Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Government Your Rights Online

How You Too Can Be Shut Down By the Feds For Flying Drones 195

Posted by timothy
from the fame-and-fortune-await dept.
An anonymous reader writes "University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor Matt Waite waived a government cease and desist letter recently received for his experiments using 3-pound, $500 drones for news reporting (specifically, for a story about drought in Nebraska). He gave journalism organizations the lowdown on what they can expect from the government on this front going forward and said he's posting his experience in trying to get certified by the FAA on GitHub so they can follow along."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How You Too Can Be Shut Down By the Feds For Flying Drones

Comments Filter:
  • Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:25PM (#45181543)

    No, that's not what news organizations can expect. That's what people trying to report on actual events can expect.

    The government selectively enforces rules like this. It has been for some time now. We have to keep you away from the raw and unadorned truth... it's dangerous to democracy you know. You will receive an edited and redacted version suitable for consumption within 3-5 business days. Thank you for your cooperation, Citizen.

    • Tin foil (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, the FAA is being very deliberate about shutting down everyone who is deliberately breaking the law by commercially flying uavs. They should prosecute instead sending a C&D

      • Re:Tin foil (Score:5, Funny)

        by HornWumpus (783565) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:39PM (#45181653)

        My hobby eye in the sky is legal. His professional eye in the sky is illegal.

        Mine is a scale predator drone. I use it to 'real world troll' groups with paranoid populations. e.g. Occutards, gun shows, teabaggers, privacy advocates, protestors in general.

        Completely legal as I'm doing it for fun.

        Hint for anybody thinking of joining the fun. Put a plant in the group to spot the drone just as it completes an orbit and disappears. Otherwise they won't see it. At 400 feet AGL a five foot wingspan drone is about right.

        • by flyneye (84093)

          I think they would actually have a complaint if it were a guided missle cam. Drones in the hands of newsclowns are about as benign as news trucks or hang gliding newsclowns. But NO ONE wants these f*ckups turned loose with guided missle tech. It would be a very bad thing. Our government not only lacks an appropriate grasp of priority, but also will bend over backwards and look like assholes to keep from looking like assholes over their carefully thought out policies. Perhaps they'll outlaw electricity as th

          • Putting a guidance system on any kind of rocket is already a ten year federal charge. Same as possessing an unlicensed machine gun.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              Putting a guidance system on any kind of rocket is already a ten year federal charge. Same as possessing an unlicensed machine gun.

              Yes, launching a rocket without any kind of guidance system is much safer for the general public. Government logic: Don't ask what it's being used for, just make it illegal.

              • Fins make a model rocket stable.

                Unstable rockets where called 'whistling rat chasers' when I was a kid and fun fireworks were legal (or at least readily available). Truth: they were called something else.

        • by luther349 (645380)
          isn't anything under 5k pounds ultra light and legile to fly in non commercial airspace.
          • by dougmc (70836)

            Most single engine planes are under 5k lbs.

            In general an ultralight has to be under 254 lbs [wikipedia.org] and there's some other limitations. And then you don't need a license to fly them, but they're still subject to many of the FAA regulations -- in particular about where they can fly.

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          You also don't publicize your drone in press conferences and written up in detail for advancement of your educational status.

          The best way to stay off the radar (figuratively) is to keep quiet about it.
          To keep off the radar (literally), stay out of controlled airspace.

          I could (in theory) build a really kick ass drone. Trans-sonic jet powered, enough fuel to fly over 1,000 miles, HD cameras in every direction, and whatever else I wanted to put on board. If it didn't fly in controlled airspace, avoided metro

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        No, the FAA is being very deliberate about shutting down everyone who is deliberately breaking the law by commercially flying uavs. They should prosecute instead sending a C&D

        Well, I'm deliberately telling the FAA's deliberate actions against the deliberate law breakers that they're deliberately being wrong. Deliberate.

    • Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Sunday October 20, 2013 @02:08PM (#45181837) Homepage Journal

      No it enforces this rule pretty evenly across the board. I suspect in 5 years this won't be an issue becasue they will have proper regulation.

      Drones are cheap. That means there will be a lot of them and we don't want a swarm of unregulated drones flying all about because it would be a hazard.

  • I didn't RTFA, but the price sure makes me believe these were RC model planes and not actually drones. Or is anything that's remote controlled a drone now? Do RC cars count? If I use a wireless keyboard & mouse, my computer should. My television certainly should qualify, it does nothing but drone when it's on.
    • by Megahard (1053072) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:41PM (#45181663)

      My television certainly should qualify, it does nothing but drone when it's on.

      In that case, my wife would also qualify.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The things that make an RC plane into a drone are the GPS and autopilot. If you have to be there with a controller making it move, it is an RC model. If it can move on its own according to a pre-determined flight plan, it is a drone.

      • by dougmc (70836)

        As far as the FAA getting on people's case, it usually doesn't matter if it's a R/C plane or drone at all -- what matters is if the use is recreational or commercial.

  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:37PM (#45181639)

    At what point is a hobby shop R/C Airplane or Helicopter a drone? I used to enjoy flying R/C planes as a teen. I mean they were the "trainers". I never had the space to dedicate a workshop towards building the larger model planes until recently. And delicate (and easily breakable) R/C planes and young kids probably wouldn't matter much.

    I now wonder if by the time kids get old enough to know better if I'll be able to get back into the hobby due to every R/C plane being classified as a drone...

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      RC Plane: no camera and needs to be in direct line of sight of the operator.
      Drone: real time camera and can be operated out of line of sight of the operator.

      See the difference?

      • by HornWumpus (783565) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:57PM (#45181777)

        You can have a real time camera, as long as you operate it in line of sight.

        You can't operate it for profit. e.g. Aerial photography of real estate.

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          can you rent it for personal photographing of real estate?

          it sounds though like this is actually lobbying by commercial small time pilots though... shooting real estate and sending people offers for them to buy them(the pictures) is so easy money.

        • by mysidia (191772)

          You can't operate it for profit. e.g. Aerial photography of real estate.

          What happens if you operate it for non-profit... and then at a later date profit from it?

          E.g. you post a youtube video of it.... you later decide to add advertisements; you get some click-revenue

    • Modern electric RC trainers like a slow stick are almost unbreakable. If your kids are old enough to shoot a 22 rifle they are old enough to fly RC. I'd say age about 8 to get started, depending on the kid. The slow stick is also surprisingly aerobatic.

      If they're still at the BB gun stage you could try them with a 3 channel indoor slow flyer. Those are dirt cheap. $50 bucks complete.

      • by dougmc (70836)

        Modern electric RC trainers like a slow stick are almost unbreakable.

        A slow stick is very easy to break. It's relatively easy to fix as well, but it's far from "almost unbreakable".

        A much more durable plane would be a foam flying wing like a Zagi -- motor in the back, foam everywhere else. That's much more likely to survive a hard crash than a slow stick.

  • s/waived/waved/ – it makes a difference.

    • by msauve (701917)
      In fairness, the summary carried that error over from the actual article. But in the article one could recognize the meaning from context. In the summary, it sounds like he simply ignored the feds.
    • by hawguy (1600213)

      s/waived/waved/ – it makes a difference.

      Thank you, I couldn't figure out how a private citizen "waived" a government cease and desist order, but it makes much more sense that he "waved" it.

  • Too Good To Live (Score:5, Interesting)

    by b4upoo (166390) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:40PM (#45181661)

    Drones have an ability to make truth more evident. Not only people but governments do not like it when truth is available. Any effort to make good use of drones will be met with huge resistance. For example we are willing to spend billions of dollars on a border control as long as it does not work. Imagine what a fleet of drones could do to halt illegal immigration. Now tell me just how likely it is that drones will be heavily used to patrol our borders. I have seen this same phenomena in police work where a couple of cops came up with a great way to curtail drunk driving. Two cops simply waited outside popular bars and stopped drivers who pulled out of the parking lot late at night. Almost 100% of the stops resulted in a valid drunk driving arrest. The city quickly halted the practice. The problem was that the town bordered another town and when word got out people simply drove a few hundred yards to get drunk in the next town's bars. In other words the real working policy of the city was to make a show of stopping drunk driving while making sure that they really did not stop drunk driving.
                    Drones work too well. By using drones we can expose situations and that endangers all kinds of social institutions. With a good swarm of drones on patrol we could really knock out almost all home burglaries at night. But how many companies and jobs depend on a busy criminal justice system? Society really is that perverted.

    • by popoutman (189497) *
      Most home burglaries are during the daytime - but your point is still valid.
    • by Kagato (116051)

      I think it's just a matter of unintended consequences. They will ultimately gain permission to use them for journalistic purposes. But the number of times you need to use a drone for a hard news story is pretty limited. On the other hand the number of ways you can you a drone as part of your paparazzi business is endless.

    • by mysidia (191772)

      The problem was that the town bordered another town and when word got out people simply drove a few hundred yards to get drunk in the next town's bars.

      It sounds like a chance for a collaboration between the two police departments of the bordering towns...

      Yeah, they got people to move elsewhere --- their failing was not working together to catch the people at the new bars they started migrating to.

      In just a few months collaboration, they could have massively reduced drinking and driving by bar tenan

  • I am a pilot... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jgreen1024 (975555) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:49PM (#45181719)
    Nothing stops these UAVs from flying in the same airspace as planes carrying people - all it takes is a little software malfunction. They are small and hard to see, aren't in radio contact with air traffic controllers, and don't show up on radar. There's a reason the government is concerned about them, and I suspect it's not about supressing truth.
    • Re:I am a pilot... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by HornWumpus (783565) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @02:02PM (#45181803)

      Those rules are simple. We stay under 400ft. You stay above 1000ft. We don't get anywhere near airports. We don't fly if we see any traffic.

      Even under those rules, RC is strictly non-commercial. Amateur reporters can continue to use eyes in the sky.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jgreen1024 (975555)
        I didn't know those were the rules. Are they well-known and well-understood? I've been out in fields in the middle of nowhere with two different people who were flying drones well above 400ft - nobody made any mention of a 400ft limit. I'm just curious.
        • The rules (400' ceiling) are well known by people who care about the rules.

          I've seen more than one Cessna flying well below 500'AGL far from airports, often with friends whooping and hollering from the ground... it will happen regardless of the rules and how well they are known.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            The difference is that the offending Cessna has a tail number that can be reported to the FAA. A pilot caught breaking the rules could get his license pulled. An unregulated drone would not have that kind of identification or consequences.

            • Models carry your AMA membership#.

              • by jklovanc (1603149)

                From the AMA [modelaircraft.org] web site;

                Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)

                It is difficult to see the inside of a model aircraft. Useful to return a lost aircraft. Not so useful to identify violators. One also does not have to be an AMA member to fly a drone.

            • Seems like this story is about a drone pilot who got identified and had some consequences...

              • by jklovanc (1603149)

                The fact he used an unlicensed commercial drone was the issue not that the drone was used in an illegal way.

                • by russotto (537200)

                  The fact he used an unlicensed commercial drone was the issue not that the drone was used in an illegal way.

                  The term "unlicensed" is a red herring. No licenses are available.

          • by luther349 (645380)
            isn't its 5,000 max for ultralight aircraft. anything above crosses into commercial.
            • by dougmc (70836)

              isn't its 5,000 max for ultralight aircraft. anything above crosses into commercial.

              You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

              The maximum weight for an ultralight in the US is 254 lbs.

              As for commercial use, that depends on the use, not so much the plane. If you're getting paid to fly Cub (at around 1000 lbs) -- that's commercial and requires a commercial license. If you're just flying it for fun, no -- but you will need a private or sport pilot license for it.

        • Re:I am a pilot... (Score:4, Informative)

          by HornWumpus (783565) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @02:54PM (#45182161)

          Those are AMA rules which are included by reference by the FAA.

          400 ft AGL, line of sight, weight limits (which escape me at the moment), airport standoffs, traffic rules are all spelled out.

          http://www.modelaircraft.org/ [modelaircraft.org]

          Most flying fields won't let you fly without membership (which comes with liability insurance). Rules are often printed or at least referenced in kit instructions etc.

          400ft is pretty high for a model. Often barely visible.

          • AMA means nothing to me, show me the LAW on a .gov site
          • 400 feet is *not* high, you need to get some telemetry on your models.

            Whenever I've flown a telemetry equipped model and shown other RC fliers just how low 400 feet AGL is, they are surprised.

            Given the low cost of telemetry these days, every club should have a model they can use to demonstrate how low 400ft AGL really is and that can be done by investing in a stand-alone system like this Wireless Copilot [wireless-copilot.com] or adding an altitude sensor to any RC gear (such as Hitec, FrSky, JR, etc) that has inbuilt support for

        • I didn't know those were the rules. Are they well-known and well-understood? I've been out in fields in the middle of nowhere with two different people who were flying drones well above 400ft - nobody made any mention of a 400ft limit. I'm just curious.

          Well known enough that they're brought up in every /. discussion on the topic. Well known enough that a brief Google check of various R/C aircraft clubs and associations shows that they list them on their websites. A check of a couple of manufacturer's webs

      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        Ypu seem to be a very conscientious pilot. Not all pilots are like you. What happens when someone finds an unlicensed drone above 400 ft or near airports? Nothing because there is no way to identify the owner.

        • People have been arrested for shining laser pointers at aircraft.

          The odds of getting arrested for being an idiot are generally pretty low.

          That said: This hasn't been a problem. I know of no cases of RC to full sized aviation mid-airs. I know of a couple of near misses involving military drones.

          The RC world is much more electric and foamy now then ever. Those are less of a threat then many birds.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            People have been arrested for shining laser pointers at aircraft.

            The person arrested was at the source of the laser. A radio transmission is much more difficult to trace.

            That said: This hasn't been a problem.

            Which does not mean there won't be a problem when the number of drones explode. Will you be one of the many decrying the lack of regulation when there is a problem?

            Those are less of a threat then many birds.

            Since we can't regulate birds we should not regulate lesser threats? That logic seems flawed to me. We regulate what we can to decrease threat.

          • by dougmc (70836)

            That said: This hasn't been a problem. I know of no cases of RC to full sized aviation mid-airs.

            Here's one for you [latimes.com].

            I imagine they happen with some regularity at places where R/C and manned aircraft share the airspace -- for example, at Torrey Pines [rcgroups.com] before R/C use was banned (not sure what the current status is.) Of course, nobody was arrested in those incidents and I don't even know that there were any injuries -- but there were some collisions.

      • by dougmc (70836)

        Those rules are simple. We stay under 400ft.

        There is no such rule for R/C planes.

        FAA advisory circular 91 57 suggests that, but it's not a rule -- that's why it's called "advisory".

        The AMA rules (not law, but we can call them rules) say stay under 400 feet if you're close to an airport, unless you coordinate with the airport.

        Most powered R/C flights are indeed under 400 feet, but glider pilots break that ceiling with every good flight.

      • Re:I am a pilot... (Score:5, Informative)

        by mbeckman (645148) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @11:51PM (#45185431)
        I'm a pilot too. A helicopter pilot. You've got the rules wrong. Fixed wing aircraft stay 1000' and higher. But helicopters fly specifically at 500' AGL for the most part, as we are required to "avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic." So there is a scant 100' clearance between us and potential catastrophe from an errant RC pilot. Drones are a worse hazard than RCs to helo pilots, because drones are often flown by idiots whose sole qualification is a Frys Electronics gift card. This includes the so-called drone journalists, who uniformly, in my experience, are ignorant of airspace rules and regulations.

        Putting drones at the same site as an active news story likely to be covered by helicopter ENGs is abject stupidity. Drones, even million-dollar military models, are incapable of complying with the FAA's see-and-avoid visual flight rules for traffic separation. The technology to sense and avoid other aircraft in the same close quarters simply doesn't exist. Drones should be specifically outlawed in any journalistic or commercial role because they cannot operate with the same separation helos have from overlying fixed-wing traffic.
    • While we are at it, we should start strictly regulating the millions of other objects [wikipedia.org] with the same properties that you described.
      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        By that same logic you shouldn't license urban dogs because you can't license urban raccoon. You regulate what you can.

        • I wasn't aware that licencing domestic dogs solved a problem that is presented by urban raccoon.

          Besides, raccoon can't fly. What kind of logic is that?

          • by ShaunC (203807)

            Besides, raccoon can't fly.

            Of course they can [mariowiki.com]!

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            Both animals root through garbage, defecate on public land and can cause a safety hazard to small children. Licensing allows identification of the owner. The parallel I was trying to draw is that there are some things we can not regulate and we live with them but that is not a reason to not regulate things we can.

    • by hawguy (1600213)

      Nothing stops these UAVs from flying in the same airspace as planes carrying people - all it takes is a little software malfunction. They are small and hard to see, aren't in radio contact with air traffic controllers, and don't show up on radar. There's a reason the government is concerned about them, and I suspect it's not about supressing truth.

      Of course, the same is true of geese and other birds and there are a *lot* more 10 pound geese in the air than 3 pound UAV's.

    • Birds also fly in the same airspace as planes carrying people, they are small and hard to see, many of them weigh more than 3lbs, and they often fly in large flocks.

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      There's nothing stopping an RC plane from doing the same. The definition of "drone" here is an RC plane capable of being operated outside LOS of the controller/pilot.
      • No, the official definition of a drone is an "unmanned aerial/aircraft system" and if you dare to fly an RC model for financial reward, it automatically becomes a UAS, regardless of whether it's flown right in front of your face or 100 miles away beyond visual LOS.

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          So Estes model rockets from the '70s were "drones" (as they were unmanned aerial systems)? When a paper airplane is a "drone" then the definition is broken.

          The guy selling helium balloons needs a permit, as he's making money selling drones, and any kid who lets one go is a felon, operating drones without a license.
        • by dougmc (70836)

          No, there is no official definition of "drone". The FAA uses different terms -- they don't call them drones. The media calls them drones (often incorrectly), but the FAA has more specific terms that they use.

    • by mysidia (191772)

      Nothing stops these UAVs from flying in the same airspace as planes carrying people - all it takes is a little software malfunction. They are small and hard to see, aren't in radio contact with air traffic controllers, and don't show up on radar.

      They're also small, perhaps a few feet wingspan, and probably pose about as much danger to a commercial aircraft, as a bird hitting the windscreen.

    • by luther349 (645380)
      you can fly any ultralight at 5,000 feet and under thats how you keep everyone apart.
  • by jklovanc (1603149) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @02:03PM (#45181809)

    Is this the same place that was in an uproar about licensing drones all over the US? There are people who seem to think that anyone should be able to use drones except the government. Interesting dichotomy there.

    • The uproar I remember (I'm not implying it was valid concern) was about the government using armed drones to kill Americans on American soil with nothing more than an executive order. Unless the news agency was flying armed drones, I see no hypocrisy.
      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        That is incorrect I am referring to this [slashdot.org] discussion about the use of unarmed commercial surveillance drones in the US.

        • Well, no, I was correct about what I remembered. Thank you for refreshing my memory about that article, though. Unfortunately, that article and discussion doesn't present the dichotomy you mentioned as the article mentioned the privacy groups were concerned with

          electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well

          The discussion also seems to reflect quite a bit of concern about improper use by corporations. I still see no hypocrisy.

          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            Private citizens and news agencies will never misuse data gathered by drones? Why is privacy from news agencies different than privacy from the government. Both can ruin someone's life.

            Take that article and discussion summarized as "drones are a danger to privacy" and this article and discussion summarized as "the regulation of drones is interfering with the freedom to observe" and I see a dichotomy.

            Did you notice that the regulations are about commercial drones? AKA one use by corporations. News agencies a

    • Why is that strange to you. There are MANY rights the citizens have that the government does not.
      • by jklovanc (1603149)

        Such as? Citation please. By the way, flying a drone is not a right.

        • Do you even understand the word Liberty?
          • by jklovanc (1603149)

            If you mean "do what I want when I want how I want" that is not Liberty it is Anarchy. What does Liberty have to do with the government not being allowed to do things that the people are allowed to do.

            I looked a a few of your other posts. Part of the time you are demanding citations from others and part of the time you are defending not having citations yourself. Maybe you need to look up the term hypocrisy [thefreedictionary.com].

  • by rueger (210566) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @02:26PM (#45181971) Homepage
    You know, even by Slashdot standards this summary is remarkably incoherent. And that's ignoring the waived/waved confusion.

    "he's posting his experience in trying to get certified by the FAA on GitHub so they can follow along."

    Likely his problem was that the FAA doesn't use Github for certification. They have their own computers and application forms and stuff.
  • by davidwr (791652) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @02:41PM (#45182089) Homepage Journal

    Regulating the parts of the airspace routinely used in interstate commerce is the job of the Federal government.

    I don't know what the actual "airspace" that the feds claim jurisdiction over, but common sense would say it's anything at or within the safety margin of the lowest altitude a commercial aircraft flying from one state to another or flying in or out of the United States would routinely use over that spot, or the lowest altitude a military or other federal-government-owned aircraft would routinely use over that spot. In most areas the "FAA floor" should be a few thousand feet at the lowest (I suspect it's much lower, but I digress). For areas within a few hundred feet of runways, helipads, etc. this may be all the way to the ground (sorry kiddies, no radio-controlled toy airplanes for you without FCC approval).

    However, FAA regulations should be safety-oriented, not use-oriented.

    States should and do have the right to impose safety regulations below that height.

    Now, when it comes to radio transmissions, the FCC gets involved. They can and for all I know do impose rules that would prevent a ground-based kiddie-toy remote-control aircraft transmitter from interfering with other, higher-priority, licensed radio users including radios used by commercial aircraft.

    For aircraft which emit pollutants into the atmosphere, the feds also have the right to impose pollution controls.

    One other thing that can come under regulation is the actual purpose of the drone's use and the harm to society by allowing the drone to fly at all. I'm thinking noise pollution from low-flying drones and invasion-of-privacy issues from drones with cameras aimed at your backyard swimming pool or aimed at your windows. Most of this should come under state regulation, but things like flying near one state's border and photographing inside someone's window who lives across the border would reasonably come under Congress's purview, as would photographing into the backyard of a home located on a military base even if the drone were flying over private property with that landowner's consent.

    Now, would I favor my state banning camera-less or camera-turned-off drones flying over private property with the owner's consent, or flying so high and so quiet that they are not a nuisance but not so high that they interfere with interstate commerce? No, but I would expect my state to ensure the safety of such craft. Would I favor my state banning photography from a drone if the subjects of the photograph and/or their owners consented, and the photography wasn't creating a nuisance, safety, or other issue for anyone else? No.

    • There needs to be regulation, I agree. The problem is that what the FAA is doing currently makes no sense whatsoever.

      Lemme just address some of points and concerns you've brought up...

      If I'm not mistaken, full-size aircraft (For lack of a better term) are supposed to maintain an altitude higher than 1000' AGL unless on takeoff or approach. And RC craft can't fly higher than 400' AGL or within, I think it's 3 miles, of an airport or its approach corridor. (And general rule of thumb is if you can SEE any ai

  • Just tape a handgun to your drone. Then maybe you can get the NRA to cover your legal costs and Republicans to fight for you in Congress.

    A Barrett M82 .50 caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle with 60,000 rounds of ammo is legal, but a quadracopter with a webcam isn't?

    I could make a case that there's something a little out-of-whack in the good ol' USA.

  • Without seeing the letter, and knowing more about the context... this article amounts to nothing but flamebait. It's entirely possible that Professor Waite, being quite inexperienced, has violated one or more of the existing regulations and has mistaken that for 'repression'. Digging around the relevant websites fails to discover any evidence that's he actually done any work or research on said regulations, only that he's an advocate for their use in journalism.

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...