Cuba Eases Decades-Long Restriction on Sea Travel

On April 22, the Cuban government lifted restrictions preventing Cubans from entering or exiting the island via cruise or commercial vessel. Following the controversy surrounding Carnival Cruise Line’s discriminatory prohibition of ticket sales to Cuban-American’s, the Castro government changed a decades-old policy as they were faced with the potential loss of millions of tourist dollars to be made off of American cruise lines.

The New York Times discussed the change in policy which seems to have been motivated by the agreement between Carnival and the Cuban government, as well as several lawsuite filed in the United States against Carnival Cruise Lines. The new Cuban travel regulations also allows the entrance or departure of Cuban nationals aboard commercial vessels. As reported by the Times, Carnival and the Cuban government have been engaged in talks following the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Carnival by Cuban-Americans for discrimination. 

Though many are optimistic about business deals between Americans and the Castro regime, a senior policy advisor for PobleteTamargo noted that, “The face-off served as a reminder that Cuba’s thicket of laws and regulations remained far from business friendly.”

Carnival Cruise Line’s will now sell tickets to Cuban-Americans wishing to set sail to Cuba, but the class-action lawsuit has not been withdrawn. The Wall Street Journal reported that plaintiffs are still objecting to the unique passport requirements for Cuban born travelers who have arrived to the US after 1971, who must also present a passport from the Cuban embassy in Washington, DC.

For more details, the NYT article can be found here.

eMerge Americas 2016

The eMerge Americas 2016 Conference was hosted in Miami, Florida last week during which two sessions were held regarding U.S. policy toward Cuba. Moderated by NBC-Telemundo 51’s Alejandra Molina, the panel included President and CEO of Stonegate Bank, Dave Seleski; Brookings’ Ted Piccone and PobleteTamargo attorney, Jason Poblete. 

During the discussion about the potential of a future Cuba market, Poblete stressed caution to U.S. companies before engaging in Cuba transactions. While there are opporunities, albeit limited, especially in telecommunications, travel, healthcare, and agriculture, Cuba remains subject to a comprehensive economic embargo and, in practice, there is no private sector in Cuba.

Poblete also stressed that companies that could engage in Cuba transactions also needed to be mindful of confiscated properties in Cuba, the claims for which are held by American citizens. Cuba owes U.S. taxpayers close to $8 billion for these claims and, under U.S. law, it is illegal to traffick in these properties without U.S. government authorization to do so. 

Further information vist the eMerge website. The video of the presenation should be available shortly. 

 

The Drone Debate

In 2012, the FAA was instructed by the Congress to create guidelines regulating drone operations in national airspace.2 For the most part the FAA has gone unchallenged as the governing body of air transportation mainly because boundaries and state lines don’t exist past a certain altitude making federal control over airspace logical. 

However, more specifications describing the authoritative parameters will be necessary as a number of conflicting regulations have been passed on both the State and Federal level. Last year, 45 states debated 168 drone bills and 20 states passed at least 26 pieces of legislation related to civilian drone use.3

In May 2015, Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) introduced to the Senate the Commercial UAS Modernization Act (S.1314), addressing the extent to which the FAA can regulate Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The bill, which is currently under review, aims to amend the previous FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 so that drone owners will be able to operate without an airworthiness certificate, currently outlined by the FAA’s notice of proposed rule making published in February 2015.4

The Commercial UAS Modernization Act is still in the works following the approval of legislation in February, which establishes an independent group outside of the federal government to update current air traffic control systems. The Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act (HR.4441) also reaffirms the FAA’s authority as the nation’s aviation safety regulator. Critics of the AIRR Act point out that provisions of the current text would thwart potential innovation and expansion of drone technology by prohibiting flight of any drone made by unapproved manufacturers.5

As these various regulations and proposals overlap, control over airways, however, is typically a safety concern and does not include protection of an individuals’ privacy. In 2015, the majority of State laws and regulations passed pertained to privacy, gaming, and use by law enforcement. 

Technology expansion, interstate commerce and airway safety, as important as they are, remain far less complicated than the underlying struggle between federal and state authority over the protection of an individuals’ privacy. The protection and comfort once associated with private property are now threatened by the possibility of low-flying drones capable of surveying and transmitting image and video content.

Historically, privacy and aerial surveillance laws have been largely a State issue. Statutory and Common Law protections against non-governmental intrusions, wiretap laws preventing the recording of images and/or conversations without both parties consent, and Peeping Tom and anti-voyeurism laws have been largely the responsibility of State governments.

Privacy protection in this sense is dependent on the law of that land which determine to what extent privacy is protected and enforced. States do not have a uniform definition of privacy nor do they have a uniform disciplinary action should privacy be encroached upon. These variations have raised concerns amongst the UAS community as drone operation is not restricted by State lines. Creating a successful nation-wide privacy protection policy would require extensive research and testing making it more than a long term solution.

Instead of prematurely assigning authority to one governing body or another, potentially dismantling all current privacy protection laws which have been established over hundreds of years of litigation, we should consider a more balanced approach and make adjustments as concerns present themselves. States are already addressing related matters in local courts and legislation, and through trial and error, successful policies will develop. Over time, once nation-wide information is available, we will be able to pick out location specific factors and see the universally applicable details.


 

  1. See “Almost 400000 Drones Are Registered With the FAA” http://www.pcworld.com/article/3044087/almost-400-000-drones-are-registered-with-the-faa.html (last accessed March 16, 2016).
  2. H.R.658 – FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
  3. See “Current Unmanned Aircraft State Law Landscape” http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/current-unmanned-aircraft-state-law-landscape.aspx (last accessed March 14, 2016).
  4. See “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems” https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf (last accessed March 16, 2016).
  5. See “Senate Bill Could Ground Home Built Drones” http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/03/16/senate-bill-could-ground-home-built-drones-no-exceptions-for-hobbyists-or-students/#77115b33a6f2 (last accessed March 16, 2016)

PobleteTamargo Honored to be Part of Bipartisan WWII Guam Reparations Legal Team

On March 28, the bipartisan group called Guam World War II Reparations Advocates, Inc. announced that they will be forming a non-profit that will file suit against the US government in attempts of receiving compensation and recognition for the suffering experienced during WWII.

This decision comes after many decades of failed attempts at seeking war reparations for the citizens of Guam. War reparations have been provided to other survivors of the very same war but the citizens of Guam received far less in comparison.

Led by Senator Frank Blas Jr., the bipartisan group includes many congressmen including Senators Jim Espaldon, Tony Ada, and Tina Muna Barnes. Guam Delegate Madeline Bordallo, who supports the groups actions, has brought up the issue numerous times in Congress. She has introduced the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act that has passed in the house five times but has yet to clear the Senate. 

During World War II, Guam was the one of the only pieces of American land occupied by enemy forces. Many natives of Guam endured two years of Japanese rule. As Senator Blas Jr.,, the nation of Guam is losing members of the island’s greatest generation on a daily basis and the US government should recognize and honor the suffering they endured.

The announcement has been covered in various articles including “Bi-Partisan Non-Profit Group to Sue Federal Government for War Reparations” by PNC News First. As stated in the article, the group will be represented by attorneys Mauricio Tamargo and Jason Poblete at PobleteTamargo LLP.

“Cuba al día” by Martí News – On Travel & Trade Regulations With Cuba

On March 15, Martí News spoke about the upcoming Presidential trip to Cuba on the show “Cuba al día”.

In the first part of the radio show, Martí reporters Tomas Cardoso and Cary Roque discuss the recent regulation amendments to travel and trade with Cuba by the US government with analysis provided by Jason Poblete, attorney at PobleteTamargo.

The second portion includes an interview with Guillermo Farinas, who received an invitation to participate in a meeting at the US Embassy in Cuba during President Obama’s visit.

The interview, in spanish, can be found here.