Sweden Makes It Illegal To Take Photos In 'Private Environments' Without Permission

from the how-will-that-work? dept

Here on Techdirt we've had stories about how the ubiquity of digital cameras is changing the way we look at public events and art. But as has also become clear, the ability to take photos of more or less everything we see brings with it certain problems -- especially if what we see are police. So it was perhaps inevitable that the politicians would start to get involved, in order to "solve" some of those problems. Here's a rather extreme example from Sweden, as reported by TechHive:

Sweden's parliament has voted in favor of a law that bans taking pictures and filming in a private environment without first getting permission from people in attendance. Critics say the law is too ambiguous.

The Swedish Committee on Justice said the law, which goes into effect July 1, is needed since photographs or movies secretly shot in private settings can seriously violate an individual's privacy, and protection has been inadequate.
Well, that may be true, but it's hard to see how exactly this is going to work if you want to take a picture in a very crowded room, say -- how exactly are you supposed to get everyone that might be in a photo, to agree? Does it have to be in writing so that you can prove it? And what about if it's not a room, but still a "private environment"? Come to think of it, what exactly is that, anyway? From the article:
The law doesn't specify what constitutes consent or define a private environment. For example, what happens if a journalist invites a business executive to a reception in the journalist's home and secretly photographs the executive committing a criminal act, asked Maria Ferm, member of parliament for the Green Party, during the debate.
That underlines how this is likely to be used: to stop revelations of wrong-doing by public figures in private places. At least the new legislation is aware that this is an issue:
An exception from criminal liability is made if the act is justifiable in view of its purpose and other circumstances, and that provision includes journalistic work, according to the committee.
But until the exact limits of that provision are defined, along with what "justifiable" means, it seems inevitable that the new law will have a chilling effect on investigative journalism in Sweden. That's rather ironic, since you might expect that the abundance of digital cameras today would lead to the rich and powerful being caught out and called to account more often, not less.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 4:38am

    Bah, it's rather easy. Just take the picture and ask permission on Facebook to tag them. If they deny then it's fine, no registry of their presence is taken.

    Ahem.

    Good luck enforcing that shit. How do you respect a law that's unenforceable and that you can easily break? You don't. See copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zem, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:04am

    It's all ok

    Well,

    thanks to the NSA we know nothing is private. Feel free to snap away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:08am

    It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.

    Law is (also) for teaching purposes, and you young ankle-biters who even haven't learned toleration for dissent in comments here, clearly don't understand that though laws may be somewhat impractical to apply, it's statement by adult society of what behavior is acceptable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:16am

      Re: It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.

      We don't mind dissent. What we mind is the never ending personal attacks and stream of lies. At some point, responding is a waste of time.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DannyB (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:27am

      Re: It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.

      Oh, and about dissent. If you know of any posts on TechDirt that are constructive dissent or a discussion involving differing opinions, please point those posts out. I don't see any.

      Mike: How about a new feature? When a post is reported enough times, hide not only the post, but all of its replies. (Like this one you are reading now.) That would make the constructive or even merely funny posts more visible. It would cut down on the vast amount of non-productive noise.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Pragmatic, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 7:26am

      Re: It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.

      Law is (also) for teaching purposes, and you young ankle-biters who even haven't learned toleration for dissent in comments here, clearly don't understand that though laws may be somewhat impractical to apply, it's statement by adult society of what behavior is acceptable.


      So calling us "anklebiters" is an example of a statement by adult society?

      Cathy, I'm in my forties and able to think for myself. I also pride myself on my comprehension skills and ability to NOT contradict myself in the same sentence.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      S. T. Stone, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 7:43am

      Re: It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.

      You can dissent all you want.

      But for the sake of all things Divine, do it in a mature and respectful manner. Calling people names and only coming here to shit up the place with your worthless comments does not constitute ‘dissenting in a mature and respectful manner’.

      You can disagree with the articles here on Techdirt and lay out the reasons why you disagree with it in a way that doesn’t make you sound as if you only came here to troll the comments.

      When you feel ready to have an intelligent discussion on the merits of the article itself, feel free to start one. Until then…get used to the pink text, pal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 11:23am

      Re: It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.

      It worked for sodomy!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 11:59am

      Re: It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.

      Law is (also) for teaching purposes


      No, it's not. Law is to set out the rules of a society that subject you to state punishment. There's nothing about them that is intended to be educational. Also, law is not intended to specify what is moral or not. Law is amoral.

      What you're talking about is mores, those societal rules that are just as potent as law but covers matters of morality rather than matters of law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Johann Schwarz, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:08am

    Some questions that I hope the lawmakers have already considered

    Good that Sweden is taking privacy protection so seriously, but I have three questions:
    1. What problem does this law need to solve?
    2. How is this possibly going to solve it?
    3. Aren't there alternatives that are less likely to cause collateral damage and if not, is solving the problem of #1 worth the damage?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:14am

    Wouldn't it be simpler . . .

    It seems like it was be easier to just make photography illegal in private, public and on days ending in 'Y'. This would apply to both still and motion photography. The government would be excluded from this restriction of course. To ensure compliance, video cameras could be installed into every home, and other private or public building.

    I think this would make everyone happy.

    NSA: Yes, we need this for national security, as well as the entertainment of our analysts.

    RIAA: Yes, this would get rid of all those piracy enabling cell phones, tablets, laptops and many desktop computers.

    ISPs: Yes, we would no longer need to invest in our infrastructure as all video traffic (and even still pictures) on the Internet would cease. People would stop complaining and start thinking internet speeds are fantastic, since all web pages would contain only text.

    MPAA: Wait, a minute guys . . . Oh, wait. Nevermind, this would work for us! We would make all TV and movie content consist of reality programming based on all of the exempted state cameras in private places! Then we would need a law propping up the broadcast TV and cable industries. Maybe even a requirement for people to watch some minimum number of hours per day? It would be good for the economy.

    Legislators: See everyone is happy. The little people should stop complaining and leave the business of governing to those who the Lesters selected to run things. Legislators know how to make everyone's life better through more government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:41am

      Re: Wouldn't it be simpler . . .

      Better yet, have the government, with support from the MPAA record everything.
      They can put cameras everywhere and constantly record all activity everywhere.

      Rather than allowing someone to take pictures, cameras would be banned entirely and if you wanted a picture of something, you could submit a request (paying a modest fee) to get a copy of that image licensed to you for viewing on the device of your choosing for up to 30 days (I suppose they could license it to you for any period of time - priced accordingly).

      They could also use "windowing" to make it more appealing to actually be there for an event while it is happening live. By only allowing people to license an image 28 days or more after an event happens, they could ensure that people would go to events rather than just looking of images of it. This would really help the transportation industry - and also corn farmers because people like to eat popcorn at airports.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:17am

    1. What problem does this law need to solve?
    2. How is this possibly going to solve it?
    3. Aren't there alternatives that are less likely to cause collateral damage and if not, is solving the problem of #1 worth the damage?


    1. Personal privacy
    2. By making you ask permission
    3. Yes, and no.

    It is very simply, just like there are signs up in supermarkets saying.

    "Entry is an acceptance that you are willing to have your bags searched".

    in this case it would be,

    Entry into this location is permission to take photos.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:42am

      Re:

      lol at #1. So you know how the NSA's 'activities' has been revealed as of late? Yeah, Sweden't been doing the same thing for quite a few years now so no, it does not solve any privacy problems. "2006/07:63" if you feel like looking it up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 6:48am

    Translated to Swedish Chef

    Here-a oon Techdurt ve-a'fe-a hed stureees ebuoot hoo zee ubeeqooity ooff deegitel cemeres is chungeeng zee vey ve-a luuk et poobleec ifents und ert. Boot es hes elsu becume-a cleer, zee ebeelity tu teke-a phutus ooff mure-a oor less iferytheeng ve-a see-a breengs veet it certeeen prublems -- ispeceeelly iff vhet ve-a see-a ere-a puleece-a. Su it ves perheps inefeeteble-a thet zee puleeticiuns vuoold stert tu get infulfed, in oorder tu &qoout;sulfe-a&qoout; sume-a ooff thuse-a prublems. Here-a's a rezeer ixtreme-a ixemple-a frum Svedee, es repurted by TechHeefe-a:


    Svedee's perleeement hes futed in fefur ooff a lev thet buns tekeeng peectoores und feelming in a preefete-a infurunment veethuoot furst getteeng permeessiun frum peuple-a in ettendunce-a. Creetics sey zee lev is tuu embeegoouoos.

    Zee Svedeesh Cummeettee-a oon Joosteece-a seeed zee lev, vheech gues intu iffffect Jooly 1, is needed seence-a phutugrephs oor mufeees secretly shut in preefete-a setteengs cun sereeuoosly feeulete-a un indeefidooel's preefecy, und prutecshun hes beee inedeqooete-a.


    Vell, thet mey be-a trooe-a, boot it's herd tu see-a hoo ixectly thees is gueeng tu vurk iff yuoo vunt tu teke-a a peectoore-a in a fery crooded ruum, sey -- hoo ixectly ere-a yuoo sooppused tu get iferyune-a thet meeght be-a in a phutu, tu egree-a? Dues it hefe-a tu be-a in vreeting su thet yuoo cun prufe-a it? Und vhet ebuoot iff it's nut a ruum, boot steell a &qoout;preefete-a infurunment&qoout;? Cume-a tu theenk ooff it, vhet ixectly is thet, unyvey? Frum zee erteecle-a:


    Zee lev duesn't speceeffy vhet cunsteetootes cunsent oor deffeene-a a preefete-a infurunment. Fur ixemple-a, vhet heppens iff a juoorneleest infeetes a booseeness ixecooteefe-a tu a recepshun in zee juoorneleest's hume-a und secretly phutugrephs zee ixecooteefe-a cummeetting a creeminel ect, esked Mereea Ferm, member ooff perleeement fur zee Greee Perty, dooreeng zee debete-a.


    Thet underleenes hoo thees is leekely tu be-a used: tu stup refeleshuns ooff vrung-dueeng by poobleec feegoores in preefete-a pleces. Et leest zee noo legeesleshun is evere-a thet thees is un issooe-a:


    Un ixcepshun frum creeminel leeebility is mede-a iff zee ect is joosteeffieble-a in feeoo ooff its poorpuse-a und oozeer curcoomstunces, und thet prufeesiun incloodes juoorneleestic vurk, eccurdeeng tu zee cummeettee-a.


    Boot unteel zee ixect leemits ooff thet prufeesiun ere-a deffeened, elung veet vhet &qoout;joosteeffieble-a&qoout; meuns, it seems inefeeteble-a thet zee noo lev veell hefe-a a cheelling iffffect oon infesteegetife-a juoorneleesm in Svedee. Thet's rezeer iruneec, seence-a yuoo meeght ixpect thet zee eboondunce-a ooff deegitel cemeres tudey vuoold leed tu zee reech und pooerffool beeeng cooght oooot und celled tu eccuoont mure-a oofftee, nut less. Bork Bork Bork!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 7:10am

    Question

    Doesn't a 'private environment' opened up to a crowd become a 'public environment'?

    Example, I host a party at my home, wouldn't that become a 'public environment' as I am inviting people from outside into my home?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 8:05am

      Re: Question

      That is just the environment that the rich and famous wish to have photography banned, this is where they indulge in questionable behavior in their own home that they do not want plastered over the press.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 19th, 2013 @ 7:12am

    this sounds as if it has been done so as to stop the gathering of evidence needed for prosecuting people of power and high positions. in other words, a type of gag order. cant imagine where the idea for that came from!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Benny L (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 7:14am

    Some clarification

    This law has three requisites, that need to be fulfilled for it to take effect:

    1) The photography must be HIDDEN. That is, the moment you bring out your camera in full view, none of it applies.

    2) The hidden photograpy must take place without permission from the subject(s)

    3) The act must take place in an environment where the subject(s) have a reasonable right to expect privacy. That is, indoors in ones own home, inside a dressing room, in a restroom or similar environments.

    This law is meant to complement laws against harassment, where the law is interpreted such that you cannot claim to be harassed in cases where you didn't realize AT THE TIME that you were being photographed.

    That particular loophole, if you will, led to extensive debate here in Sweden a while back, after a couple of public cases were tried and the accused was acquitted of harassment after having secretly videotaped his tenant in her bathroom using a hidden camera. He was on the other hand convicted of violating the privacy of her home by entering without permission in order to install the hidden camera.

    Under this new law he would be convicted of unlawful harassing photography since the law's three requisites would have been fulfilled.

    There are also two excemptions to the law:

    1) regarding law enforcement use of hidden photography; that is you can still be subject to being spied on if you're a reasonable suspect of a crime.

    2) reasonable use. If it can be shown after the fact that the photography was justifiable, for example to gather evidence or for a photo journalist to document something of public interest, the law doesn't apply.

    So, in summary, although fears have been raised by free speech activists and others (me included), the law actually does seem to be well written and sufficiently narrow in scope to not hinder everyday use of photography.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 7:26am

      Re: Some clarification

      That's ok then, no-one will abuse it at all, just like the Patriot Act. No-one secretly filmed as evidence of wrongdoing will use this law to SLAPP or sue anyone. No siree!

      Wouldn't it have made more sense to 'fix' the harrassment laws rather than make up new ones that will potentially criminalise ordinary behaviour?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Benny L (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 8:36am

        Re: Re: Some clarification

        So what would happen if the harassment law was amended such that you could sue for harassment even if you didn't know you were being harassed? How could that possibly work? (And note here that there are different laws for harassment and libel.) Anybody who disliked someone could claim to have been harassed for just about anything thought up after the fact.

        Also, did you even read my coment properly? The risk of "criminalising ordinary behaviour" is just about nonexistent.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 7:53am

    "An exception from criminal liability is made if the act is justifiable in view of its purpose and other circumstances, and that provision includes journalistic work, according to the committee."

    I'm trying to picture circumstances where someone is upset about some innocous photo that was taken for no good reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Benny L (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 8:45am

      Re:

      Well, the photo may not have been innocuous but still be justified. Let's say for example (I just made this one up) that a public figure denies knowing a particular organized crime boss. Then some investigative reporter photographs them both in bed together using a telephoto lens from across the street. That act would normally be a violation of the new law (and here intent matters - if your intention was to capture the building because you're interested in architecture it's not a violation but if your sole purpose was to catch them in the act you are), but since it can be deemed of public interest the photographer is not in violation of the law (but the publisher faces the risk of a libel law suit if he publishes, but that's another matter of course).

      It is still troublesome that it is the very ACT of photographing that is criminalised, not what they are later used for, which means that the photographer must be more aware when shooting - perhaps with little time to consider - rather than being able to contemplate the picture afterwards.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Vidiot (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 9:29am

    In the US, I've heard that the taking of pictures isn't the problem; it's when you try to use those images that you'll have problems if permissions haven't been granted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Benny L (profile), Jun 19th, 2013 @ 10:51am

      Re:

      Normally that is the case here in Sweden too, which is one reason why this law has been hotly debated before it was passed in the Riksdagen (the Parliament). In fact, you can normally do whatever you like with the pictures you own, with no permissions required from people in the photo, the theory being that it is the photographer who owns the rights to the image, not the people in the picture. (Although you can be subject to libel suits if the photo subjects are portrayed negatively, and you are generally not allowed to use photographs without model releases in advertising.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This