N.J. Braces For Flying Robot Drones
It sounds like something dreamed up for “The Jetsons” — flying vehicles flitting through the skies, transporting everything from medical devices to Chinese food, no pilot required.
But in two years, New Jerseyans may see these airborne robots soaring above them on the Turnpike, a cause of concern for some and a source of wonder for others.
Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, have been used by the United States military for years to hunt down suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so much so that their use in warfare has prompted a fierce debate in Congress.
They come in all shapes and sizes: Some can fire deadly missiles from far above the clouds; others are low-flying spy planes equipped with cameras and heat sensors. They can be controlled half a world away, like a video game brought to life.
Now, federal officials are opening up the airways so U.S. businesses and government agencies can take advantage of the super-gizmos in new, nonviolent ways.
From movie studios to fisheries to police departments, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates that 30,000 drones will be hovering above the United States within seven years, ferrying products and capturing all sorts of sights and sounds.
“Robots have been a disappointment because they’re confined to the ground,” said Todd Humphreys, an associate professor at the University of Texas, Austin, who researches domestic uses for drones. “What people are starting to realize is that robots always wanted to be drones. They’re so much more beautiful when they fly.”
Supporters say drones are the next big wave in the global technological revolution. But the devices — with their capability for surveillance and destruction — have made many Americans fearful for their privacy and safety.
A Monmouth University poll of 1,708 Americans last year found that 80 percent said they would be okay with police using drones for search-and-rescue missions, and nearly two-thirds of respondents said they could be used to pursue criminals or patrol the southern border.
But 64 percent said they would be somewhat concerned or very concerned about their privacy once drones took to the U.S. skies.
The unease has led state lawmakers to introduce a series of bills banning or severely limiting the use of drones by police and fire departments. The federal government plans to issue the first domestic drone permits after September 2015, and New Jersey legislators from both parties hope to be ready with stringent restrictions.
“Can you imagine? You’re sitting in your backyard enjoying some quiet time with your family, and the government’s there photographing and recording what you’re saying,” said Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R-Hunterdon), the sponsor of the toughest bill, which would ban the use of surveillance drones in every instance except for a “credible threat” of a terrorist attack.
But state Sen. Nicholas Sacco (D-Hudson) said drones, while scary, could be a huge boon to society. His bill would allow police and fire departments to deploy them in extreme cases where existing tools don’t work — as long as the agency chief approves it first.
“Think about missing children, missing seniors,” Sacco said. “The immediacy and the ability to use drones to find them quickly is very important. Think about forest fires. Things like this are extremely important.”
A bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Annette Quijano (D-Union) would strike a balance. No law enforcement agencies would be able to use drones, but the federal government could send one out in cases of suspected terrorism or the governor could in a declared emergency or natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy.
“I don’t want our skyways to look like the Garden State Parkway on a Friday night in the summertime,” said Quijano, who is chairwoman of the Assembly homeland security committee. “But you can see the value of the drones, especially after Sandy, on the Shore area. I’m sure there were areas that were not as safe for law enforcement or firemen to go into.”
And a fourth bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Robert Schroeder (R-Bergen), would allow the police to use drones only after submitting a detailed application to a court and obtaining a warrant. But it would forbid police from using them to issue speeding tickets, or in any cases involving motor-vehicle laws.
More than 30 states have introduced similar bills, and Michael Toscano, a lobbyist for the nascent industry in Washington, said he fears overregulation will stifle the industry.
Toscano’s group, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, estimates that the flying robots will be an $82 billion industry in the United States after a decade, not just serving law enforcement, but for activities such as weather monitoring, volcano studies and “taco-copters” that transport food and beer to college dorms.
“If you can think of any dirty, dangerous, difficult or dull mission, these things will do very well in that regard,” he said.
Although commercial drone permits are still years away, the FAA since 2007 has issued more than 1,400 permits to select government agencies and universities, which have been testing the flying devices’ capability for research and photography. More than 300 of those permits remain in effect, the FAA said.
Princeton University is already reaping some of the benefits — and wrestling with how widely the drones’ data can be disseminated. University officials said they hired New York-based SkyCamUsa during April to fly a “DJI Spreading Wings S800” drone over its Gothic, wooded campus, snapping photos for Princeton’s admissions office that would have been impossible to take from the ground.
The hovercraft weighed just 6 pounds.
But when the company posted one of its drone videos on YouTube and its own website this month, Princeton quickly urged them to take it down, saying they had no right to post the material, a spokesman said.
“It should not have been published as it was because Princeton University is a nonprofit institution that does not allow its name or images to be used to promote specific commercial vendors,” said Martin Mbugua, a university spokesman.
Humphreys, the University of Texas professor, said that “a drone in a police force would represent a vast savings” because they cost a fraction of what a helicopter does.
Les Dorr, a spokesman for the FAA, said officials are beginning to figure out how to accommodate the drones without causing problems for airplanes and other air transports. The first step is to select six test sites around the country, and New Jersey is one of the states under consideration, he said.
“What the (new federal) legislation said is that the FAA had to develop a plan to facilitate ‘safe integration’ of unmanned aircraft into the airspace by Sept. 30, 2015,” Dorr said. “What ‘safe integration’ will look like really has not been decided yet.”
Lt. Stephen Jones, a spokesman for the State Police, said the state already has a fleet of helicopters equipped with heat sensors for use in rescue operations, the monitoring of nuclear plants, disaster assessments, and to search for fleeing people or vehicles.
For now, Jones said, drones are not being considered.
“Any use of those type of technologies we would thoroughly vet through the Attorney General’s Office and look for guidance to make sure we’re on safe grounds regarding people’s rights and privacy,” he said.
Although some of the New Jersey bills would allow the Department of Environmental Protection to monitor forest fires with a drone, Lawrence Hajna, an agency spokesman, said there is none waiting in the wings.
“We don’t use drones, no plans to, either,” Hajna said. –Nj
It sounds like something dreamed up for “The Jetsons” — flying vehicles flitting through the skies, transporting everything from medical devices to Chinese food, no pilot required.
But in two years, New Jerseyans may see these airborne robots soaring above them on the Turnpike, a cause of concern for some and a source of wonder for others.
Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, have been used by the United States military for years to hunt down suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so much so that their use in warfare has prompted a fierce debate in Congress.
They come in all shapes and sizes: Some can fire deadly missiles from far above the clouds; others are low-flying spy planes equipped with cameras and heat sensors. They can be controlled half a world away, like a video game brought to life.
Now, federal officials are opening up the airways so U.S. businesses and government agencies can take advantage of the super-gizmos in new, nonviolent ways.
From movie studios to fisheries to police departments, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates that 30,000 drones will be hovering above the United States within seven years, ferrying products and capturing all sorts of sights and sounds.
“Robots have been a disappointment because they’re confined to the ground,” said Todd Humphreys, an associate professor at the University of Texas, Austin, who researches domestic uses for drones. “What people are starting to realize is that robots always wanted to be drones. They’re so much more beautiful when they fly.”
Supporters say drones are the next big wave in the global technological revolution. But the devices — with their capability for surveillance and destruction — have made many Americans fearful for their privacy and safety.
A Monmouth University poll of 1,708 Americans last year found that 80 percent said they would be okay with police using drones for search-and-rescue missions, and nearly two-thirds of respondents said they could be used to pursue criminals or patrol the southern border.
But 64 percent said they would be somewhat concerned or very concerned about their privacy once drones took to the U.S. skies.
The unease has led state lawmakers to introduce a series of bills banning or severely limiting the use of drones by police and fire departments. The federal government plans to issue the first domestic drone permits after September 2015, and New Jersey legislators from both parties hope to be ready with stringent restrictions.
“Can you imagine? You’re sitting in your backyard enjoying some quiet time with your family, and the government’s there photographing and recording what you’re saying,” said Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R-Hunterdon), the sponsor of the toughest bill, which would ban the use of surveillance drones in every instance except for a “credible threat” of a terrorist attack.
But state Sen. Nicholas Sacco (D-Hudson) said drones, while scary, could be a huge boon to society. His bill would allow police and fire departments to deploy them in extreme cases where existing tools don’t work — as long as the agency chief approves it first.
“Think about missing children, missing seniors,” Sacco said. “The immediacy and the ability to use drones to find them quickly is very important. Think about forest fires. Things like this are extremely important.”
A bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Annette Quijano (D-Union) would strike a balance. No law enforcement agencies would be able to use drones, but the federal government could send one out in cases of suspected terrorism or the governor could in a declared emergency or natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy.
“I don’t want our skyways to look like the Garden State Parkway on a Friday night in the summertime,” said Quijano, who is chairwoman of the Assembly homeland security committee. “But you can see the value of the drones, especially after Sandy, on the Shore area. I’m sure there were areas that were not as safe for law enforcement or firemen to go into.”
And a fourth bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Robert Schroeder (R-Bergen), would allow the police to use drones only after submitting a detailed application to a court and obtaining a warrant. But it would forbid police from using them to issue speeding tickets, or in any cases involving motor-vehicle laws.
More than 30 states have introduced similar bills, and Michael Toscano, a lobbyist for the nascent industry in Washington, said he fears overregulation will stifle the industry.
Toscano’s group, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, estimates that the flying robots will be an $82 billion industry in the United States after a decade, not just serving law enforcement, but for activities such as weather monitoring, volcano studies and “taco-copters” that transport food and beer to college dorms.
“If you can think of any dirty, dangerous, difficult or dull mission, these things will do very well in that regard,” he said.
Although commercial drone permits are still years away, the FAA since 2007 has issued more than 1,400 permits to select government agencies and universities, which have been testing the flying devices’ capability for research and photography. More than 300 of those permits remain in effect, the FAA said.
Princeton University is already reaping some of the benefits — and wrestling with how widely the drones’ data can be disseminated. University officials said they hired New York-based SkyCamUsa during April to fly a “DJI Spreading Wings S800” drone over its Gothic, wooded campus, snapping photos for Princeton’s admissions office that would have been impossible to take from the ground.
The hovercraft weighed just 6 pounds.
But when the company posted one of its drone videos on YouTube and its own website this month, Princeton quickly urged them to take it down, saying they had no right to post the material, a spokesman said.
“It should not have been published as it was because Princeton University is a nonprofit institution that does not allow its name or images to be used to promote specific commercial vendors,” said Martin Mbugua, a university spokesman.
Humphreys, the University of Texas professor, said that “a drone in a police force would represent a vast savings” because they cost a fraction of what a helicopter does.
Les Dorr, a spokesman for the FAA, said officials are beginning to figure out how to accommodate the drones without causing problems for airplanes and other air transports. The first step is to select six test sites around the country, and New Jersey is one of the states under consideration, he said.
“What the (new federal) legislation said is that the FAA had to develop a plan to facilitate ‘safe integration’ of unmanned aircraft into the airspace by Sept. 30, 2015,” Dorr said. “What ‘safe integration’ will look like really has not been decided yet.”
Lt. Stephen Jones, a spokesman for the State Police, said the state already has a fleet of helicopters equipped with heat sensors for use in rescue operations, the monitoring of nuclear plants, disaster assessments, and to search for fleeing people or vehicles.
For now, Jones said, drones are not being considered.
“Any use of those type of technologies we would thoroughly vet through the Attorney General’s Office and look for guidance to make sure we’re on safe grounds regarding people’s rights and privacy,” he said.
Although some of the New Jersey bills would allow the Department of Environmental Protection to monitor forest fires with a drone, Lawrence Hajna, an agency spokesman, said there is none waiting in the wings.
“We don’t use drones, no plans to, either,” Hajna said. –Nj
>>>>*<<<<
Nation's First Casino Strip Club Coming To Atlantic City
The country’s first strip-club-in-a-casino will open in August.
Scores, the New York-based franchise, will open its $25 million entertainment complex in the Trump Taj Mahal in August, according to a company spokeswoman.
The site was about two years in the making and will be 36,000 square feet of adult entertainment, the company said in a release.
Scores will be located on the second floor of the Trump casino, in a space that was formerly occupied by three restaurants. There will be eight distinct areas – including a main showcase area, a sports bar, a nightclub, a lounge, a cabaret and a male revue.
"It is certain to become a distinct competitive advantage in the Atlantic City marketplace," said Bob Gans, a managing partner of Scores Atlantic City.
The state Division of Gaming Enforcement ruled way back in December 2011 to allow the club inside the Taj Mahal Casino Resort. At that time, officials said the it would be a $3 million project.
At the time the project was approved, the division said dancers could strip down only to a G-string and pasties. Lap dances would be prohibited, as would any simulation of sexual activity. However, the state Division of Gaming Enforcement has since agreed to allow a form of "modified" lap dancing not involving touching in the new club, said Cathleen Kiernan, a spokeswoman for Scores Atlantic City. –Nj
The country’s first strip-club-in-a-casino will open in August.
Scores, the New York-based franchise, will open its $25 million entertainment complex in the Trump Taj Mahal in August, according to a company spokeswoman.
The site was about two years in the making and will be 36,000 square feet of adult entertainment, the company said in a release.
Scores will be located on the second floor of the Trump casino, in a space that was formerly occupied by three restaurants. There will be eight distinct areas – including a main showcase area, a sports bar, a nightclub, a lounge, a cabaret and a male revue.
"It is certain to become a distinct competitive advantage in the Atlantic City marketplace," said Bob Gans, a managing partner of Scores Atlantic City.
The state Division of Gaming Enforcement ruled way back in December 2011 to allow the club inside the Taj Mahal Casino Resort. At that time, officials said the it would be a $3 million project.
At the time the project was approved, the division said dancers could strip down only to a G-string and pasties. Lap dances would be prohibited, as would any simulation of sexual activity. However, the state Division of Gaming Enforcement has since agreed to allow a form of "modified" lap dancing not involving touching in the new club, said Cathleen Kiernan, a spokeswoman for Scores Atlantic City. –Nj
>>>>*<<<<
N.J. Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional, 6 Gay Couples Argue In Court
Boxing New Jersey’s gay and lesbian couples in civil unions instead of allowing them to marry violates several constitutional rights and “simply cannot be justified” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed gay-rights ruling last week, a group of same-sex couples argued in state court today.
Through their attorneys, the six couples and their children asked Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson to grant them the right to marry immediately in light of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor last week.
At stake, they argue, are more than 1,000 federal tax benefits and legal rights that the Supreme Court granted to married gay couples by striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Civil-union states such as New Jersey won’t reap those benefits unless they change their laws to allow same-sex marriage, the group argued. On the day of the Windsor ruling, Jacobson agreed to fast-track the case and scheduled arguments for Aug. 15.
“By relegating same-sex couples in New Jersey to civil union, the state denies them equal rights and benefits,” attorneys Lawrence Lustberg of the Gibbons law firm and Hayley Gorenberg of the gay rights group Lambda Legal wrote in their brief today, adding later that after the Windsor ruling, “these labels are inarguably, and as a matter of law, far more than mere words.”
Throughout their 53-page brief, Lustberg and Gorenberg relied heavily on the Windsor opinion by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, borrowing his logic and word choices to argue gay couples and their children are being denied legal and economic protections and are burdened by “the indignity and stigma of second-class status” of civil unions.
All three branches of state government have said gay couples should receive the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals, Gorenberg and Lustberg continued.
• In 2006, the state Supreme Court ruled in Lewis v. Harris that “under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.”
• That year, the state Legislature passed its civil union law, which says gay couples should receive “all the rights and benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy,” but without calling it marriage.
• Even Republican Gov. Chris Christie, in vetoing a same-sex marriage bill last year, said he was “adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples.”
The result is that New Jersey is now locked in an “irrational position,” Gorenberg and Lustberg said.
After the Windsor ruling, Christie bashed the Supreme Court and said he would still veto the same-sex marriage bill. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) wrote to acting Attorney General John Hoffman this week asking him to stop defending the civil union law, but a spokesman for Hoffman said today they still considered the case “pending litigation.” The state’s brief is due in early August.
The case is Garden State Equality v. Dow. –Nj
Boxing New Jersey’s gay and lesbian couples in civil unions instead of allowing them to marry violates several constitutional rights and “simply cannot be justified” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed gay-rights ruling last week, a group of same-sex couples argued in state court today.
Through their attorneys, the six couples and their children asked Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson to grant them the right to marry immediately in light of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor last week.
At stake, they argue, are more than 1,000 federal tax benefits and legal rights that the Supreme Court granted to married gay couples by striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Civil-union states such as New Jersey won’t reap those benefits unless they change their laws to allow same-sex marriage, the group argued. On the day of the Windsor ruling, Jacobson agreed to fast-track the case and scheduled arguments for Aug. 15.
“By relegating same-sex couples in New Jersey to civil union, the state denies them equal rights and benefits,” attorneys Lawrence Lustberg of the Gibbons law firm and Hayley Gorenberg of the gay rights group Lambda Legal wrote in their brief today, adding later that after the Windsor ruling, “these labels are inarguably, and as a matter of law, far more than mere words.”
Throughout their 53-page brief, Lustberg and Gorenberg relied heavily on the Windsor opinion by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, borrowing his logic and word choices to argue gay couples and their children are being denied legal and economic protections and are burdened by “the indignity and stigma of second-class status” of civil unions.
All three branches of state government have said gay couples should receive the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals, Gorenberg and Lustberg continued.
• In 2006, the state Supreme Court ruled in Lewis v. Harris that “under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.”
• That year, the state Legislature passed its civil union law, which says gay couples should receive “all the rights and benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy,” but without calling it marriage.
• Even Republican Gov. Chris Christie, in vetoing a same-sex marriage bill last year, said he was “adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples.”
The result is that New Jersey is now locked in an “irrational position,” Gorenberg and Lustberg said.
After the Windsor ruling, Christie bashed the Supreme Court and said he would still veto the same-sex marriage bill. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) wrote to acting Attorney General John Hoffman this week asking him to stop defending the civil union law, but a spokesman for Hoffman said today they still considered the case “pending litigation.” The state’s brief is due in early August.
The case is Garden State Equality v. Dow. –Nj
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.