for the next war criminal, Hillary Clinton, to take over the role.

Re: Remote shutter control messes up clasificatio

[John.Banister]

TFA said "landholders could operate drones of up to 25 kilograms on their properties without the need for approvals." Perhaps you could put one of those rubber band propeller blades on top of the camera looking at your lawn and tell them it's a drone that happens to be, at the present moment, parked.

Re:Privacy Defined

[gTsiros]

grandparent is not suggesting we live in a "zero privacy world"

he is merely making an observation: in this day and age, unless you are inside your home with your blinds down, you are probably being recorded. whether you like it or accept it is irrelevant. Whether we have laws about it is also irrelevant. That is the reality we live in. As i wrote in another post, i may have a telescope with a super high resolution camera strapped to it, in my home, behind a hole in my windowblinds, taking shots of anything within my field of view a hundred kilometers away. What law can stop me? Or do we now regulate telescopes too? Mirrors and lenses after that? It's pointless to even consider it. By all means, propose, support and uphold any laws you want, just remember that they do not actually protect your privacy when you are anywhere publicly accessible.

second, authoritarian regimes do not wait for the truth to quash all opposition. They will do whatever they want.

only honest people use only truth, not lies.