they would share with the 10, that is the 20 used for newsgathering. your reaction to that plan?>> we are open to consider whenever. about a year ago, the defense department said it was not possible to share with us. if something has changed, if they had done testing, let us tests. tests erie it -- that is important because that is well broadcasters use especially in emergencies. it allows president obama during the boston bombing when he was getting his news of the a cable, he was told get me a live broadcast feed. it was on that very ban he was able to watch what was going on in boston. again, when these ideas are floated, it doesn't work and to get into the details -- it is important to get into the details and suggestions put out there. if something has changed and they can share, let us see the test that it can work now where cannot a year ago. >> looking at some the complaints about the proceedings are bit how is it not being transparent enough? with nab they were 15 times. how are they not being transparent enough? >> they said we will let you see what we are working with.

how do you see uavs being used in terms of newsgathering and first amendment issues, and how that is going to be combined with the privacy issue again but against first amendment concerns? >> we will go right down the panel spent on trees to see what jay has to say. thank you fo for the question. newsgathering is one of the great economic potentials of this industry when, in fact, the fa does legislate rules to commercial activities. newsgathering has always had a special place, some people argue it's the fourth branch of government and that, in fact, it is the freedom of the press that needs to be upheld. the needy would love to have access to these things, especially in situations where they might not be able to afford and an asset or they might be too dangerous like after a tornado or after a flood or something like that where images are extremely newsworthy but very difficult if not dangerous to gather. so there's a great value and i think the news media will be a big user of this technology when it is allowable. >> so this is a point where i really don't envy jay's position beca

broadcasters use that that for newsgathering and other things. your reaction to that plan?: we are open to considering but i would simply note that i think it was a year ago that the defense department said it wasn't possible but that hand is important because that is what broadcasters use particularly in emergency circumstances. that is the band that allowed president obama during the boston bombing when he was getting his news via cable but we were told get me a live broadcast feed. it was on that very band that he was able to watch live what was happening in boston. so again go when these ideas are floated it's really important to get into the details and find out the consequence of the suggestions that are put out there. again, good something is changed by the see the tests that say can work now where it couldn't have a year ago. >> guest: looking at some of the complaints how was the fcc not in transparent? they said that they met with n.a.b. folks. >> guest: understanding at all is really what they want us to do. we will that you see what we are working with. what we

newsgathering has always had a special place.some people argue it's the fourth branch of government and its the freedom of the press that really is upheld on this. the media would love to have access to these things especially in situations where they might not evil to afford a manned asset or a bike after a tornado or a flood or something like that where the images are extremely newsworthy but very difficult if not dangerous to get. there's a great value there and i think the news media will be a big user of this technology when it's allowable. >> this is the point where i really don't envy poor jay's role because he is the thread the needle between protecting first amendment rights on individuals whether legitimate journalists are citizens citizens citizens or lose that first amendment rights versus privacy so we see this actually from california. we have this paparazzi legislation in california that tries to deal with these types of issues. how do you thread the legitimate right for someone to take photographs of a public figu

newsgathering is one of the great economic potentials of this industry, when the faa writes the ruleso allow for commercial activities. newsgathering has always had a special place, some people think it is the fourth branch of government, and the freedom of the press needs to be upheld. media would love that have access to these things, especially in situations where they may not be able to afford a manned asset or where it is too dangerous, like after a tornado or a flood, where images are newsworthy but difficult if not dangerous to get. there is a great value there and i think the news media will be a big user of the technology when it is allowable. but this is a point where i do not envy jay's position because he has to thread the needle between first amendment rights for individuals to document where they are legitimate journalists or so the journalists, versus privacy. i am from california, and we legislationparazzi in california that tries to deal with these types of issues, and how do you thread the legitimate right for someone to take photographs of a public figure verses tha