Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
In china.
Sweden now cut out of the loop on beautiful aerial videography. 50ft cranes are still a viable option for anyone with $20k to spend.
...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.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
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...
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
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 :/
In that case the nature of intent comes into play, and they very much would be considered criminal.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If you're flying a camera drone in Sweden, just tell them you're documenting the crime of flying a camera drone in Sweden...
Log in or piss off.
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
"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.
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.)
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
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)
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
Bye!
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...