IANAL but mens rea is a serious consideration here. A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted, so unmarked cars are in practice out of scope.
I think the main implication is that you won't be able to use any drone recordings for legal action against ICE unless you can prove that you recorded from further than 3,000 feet (one hell of a camera) or that you did it "accidentally", e.g. I was just filming my friends and ICE agents suddenly busted out of an unmarked car that happened to be within the frame. Even then, you'd have to stop recording pretty soon because at that point they could argue that it becomes wilful recording.
> Proposed new law could see Swedish media prosecuted for espionage
> Swedish media outlets who uncover news which damages Sweden's relations abroad could be charged with spying, if a controversial law gets the go-ahead.
I'm pretty sure most news outlets would cave with the right pressure, with or without any new laws. On top of that is the fact that the department for foreign affairs is the department where the line between ministry and department is the thinest* - I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, in such a scenario they'd be asked, especially by the US, to put a stop to something, they'd actually put (unofficial, undocumented) pressure on the entity or person in question.
* As opposed to most democracies ministerial rule is highly frowned upon in Sweden, and as a minister you can't issue official decrees that govern how the department itself interpret laws or conduct its business. Instead you (e.g. the parliament) change laws and society act accordingly.
It would be very strange for the government to sue someone for redistributing videos on the basis that they had been taken from an illegally flown drone.
> Second they can ban you from ever flying one again.
Thankfully I can purchase them at Costco last I checked. Good luck with that. (TBF don't actually do that as it will 100% be traced to you. The general principle still applies though.)
The correct answer here is to relentlessly use drones to film them in such a way that it isn't obvious who is doing it.
Anyway the idea that the FAA can have any jurisdiction so near ground level outside of regional airports is a blatant overreach that tramples state's rights and is almost certainly unconstitutional. The problem is that as with so many other areas (such as for example drug laws) the states seem entirely unwilling to take the federal government to task. Texas famously backed down regarding the TSA and we're all worse off for it IMO.
The FAA very clearly has jurisdiction to “all navigable airspace” which is broadly defined as “all airspace immediately above ground level”.
Which is to say, there’s no minimum height threshold under which you could fly a drone (outdoors) where the FAA doesn’t have full legal jurisdiction.
You can say you feel it’s overreach, but it’s well established that the courts do not agree.
Having said all of that, I definitely agree that the states have been doing a pretty shit job of asserting their rights across the board.
Of course it isn’t just individual states. Congress as a whole has been happily ceding power to the executive branch for a few decades now - which is largely how we’ve gotten to this point.
> You can say you feel it’s overreach, but it’s well established that the courts do not agree.
I don't get the impression that's the case. Historically the aircraft in question were large and expensive and very often traveling between states at high altitude. The FAA wasn't harassing for example hang gliders staying within 1000 feet of the ground.
So not only was the federal government generally not interfering with individuals going about local activities, the few exceptions were people unlikely to want to take it to court.
Now a federal agency somehow thinks they can (for example) regulate delivery vehicles operating locally? That's obviously completely absurd. They'd have zero standing to regulate pizza delivery drivers so why are pizza delivery drones any different?
Not that I have much hope of a sensible resolution. The FCC similarly magically receives the power to regulate local activities regardless of the constitution and that one has always been invasive and yet the courts have allowed it.
But planes don't normally fly very low except when taking off and landing. Below 500' AGL and away from airports is normally not the realm of airplanes. Go above 500' AGL and you have a whole host of FAA compliance issues because now you are in plane space.
We run into this with drone filming from county and state lands. The governments assert a right to the airspace above their parks, which is almost certainly unenforceable. However, the governments do issue permits, which one can imagine become significantly more limited in scope once an airspace lawsuit is filed. Ergo, the courts can say whatever they want, but in practice it's even more restrictive than that.
Strict liability is only permitted for minor violations, like a citation or fine. If you make it up to misdemeanor speeding, it's no longer reasonable to claim you weren't aware you were speeding.
I think the main implication is that you won't be able to use any drone recordings for legal action against ICE unless you can prove that you recorded from further than 3,000 feet (one hell of a camera) or that you did it "accidentally", e.g. I was just filming my friends and ICE agents suddenly busted out of an unmarked car that happened to be within the frame. Even then, you'd have to stop recording pretty soon because at that point they could argue that it becomes wilful recording.