That's really interesting, but doesn't make much sense to me. In the interest of privacy (I'm guessing), they seem to give up safety. Are there any reasons that you know of for not allowing camera's? Thanks for your response.
It makes sense to absolutely no-one. TBH I am not even sure if the people creating and driving through this law were fully sober and not totally deranged. Roughly here it goes:
In order to "protect the privacy of individuals", all non-hand-held cameras have been rendered illegal by the current Socialist government in Sweden.
There are some exceptions when the operator is in the "immediate vicinity" of the camera, like if it is mounted on a helmet or on a selfie stick. But for instance tripod based time-lapse photography is now violating the law, since the photographer is not holding the camera in his or her own hands, in which case it counts as a surveillance camera and as such is illegal.
The same applies for drones (or other remotely controlled vehicles). A drone camera is only legal as long as you are in "immediate vicinity", i.e. holding the drone in your hands and taking pictures or shooting video that way. If you release the drone to fly on its own, it becomes illegal. It doesn't matter if you are actually recording or observing through the phone display, it is about the
capability. If the drone has a camera and it is flying, it is illegal.
You may get a permission to fly a camera equipped drone, but you will need to apply for the permit
in advance and only if it is done in order to prevent a crime
in progress. Now that one is tricky. At this time, none (zero, null, zilch) of the applicants have been granted permit.
It is expected that nearly all private enterprises based in Sweden working with drone-based aerial photography will go out of business or will need to start using airplanes or helicopters instead. It is currently estimated that roughly 3000 people will lose their employments due to this.
Some will of course find means to circumvent the regulations. They can for instance register the company in another European country, in which case they can continue their business as before. Some photo companies working for real estate agents are replacing their drones with cameras mounted on long lightweight poles to capture "aerial" images. And some will simply break the law and allocate a certain part of their revenue to pay the constantly reoccurring fines and to keep replacing the possibly confiscated equipment.
/// Tom