A drone needs a camera to manually navigate the thing whilst out of line-of-sight.
And there is your problem. Operating it out of line-of-sight. Perhaps the Swedish ruling is based on the nature of constitutes acceptable use, and out of line-of-sight does not meet their criteria.
As to the argument about acceptable use versus unacceptable use, while the courts and legislatures often do side with if something has an acceptable use then it won't be banned for having an unacceptable use, there are exceptions, and those exceptions are often based on the nature of the unacceptable use, and how widespread that unacceptable use is compared to otherwise. Often that kind of consideration is based on how the unacceptable use affects other people.
Despite the apparent acquiescence of neck-beards on Slashdot, having the ability to share personal information without sharing it with the entire world is something greatly desired by actual human beings.
And this capability has never, ever existed. Even huge corporations have tried to make it happen through a collection of technologies and laws called Digital Rights Management and despite tens of millions of dollars and system after system, DRM falls or is circumvented through the final 'analog hole'.
It's possible to have sympathy while still acknowledging that the risks that led to this outcome were entirely hers to bear in her obviously ill-thought actions that started this. The extreme nature of her particular extreme cultural influence is certainly abnormal, but it does show how ridiculous it is to expect the right to be forgotten to actually do a damn thing.
YouTube Gets Its Own Social Network With Launch of YouTube Community
Is that what these goddamn alerts on my cell phone are? Jeeezus.
Why didn't the copyright flunkies say, "Sorry, prior art. Tough noogies."?
This is what I'm wondering, that and since a phone itself is a manufactured device that originated from a specific entity, if anyone could legitimately claim any kind of rights, that entity should have any copyrights and trademarks, not some media company attempting to use it.
I wish they'd ruled for the right reasons, but at least the ruling itself is better than if it'd gone the other way.
He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.