apersson850

Lives in Sweden Traryd, Sweden
Works as a Electric systems design
Joined on Oct 10, 2007

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

KodaChrome25: If I went to a tall building - well, tall-ish in Sweden lol - with a camera and took a photo of people on the ground, is it surveillance?

Galna åsna svenskar!

There is no specific distance given in Sweden. "Not operated on site" is the specification for one criteria for a surveillance camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

scottcraig: So...Because its taken from the air it's surveillance? If so die this now translate that taking images will soon be classified as a form of surveillance? And if so what can we expect in the future?

For sure there's a lot of private property in Sweden, but normally it's areas where the public has access. The old traditional Swedish "right-of-way" states that you are allowed to walk on privately owned fields and woodland, as long as you stay away from the area near houses. So this applies to pretty much everywhere, except yards around homes.
You are for example not allowed to put up a fixed surveillance camera if you can see a part of the street in the image.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 21:30 UTC
In reply to:

KodaChrome25: If I went to a tall building - well, tall-ish in Sweden lol - with a camera and took a photo of people on the ground, is it surveillance?

Galna åsna svenskar!

You could, and then you've fulfilled one of the four criterias for a surveillance camera. If you go to a building and bring a camera, which you then remote control from somewhere, the camera is probably not considered to be permanently mounted.
But it may be after a while, since a drone will not fly very long with the camera anyway. Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen doesn't specify any time limit.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 21:24 UTC
In reply to:

BBQue: Good !!! Here in US people could probably weaponize their drones and still feel covered by the 2nd amendment :)

Just to make it clear: This interpretation of the law does not prevent drones from being flown. It's fotography from the drone that now requires a permit, which in reality is impossible to get.
Flying itself is still OK, as long as you have the drone in sight and stay out of restricted airspace.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

Julian: In Sweden we have a law that means that you cannot have a CCTV camera out in public for security reasons without signs clearly indicating this, or without getting consent, and the court in this case appears to have decided that a drone is equivalent to a fixed CCTV, which is truly bizzarre.
The permit isnt just any old permit, it must mean that you have permission from the individuals you will film to film them... Welcome to Sweden!

A permit is required for areas where the public has access. It doesn't matter if you try to talk to everybody, you still need a permit. And you'll only get a permit to prevent crime, never because "it's fun" or something like that.
An update of the law is under investigation. We may see a change in a year or two.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

KodaChrome25: If I went to a tall building - well, tall-ish in Sweden lol - with a camera and took a photo of people on the ground, is it surveillance?

Galna åsna svenskar!

No, it's not, because then you operate the camera where it is. According to the old-fashioned law this is based upon, a surveillance camera must be remote controlled.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2016 at 21:10 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6