Flight distance : 1020488
Google Translation of the judgement for anyone interested:
AA applied to the provincial government for permission to conduct surveillance with a camera that could be mounted on a drone, ie an unmanned aircraft. The camera would be used for still photography in his individual firm whose business was on behalf of customers to document buildings and areas from the air. Via video link, he could see what the camera saw and control it from the ground with radio transmitters. His customers wanted that there would not be with the people in the pictures.
County Board found that the camera was a permit and dismissed the application on the grounds that the need for surveillance is not outweighed this privacy interest.
AA appealed to the administrative court, which annulled it. The Administrative Court held that the camera was not a surveillance camera in the legal sense. The court found that the camera was not set up and that it could be controlled locally.
Data Inspection Board appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal, which held that the camera was a surveillance camera that required permits. Appeal found that the camera's permanent location on the drone meant that it had considered ranking the law. The camera was considered also to be managed from a location other than where it was located and could therefore not be considered to be operated at the site. Based on the specified camera use would in many cases be directed to places where the public has access. The camera therefore fulfilled all the conditions for a permit surveillance camera. Administrative up-lifted the Administrative Court's ruling and sent the case back to the Administrative Court for further consideration of the issue of permission for surveillance.
AA is appealing the ruling and states including following.
The camera is attached to the drone with a rubber band and picked off between flights. It is therefore not permanently posted. The camera is operated continuously at the site, he takes the example each photograph. He has permission from the Transport Agency to fly the drone. The condition means eg a maximum altitude of 120 meters and that the drone all the time to be easily visible without optical aid, which means that the maximum distance between the drone and the operator is about 150 meters. Flight time amounts to 6-10 minutes. The purpose is not to monitor people. The camera can not be used for personal monitoring. Transport Agency has prescribed the minimum safety distance between the drone and persons is 50 meters. The camera has a pixel density that does not allow the people identified at that distance. In any case, the camera is exempted from licensing under § 10 first paragraph 1 camera surveillance law.
Data Inspection Board considers the appeal should be dismissed and states including following.
These are recurring shooting in professional activities that would be conducted over time. The camera is set up in the legal sense. A camera equipped drones are separated from the maneuvering equipment and can not be equated with a handheld camera.
THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The question here
The main question here is whether a camera mounted on a drone is a surveillance camera.
The purpose of surveillance teams are under § 1 that meet the need of video surveillance for legitimate purposes while individuals are protected from undue intrusion into personal privacy.
In § 2 provides that the surveillance referred to television cameras, other optical-electronic instruments and similar devices that are set so that, without being controlled locally, can be used for personal monitoring.
According to § 8 required permission for video surveillance to a surveillance camera should have to be set up so that it can be targeted at a place to which the public has access.
In § 10 first paragraph 1 provides for the exemption from the permit requirement when monitoring related to traffic safety or the working environment.
The Supreme Administrative Court's assessment
Is there a surveillance camera?
A camera is a surveillance camera if it is set so that, without being controlled locally, can be used for personal monitoring. This definition has been essentially unchanged since the provisions on surveillance cameras were introduced in 1977.
A first question is whether a camera mounted on a drone can be considered "senior".
A surveillance camera is usually more permanently attached to eg a wall or a pole to monitor a specific geographical area. The provision does not aim only at those fixed devices (cf. Prop. 1975/76: 194 p. 21). Even a camera attached to a moving object, according to the Supreme Administrative Court's opinion, be as camera Act. A camera as completely temporarily assembled in this manner can hardly be considered as ranking. It should be required that the placement has a specific duration for the camera to be covered by the scope of the Act (see Prop. 2012/13: 115 p. 26).
A camera mounted on a drone can thus be set up and this applies even if it is mounted away after each flight. Of the AA data shows that, the camera recurring will be attached to the drone. The camera must therefore be regarded as ranking in the legal sense.
The next question is then whether the camera can be used "without controlled locally". This refers to the ongoing managed from a place that is clearly separate from that camera is set up. This means that the law does not apply to hand-held cameras (cf. Prop. 1975/76: 194 p. 21 and Prop. 2012/13: 115 p. 26).
The camera on the drone will photograph from the air but can be controlled and otherwise handled from the ground. The management will therefore be from a place that is clearly separate from that camera is set up. It is operated thus not at the scene.
Finally, it must be determined whether the camera is mounted so that it "can be used for personal monitoring." In this assessment, it is immaterial what is the purpose of use, and if the camera is actually used for the supervision; the key is whether it can be used for such monitoring. With personal supervision means that the camera allows the identification of individuals (Prop. 2012/13: 115 p. 27).
AA argues that because of the Transport Agency's regulations is required to keep a safe distance of at least 50 meters between the drone and the nearest person and that the camera does not allow individuals to be identified at that distance. As mentioned, it is not how the camera actually used as it is crucial. Because the camera is mounted on a moving object, and thus not continuously positioned in such a location that the person identification is made impossible, can be used for personal monitoring.
The camera is thus such surveillance referred to in § 2 Camera Surveillance Act.
Is the camera permits?
The camera will be directed to places where the public has access. It is thus permit according to § 8 camera surveillance law. Exception regulation in § 10 first paragraph 1 shall not apply.
The Supreme Administrative Court therefore finds, like the appeal, that the case should be remitted to the Administrative Court for further consideration of the issue of permission for surveillance. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.