I was expecting this sooner or later - drones defined as survalance devices

The issue is that it is not an easy thing to solve.

The fact that a drone has the ability to move vertically and away from the user makes it is very easy to see both private and public property making naturally capable of breaking people's privacy while making it very difficult to define where the public property stops and where the breaking of privacy begins. Current laws and definitions are definitely not equipped to cover the drone matter.

that being said fully understand the courts decision here to be honest, since there is no good idea to solve the issue yet. Until this happens probably privacy rights take president over recreational/professional use of the drones.

So Any idea on how better to define free use of drones without violating privacy?


But.. So does a plane, helicopter, remote controlled helicopter, remove controlled plane, telescope, binoculars, space telescope (though i admit probably not many people have one), balloon, pigeon.

So.. why drones exactly? Does this actually apply to drones or is this some all encompassing thing?

About my only concern really, is that maybe people should have a permit, or some sort of certificate for handling drones over a certain class, not because people may violate privacy but because they are dumb.

How would you even violate someones privacy? Your not flying them into someones house?

1 Like

Its the camera part that concerns me. I would have issues with people flying drones on my property.

Because they are now a cheap commodity item and easy to use. Sure radio controlled aircraft have been around for decades but only recent advances in technology now mean its a problem. Still, there will likely be some argument on the definition of 'drone'.

Agree with permits etc, above a certain size/performance envelope drones become dangerous for novices to be flying about with, especially in some environments.

1 Like

Realistically I wonder how often this would actually happen.

I mean this seems dumb. Ban them because they have camera? why? because a few idiots might use it for the wrong purpose? Then arrest them for breaking laws that already exist, because they obviously exists, or they wouldn't be saying it breaks privacy laws. (so arrest them when they break that law)

Whats gong to happen? people will attach cameras to "non-camera drones", its just dumb and will hurt not only Swedish citizens but Swedish businesses.


does that mean it ok if i buy a non camera drone and just tape this onto it?

Governments aren't usually good with dealing with technology in the hands of normal people. Although if I had to choose leaders with good intends and bad ideas and bad intends with good ideas, I'd take the dumb one over an evil one. But that's a different story for another day.

Yeah, I can imagine people making dongcopters with cameras for...reasons.

I'm not saying they should ban them because they have a camera, but ban them because it's somebody flying something over my property. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.

Also by "ban" I just mean flying them over private property.


It talks about drones with a mounted camera...not just drones...If you mounted a pigeon with one you would have the same.

Or like any other flying thing that you can control and you can mount a camera...

This decision covers also that part. It does not matter if you buy it with a camera or if you add it later.

I assume that is exactly the behavior that people are doing currently that lead to the decision. Mounting cameras in every drone and flying it in places that they should not. So yeah flying something over someones private property without his permission and record is an invasion of privacy...In that respect i fully agree with the decision.

That being said the laws were formulated at a time that the case of the drone is was not a possibility. For example the distinction between public and private property in places like cities for devices like drones is very difficult to define because of its line of sight. You need new rules. You cannot ask people not to use them at all in places like cities for example...Or say to people that want to keep their privacy to stay indoors in their own houses and not sit at their gardens. Thus pretty much every nation needs a new set of legislation to allow both privacy protection and free use (with some compromise to both for this case). Any other way one of the two will be screwed.

That is what the court decision implies actually. A fine if you are found to fly a camera drone over a private property.

1 Like

I know there are restrictions governed by our Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in Australia pertaining to recreational drone-usage (especially over people, and property)

No doubt the restrictions will increase here, and in other countries as time goes on.


as a drone owner/operator...

I have no problem with this

my tinfoil-ness says this will be abused by citizens to harass legitimate operators, calling police on drones that are "blown" in to their "airspace" by wind

Well I don't think banning them straight out is the best move but it's a hard topic, how do you create a law that doesn't punish the hobbyist/professionals but does punish those who are dicks with them?

My family currently finds itself dealing with someone of the latter. We've got video proof of my neighbour using his drone and flying it into our garden to spy on us. The reason he's doing all this is because he's after my dad to attack him so he can then get him arrested and charged with assault. And the reason for that? because we spent money on fixing our house and building an extension and he's envious of it.

So if the UK banned the use of drones with cameras without a specific license which would have fines for misuse I'd be all for that. It would suck for the people who aren't dicks but it sucks more for the people who are currently being bothered by the people who are genuine dicks.

Then again if the police actually intervened like they should this drone situation I'm in wouldn't be happening. They know this particular neighbour is a problem but probably won't intervene until someone's been killed.

Do you know how to use a 'shang-hai' (or sling-shot as the Americans call them)?

A well placed shang-hai shot would easily take-out a drone (especially aimed at the spinning rotors or the main body area of the drone)

Yeah, we've thought about it but given the way he flies it he is counting on us to shoot it down as well. That way if it got damaged he can get us on destruction of property. He flies it in a way that if we shot it down there a high chance it'll land in his garden.

He's that obsessed he will try anything to get us in trouble with the law. He's tried putting a noise complaint in against us that was quickly dropped. He's attacked, my dad and had his partner phone the police saying we assaulted him. luckily some neighbours witnessed it and all their stories matched so again that was dropped.

So in order to fight back all we can do is keep providing evidence eventually we'll have a good enough record that we can take to the local council but until then we just have to keep filming the drone.

Just remember he is 'invading' your privacy the minute the drone flies deliberately onto your land (just check the relevant {British I assume} civil air authority for drone usage over a private home without the homeowners consent)

I hope your parents resolve this awful situation soon.

That a very good example of the issue. If he is flying it in his property he is technically not doing anything wrong but he is still invading your privacy since the line of sight of drones allows him to record you into your space.

You don't. welcome to the lowest common denominator society you live in, enjoy your stay. Everything is just one asshole away from ruining it for the rest of the legitimate sensible users. Because it's too time consuming and expensive to set rules for every single level of competence and expectant morality level. You have to have a baseline and that is typically brought down over time to Neanderthal level, because most of society is just that.

This. Drones have been and are being used incorrectly by professionals and amateurs, the usage lines need to be drawn and the rules need to be set. They are a risk for many reasons ( which i can list if anyone needs ) and they should be confined to airfields and large scale private lands or closed stadiums for drone-registered hobbyists only.

(apart from spectators at events of course)

Get an attack drone. Take the offensive. Stop expecting government to pamper you.