Now stop the Supreme administrative court drones.
They must be counted as surveillance cameras, and then the required permission.
– the Supreme administrative court now seems to want to complicate the Swedish media opportunities to report with the drones is just another example of restrictions on free speech also here at home, ” says Expressen’s editor-in-chief Thomas Mattsson.
The who want to put up a security camera must apply for a permit from the county administrative board. Now the Supreme administrative court in a recent decision ruled that a drone should count as a security camera. The only exception is if the purpose is to prevent the crime.
the Court writes in the judgment that a security camera is a “camera that is set up so that it can be used for personövervakning”, and which is not operated from the place where it sits. With the definition counts drones in among the cameras that require a permit. The only exception is if the purpose is to prevent crime.
“large impact”
To mount a camera in a car on the other hand, as the court also tried in the judgment, however, is allowed – even without the permission.
It is the Swedish data Inspection board that is pushed drönarförbudet.
– It will have a big impact. We have now already made contact with the county to talk about how we should go out with the information out, ” says Malin Ricknäs, lawyer at the Swedish data Inspection board, to TV4 News.
the Administrative court concluded in 2015, that drones are not video surveillance. But the data Inspection board appealed, and the matter is now settled in the Supreme administrative court.
Mattsson: “Misdirected care”
the Swedish newspaper Expressen’s editor-in-chief Thomas Mattsson is critical of the court ruling.
– the data Inspection board has repeatedly acted to make Sweden less open and a misplaced concern for privacy, and it risk the Supreme administrative court to rule, among other important journalistic documentary with the help of drones, ” he says.
Thomas Mattsson also believe that it is not entirely clear how the judgment should be interpreted.
– Of the judgment is clear that what is prohibited is a camera attached to a drone “recurrent” if this is done with a certain “duration”. If, instead mounting the camera “absolutely temporary” is considered it’s probably not as “senior”, but this will be a matter of opinion.
To stop the drones is a way to stop free speech, believes Thomas Mattsson.
– Expressen TV using drones when there is publicistiskt relevant, and only the last few days we have, CNN and many other international media showed the incredible drönarfilmerna of Aleppo shows krigstragedin in Syria. The pictures are just an example of the value of drones as a journalistic tool, and that the Supreme administrative court now seems to want to complicate the Swedish media opportunities to report with the drones is just another example of restrictions on the freedom of speech is also right here at home.
Beach: “Very strange conclusion”
Mats Beach, assistant bildchef at Aftonbladet, think that the judgment is remarkable.
” It’s a very strange restriction in the use of a journalistic working tool. The first is the use of drones is already today very regulated regarding what areas and during what times you are allowed to fly. In addition, it is permissible in Sweden to photograph in a public place. It would then be a difference to shoot down from a hill and shooting from a hovering drone is a very strange conclusion, ” he says in Aftonbladet.
No comments:
Post a Comment