Drones, Privacy Issues Spark Debate

CREST HAVEN – Unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, circled as a subject at the Oct. 28 freeholder meeting, with Dr. Steven Fenichel of Ocean City continuing to demand the board adopt a bill or rights that would ensure privacy of citizens and that no armament would be used on them.
Freeholder Director Gerald Thornton spoke to him prior to the meeting, and thought there was agreement that if the board passed a resolution supporting an Assembly panel’s standards for drones, released Oct. 27 that would be satisfactory. It was not.
Thornton told Fenichel that the board could support legislation introduced by Assembly Democrats that create standards for law enforcement and fire departments to use drone. That bill, A-1039, is aimed at concerns about use of drones invading personal privacy. The legislation is drafted so as not to hinder law enforcement of emergency services agencies to use the unmanned aircraft for the public welfare and safety.
Fenichel, at the podium with the bill of rights he advocated, wanted “to have something in pace that covers weaponized drones.” Further, he added, “I would like to see the definition of ‘missing person.’” he said, adding that that might “lead to a lot of fishing expeditions.”
“There aren’t ‘any useful federal policies that protect the safety of privacy of citizens,” Fenichel said.
“I appeal to you…ordinances are off limits to your authority. What I appeal to you to do is to have a resolution of the bill of rights of the defense committee.” He said that would have “much greater authority and power with the state legislators than me as an individual trying to talk with each of them. More importantly, it would demonstrate to the community a sincere interest and motivation that their privacy rights are well guarded by their freeholders, they have nothing to far, if it’s in your power. That same bill of rights document will protect from overflights of weaponized drones.”
“I will speak for myself,” said Thornton. “I think we could support this legislation as a significant first step to protect privacy and safety. I don’t know of another state that’s come out with this kind of commitment. This addresses most issues and concerns.”
“I don’t think it does,” Fenichel replied. “I hope you are not backstepping.”
“I was talking about this piece of legislation,” said Thornton.
“This is very very nonspecific, it’s the political wrangling process,” Fenichel said.
Thornton continued saying he believed the legislation addresses such concerns. Fenichel was adamant in his opposition.
Freeholder Kristine Gabor asked Fenichel, if he was concerned about the proposed legislation, “Why aren’t you in Trenton? Have you requested to speak before them?”
Fenichel said he was going to Trenton to oppose Sen. Jeff Van Drew and Gov. Christie’s nominee to the Pinelands Commission, and added, he couldn’t “spend my life” challenging such legislation.
“I’m asking for the best show of concern for your constituents. This is a good step, but it pales in comparison with the bill or rights ordinance.
“What about speaking to the senator and assemblyman?” Gabor asked.
“I don’t think I am a welcome person in his (Van Drew’s) office,” said Fenichel, due to his opposition of the South Jersey Gas pipeline to the B.L. England Generating Station, something Van Drew advocates. “I am someone he would rather not have a cup of tea with.”
Thornton added the board would “do everything possible to protect the health and welfare of this county. We may not do it in the way you think, but our consensus is, we are doing it. I feel we we all are trying to do the best job possible, not necessarily what you say. Very often, you are not privileged to the things we are as far as some of the threats made to the county of Cape May.”
After several more minutes of back-and-forth Thornton adjourned the meeting thanking Fenichel for sending his information.
“You are in the seat,” concluded Fenichel.