Dimme wrote:
Tell that to him:
I wrote “weakly” not “nonexistent”.
That guy was convicted in an appeals court for publishing drone videos. He was acquitted in the district court and the supreme court has not yet considered such a case, so the legal situation is not yet entirely clear. Also, important for this discussion, the appeals court stated that several of the drone videos and videos taken through an aircraft window was a minor enough infraction to not be punishable.
How can this stuff be enforced when you can get commercial satellite imagery of almost anywhere?
Airborne_Again wrote:
so the legal situation is not yet entirely clear
Not willing to take any risks anyways, which is a bummer, because I would like sharing flight videos.
Peter wrote:
How can this stuff be enforced when you can get commercial satellite imagery of almost anywhere?
From an intelligence point of view there is a big difference between pictures taken straight down and pictures taken more or less horizontal. Particularly if the horizon is visible.
But I agree that the new Swedish legislation is over the top. It is now also illegal to take photographs of police stations. A TV journalist was recently convicted for a short news report recorded in front of a police station. Sweden is unfortunately rapidly moving in an authoritarian direction, let by the extreme right-wing “Sweden democrat” party which has an influence way beyond what its motivated by its 20% voter support.
From an intelligence point of view there is a big difference between pictures taken straight down and pictures taken more or less horizontal. Particularly if the horizon is visible.
I’ve been reading “spy” books since I was old enough to read and this is the first time I’ve heard that. It greatly depends on how smart the analyst is. But anyway it is dead easy for a Russian etc to travel to Sweden (covertly or otherwise) and photograph anything they want, and do it with a decent camera. The West is anyway completely penetrated by Russian spies, at every level, including the military manufacturers – courtesy of the universities producing so many “communists” that vetting is almost impossible.
Also sensitive things can be permanently blurred in Google maps & co.
Maybe the guy took detailed views of something he should not have.
That’s true; most Greek airports are blurred in google maps. But commercial satellite imagery shows it all.
I remember seeing the videos, it was nothing sensitive. The guy was racing a drone in what looked some kind of old place / just yard / nothing important. They just wanted to make an example of him because he didn’t apply for the permit.
Dimme wrote:
They just wanted to make an example of him because he didn’t apply for the permit.
I just read the complete verdict. It is clear that as the legislation in question is written, it is immaterial if the videos show anything sensitive or not. On the other hand it stated that minor infractions should not be punished. It is then up the courts to decide what “minor” means and in this case the district court and the appeals court made different decisions. Also the judgement of the appeals court was not unanimous. One judge felt that more of the videos were minor infractions.
I’d say that if the case is appealed again, there is a good chance that the supreme court will hear the case.
