Alphabet Unit Wing Blasts New US Drone ID Rule, Citing Privacy (reuters.com) 105
Alphabet's drone delivery unit Wing criticized Trump administration rules issued this week mandating broadcast-based remote identification of drones, saying they should be revised to allow for internet-based tracking. From a report: On Monday, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued rules that will allow small drones to fly over people and at night in the United States and mandate remote identification technology for nearly all drones. The rules eliminate requirements that drones, known formally as unmanned aerial vehicles, be connected to the internet to transmit location data but requires them to broadcast remote ID messages via radio frequency broadcast. "This approach creates barriers to compliance and will have unintended negative privacy impacts for businesses and consumers," Wing said Thursday in a blog post, adding "an observer tracking a drone can infer sensitive information about specific users, including where they visit, spend time, and live and where customers receive packages from and when." Wing added that "American communities would not accept this type of surveillance of their deliveries or taxi trips on the road. They should not accept it in the sky."
"Wing Blasts" (Score:1)
For a second I thought that was a thing now.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
My Unit Wing is going to completely Blast you out of the sky, citing privacy, before you even figure out what any of the words mean.
Re: (Score:2)
My Unit Wing is going to blast your Cloaca Wing out of the sky, citing privacy.
Re: In other words (Score:2)
Yeah, that about sums of the concept. Internet based tracking is not helpful in terms of identifying a problem drone. It needs to be transmitted in an accessible manner on a frequency that you can receive. I won't say in the clear because you may want to have some information encrypted. You will need to have some frequency sharing going on, but I'm sure clever folk can work that out.
A corporate play (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet-based tracking would basically lock hobbyists out. Who can afford a dedicated cell subscription just to fly a small drone on the weekends?
The broadcast option makes a small tracking device affordable. Requiring an internet connection means that only deep-pocketed corporations will be able to fly drones.
The original version of the rules was changed from required internet access to broadcast-based for exactly this reason. Alphabet is trying to change it back.
Re:A corporate play (Score:5, Interesting)
They're arguing against essentially the same identification requirements as traditional commercial aircraft.
And yes, I believe you are correct as to their motives. They'll cut a vertically integrated sweetheart deal with every cell operator in the US while competitors are left to foot a painful communications bill.
Re:A corporate play (Score:5, Insightful)
The original rule worked for business, but not individuals.
Business users are happy to let the government know where they're operating, but they need to keep it confidential to the public to protect their customers. And people trying to prey on their customers would be in the vicinity to receive a radio broadcast.
Individual users don't mind broadcasting a beacon, so people operating craft nearby can avoid collisions, but they don't want to have to be tracked by the government. And they certainly don't want to buy an extra cell phone subscription for their toy.
They'll figure it out. They just need to do both; then most people are happy. If you don't want to broadcast a beacon, then use the internet reporting and be restricted to safer flight patterns consistent with business use (no crowds, no night flight, etc) And if you want to broadcast a beacon, then you can fly in more places and times.
I'd make a few small changes; if you're using a beacon I'd require the ground control station to also broadcast a low power signal, so that emergency workers can find the location of the operator if they need to instruct them to stop flying. Obviously, criminals wouldn't be broadcasting that. But for crowded public events it would be very useful to be able to locate legal operators quickly if needed. I'd also require drones using the internet reporting to have a beacon receiver with collision-avoidance software.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Its called a barrier to entry, dumbfuck, and corporations love paying whatever small cost it is to get the government to set it up for them
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
THey gain nothing money wise for extra work. You seem to forget that corporations are money whores, its all about the money and nothing else.
As an active trader I might point out that for public corporations, if they're not money whores I won't buy their stock.
As an engineer, I know there is no cost. For business use you want the extra electronics anyway, you're tracking it yourself either way.
It is only the hobbyists who incur any extra cost.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree people don't want to buy an cell subscription for their toy I think the problem is being somewhat exaggerated.
These things will be very low data rate and have very low network impact. I am sure the carriers will be happy to sell affordable "drone-sims" because it would be almost pure profit for them at any price.
Lots of other hobbies are regulated. I can't drive my classic car out on public roads without still having to have license plates and tags, but my state does at least offer discounte
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure the carriers will be happy to sell affordable "drone-sims" because it would be almost pure profit for them at any price
LOL You're European, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Get a second SIM card for your existing contract and put it into the drone, or get the sim out of your tablet and put it into the drone ... can't be so hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a second SIM card for your existing contract and put it into the drone
That'd be hundreds of dollars per year extra on many U.S. rate plans.
or get the sim out of your tablet and put it into the drone
My Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8" is Wi-Fi-only and therefore lacks a SIM.
Re: (Score:3)
Internet-based tracking would basically lock hobbyists out. Who can afford a dedicated cell subscription just to fly a small drone on the weekends? The broadcast option makes a small tracking device affordable. Requiring an internet connection means that only deep-pocketed corporations will be able to fly drones.
:The FAA's overview of the rule [faa.gov] states the beacon will use WiFi/Bluetooth, so no cellular plan is needed.
Drones and model aircraft will need one unless they operate in an FAA-recognized identification areas (FRIAs) maintained by community-based organizations or educational institutions. FRIAs are the only locations unmanned aircraft (drones and radio-controlled model airplanes) may operate without broadcasting remote ID message elements.
That requirement would essentially eliminate non-beacon drones/model
Yeah, Google concerned with privacy. (Score:5, Interesting)
"American communities would not accept this type of surveillance of their deliveries or taxi trips on the road. They should not accept it in the sky."
Yeah, like a license plate that is readily readable by anyone else sharing the road with such a vehicle — or an observer watching the vehicle pass by.
Google likely doesn't want this because they don't want people to constantly see Google Drones overhead taking pictures, watching people, mapping wireless, etc
Re:Yeah, Google concerned with privacy. (Score:5, Interesting)
They do in fact accept it in the sky... All piloted aircraft today have transponders that people happily track across the sky; Including who is flying in and out the high end meetings.
Awww poor rich people have to be watched and have their activities known
Re: (Score:3)
My poor attempt at sarcasm failed, because I'm with you. Boats above a certain length are required by the USCG to carry an AIS transponder. They're even popular with smaller boats because, guess what, it's nice that when you call out for help, people can locate and identify your boat easily.
There is no problem here, accountability is not an invasion of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets look a bit more to the future, when most shops have their own delivery drones. That would include the local adult novelty shops trying to discretely drop ship your 36" dildo to your porch by drone. Except that drones give out transponder signals, and you absolutely know there is going to be a database somewhere where your prude catholic neighbors can look up where the drone they just saw on your porch came from.
Now can you see the problem? Maybe you personally don't mind that, but can you not see wher
Re: (Score:2)
Like "most" shops do their own delivery now.... Mom and pop shops? OH HELL NO!
We don't get to play "it's 1940 and people will do their own" just because we want to, let's get real shall we?
Re: (Score:3)
As much fun as it is to imagine JIT airborne dildo delivery, nobody's going to do that. You'll use Fedex or UPS or whatever, just like you do today. And those delivery trucks don't exactly use cutting edge stealth technology.
Re: (Score:2)
As much fun as it is to imagine JIT airborne dildo delivery, nobody's going to do that. You'll use Fedex or UPS or whatever, just like you do today. And those delivery trucks don't exactly use cutting edge stealth technology.
You have to admit, the whole "seduce the delivery driver" fantasy takes on a new meaning when it's a drone...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that drones give out transponder signals, and you absolutely know there is going to be a database somewhere where your prude catholic neighbors can look up where the drone they just saw on your porch came from.
And you could track their "special" items like those whips and butt plugs as well. Mutual Assured Destruction. Personally, it's not the Catholics I worry about but those evangelicals who seem to think anything someone else does they don't like is evil. Might be interesting to see what that maga preacher is getting delivered.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true, all piloted aircraft do not have transponders, they are not required equipment except in class A (above 18,000 feet), B (20 nm radius and 10,000 feet above the 37 busiest airports*), and C (10 nm radius and 4,000 feet above the next ~125 busiest airports) airspace, and, with a huge exception mentioned below, above 10,000 feet unless you are within 2,500 feet of the ground (e.g. if going over a 12,000 foot high mountain, you can fly at 14,500 feet without a transponder). On a flight with no
Re: (Score:2)
That pretty well covers anything that's commercial, right?
Try it this way... It's NOT commercial if I sneak into your back yard and look through your windows... But your damned well not going to like or approve of it and would likely want to know if I did/do it... And that's what this regulation is aimed at.
Re: (Score:2)
"American communities would not accept this type of surveillance of their deliveries or taxi trips on the road. They should not accept it in the sky."
Yes, and to further your point . . . no taxis drive through my backyard . . .
. . . and in addition, none drive over my "Get off my lawn!" front yard either.
When I go into the firearm shopping mall, I see on the shelves: Buck-Shot, Bird-Shot and Rat-Shot.
Now I am thinking that Drone-Shot will be on offer.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Can not comment on deliveries but I sure know that here down under taxis have very comprehensive GPS logging.
I can run up a programme that shows me detailed mapping info on where taxi xyz has been, speed, heading, etc.
No prizes for figuring out I work for a taxi company - and taxis in the good ol' US of A do not have similar stuff? F' Me!
what a load of nonsense (Score:2)
If I see my neighbor taking delivery from a drone, I'll know their pickup place and who. Local neighborhood creep with cameras could drive around and learn about everyones', see ID broadcast is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
If the threat to packages was from a local neighborhood creep, we wouldn't even have the word "porch pirate," and there would not be internet connected cameras installed in people's front doors.
Re: (Score:2)
Porch pirates can just cruise around and spot landing drones or standing packages, same as now. I don't see how the drone's ID is relevant at all, just detecting a drone is, whether by eyeballs or radar.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much this. Broadcasting location information might be a privacy concern if drones are going to drop things on balconies or in back yards, where a box isn't going to be visible from the street. But even then, I would think that lower resolution or noisy position data would provide an acceptable trade-off.
For example, as a drone approaches its destination, smoothly blend a 50 meter CEP offset, and revert that after departure. The error magnitude could be scaled based on building density or some simi
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you people so silly?
If the drone is required to broadcast an ID, than this is obviously not the position.
If it has to broadcast its position via internet, it is obviously encrypted, just think: HTTPs.
If the drone is broadcasting ANYTHING, e.g. a video stream: you can simply pinpoint and track its position with two receivers.
Re: (Score:2)
We are not silly. We just know what the FAA rule [faa.gov] actually requires:
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it is silly to assume, that it is affecting your privacy. :P
Reread my post and you likely grasp it
Re: (Score:2)
Your first comment was as moronic as almost all of your other comments. Re-reading it will not endow it with any kind of coherent thought or sense.
The drone is not required to only broadcast ID; it is required to broadcast other things as well, including its current position and velocity.
Citing "encryption" via HTTPS is so pants-on-head stupidly irrelevant that it made me lower my estimate of your intelligence even further.
The idea that you can pinpoint or track something moving in three dimensions with ju
Re: (Score:2)
I think we are talking about two different things.
It does not matter what the drone is required to transmit.
The point is: if it is transmitting, you can can pinpoint it, regardless what it is transmitting or if it is encrypted.
So: you should not need to care ... if you do not grasp that simple thing: you are silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I already told you why that was a stupid claim. Go read my last comment again.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you probably have a strong case of reading comprehension problems ...
Re: (Score:2)
You argue that someone with a substantial number of receivers -- at least two, if they are really fancy, but more likely at least four simple ones -- could track a device that broadcasts a signal. You claim that this is exactly as much of a privacy threat as that device broadcasting a signal that contains even more information and which can be processed by a single receiver. The FAA encourages drone manufacturers and operators to make the Remote ID signals receivable by COTS mobile phones. So in practice
Re: (Score:2)
No, I did not claim that.
Your lack of reading comprehension puts that into your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't claim that specifically, because you're too ignorant to realize what is needed. What you wrote: "If the drone is broadcasting ANYTHING, e.g. a video stream: you can simply pinpoint and track its position with two receivers."
As I told you twice already, this is only possible with two very sophisticated receivers. The FAA rule requires the drone to broadcast a signal that allows better tracking with a single, simple receiver. You also do not understand that an essential part of threat analysis i
Re: (Score:2)
I did not even talk about the stuff you want to talk about.
Seriously!!!
The FAA rule requires the drone to broadcast a signal that allows better tracking with a single, simple receiver.
Yes. You told me now the 4th time. Or is it the 5th?
What the funk is wrong with you? I do not care about FAA ... I never mentioned it, I never talked about it, it was never a topic.
Re: (Score:2)
This entire article is about the FAA rules for drones. If you didn't realize that was the topic, you are even dumber than I thought.
Re: (Score:2)
For funk sake: I know it was the topic of the article!, but my post was not about that.
It was about stupid privacy concerns!
How damn stupid are you? Why did you even answer to me the first time?
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, why did you even bother to so many comments that ignore both relevant facts and the rather clear context of what you replied to?
Re: (Score:2)
My answer was pretty clear.
And obviously half a joke.
And you started insulting me, so what are you expecting?
Re: (Score:2)
The only clarity in your answer was clear error, and it was not obviously a joke, unless you mean from your name at the top:
I expect you to post comments with some redeeming valu
Re: (Score:2)
So you are not able to read?
Rofl, what exactly is not common sense there?
Re: (Score:2)
All of it. Every claim you made was wrong. And you are again changing your defense -- instead of being "pretty clear" and "obviously half a joke", now you claim it was all "common sense".
The only thing that was obviously a joke was your name at the top, indicating "the following comment was posted by a moron". And now, common sense tells me to stop feeding the troll, but to save this thread's URL for reference.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not make any claims.
Sorry, do you really have reading comprehension problems?
I answered to your post, and obviously to the two or three posts above you, who all where concerned about privacy. I pointed out: that is a silly concern. Then you went ballistic and started insulting me ... good luck :P
Re: (Score:2)
1) No, you don't have time in most cases to even see where it landed by the time it left. And with a drone, it doesn't need to get left on the porch; you could have a small platform with a small fence around it that it landed on, so you wouldn't be able to see if there was a package waiting, and it would be more difficult to access than a porch.
2) That is not the only security problem. Not every delivery has the same security needs, and not every recipient has the same security needs.
3) There will be a lot
Re: (Score:2)
you are hilarious, just driving around one would see drones landing. your small platforms with fence don't exist and in any case could be raided, by other drones or purpose built harpoon (climb, stab or adhere and pull) one could throw together for $5 or less
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe your city doesn't have trees, or buildings, but most do.
And "just driving around" is also called "cruising," and in most places they can already be stopped and cited at that point, and potentially have their car searched.
Furthermore, there are apparently way more license plate readers than you realize. If they have to keep driving around, there will be massive evidence against them, and when they got caught once, their whole history with the activity will become easy to investigate.
Using another drone
Re: (Score:2)
your "argument" is senseless and without logic.
already "porch pirates" are cruising and grabbing, all those countermeasures you claim exist aren't working already. Therefore, I'm right, drone landing spots will be the new porches, that's all. A fence won't stop anyone who wants a package.
Re: (Score:2)
your "argument" is senseless and without logic.
And you're a moron.
Re: (Score:1)
One doesn't exlude the other (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm totally going to supplement my PiAware with a drone broadcast receiver.
Shoudln't they have ADSB out? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The aviation community objected to using ads-b out on drones because it would likely overload the system. A simpler beacon system with its own bit of spectrum is probably better for drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Your phone. (WiFi and Bluetooth) (Score:2)
The IETF proposal for this (DRIP) uses Wifi or Bluetooth.
Bluetooth is of course limited to the smallest toys you fly around your backyard, which the federal government has no damn business tracking anyway, but that's a different post. If the IETF proposal is accepted, your smartphone is your receiver, just grab any app that uses the protocol.
IETF, for those who aren't familiar, is the organization that writes standards like http, SMTP and TLS.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with Wifi and Bluetooth is they're connection-oriented, not broadcast, which requires a much more complicated receiver and both the receiver and transmitter have to be actively communicating for several packets. A broadcast system, like ADSB, is much more robust in the face of interference from surface objects and other communication shadows.
This is not a command and control system, it's a tracking and collision avoidance system. Using Wifi would be like using a lighthouse that doesn't work unle
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Wifi and Bluetooth is they're connection-oriented, not broadcast, which requires a much more complicated receiver and both the receiver and transmitter have to be actively communicating for several packets.
It would seem that a variant of transmitting an SSID with the required data would be sufficient so no actual connection would be needed. A standard format would allow any receiving station to decode the data without having to actually negotiate a connection. This wouldn't be WiFi or BT in the current way it is used, but rather an additional use of the spectrum.
It's broadcast. It's wifi, not WPA (Score:2)
The UAS to ground communication is broadcast. It's wifi; it's not tcp and it's not WPA. WPA creates an association, a connection. DRIP isn't WPA.
> receiver and both the receiver and transmitter have to be actively communicating for several packets.
If you wanted to join *secured* network and use it for TCP you'd need to exchange several packets. Each of those packets would be inside of a frame, which would contain the MAC address of the sender. With DRIP, the MAC address is the drone ID, so all you need
Re: (Score:2)
Ps, as far as "a much more complicated receiver", you get get boards with MCUs that do not only WiFi, but also WPA, DHCP, and TCP for under $2. These are fun boards to make IOT devices with:
https://m.aliexpress.com/item/... [aliexpress.com]
Since you don't need WPA, TCP, and web server for DRIP, you could use something much simpler, something that costs a lot less than $2. The $2 boards have 16 million bytes of memory; you could do DRIP with 256 bytes.
Re: (Score:2)
No reason it couldn't be. You can buy a $20 software radio that will do ADS-B in, or build yourself a dedicated one for even less. If you wanted one that interfaced with your avionics you'd have to pay the Garmin tax, of course.
I think the FAA is thinking more that airports would have receivers so they could detect any incursions into their airspace. Small drones are mostly a concern for aircraft when they're taking off and landing. Larger drones designed to fly high could get actual ADS-B out.
Re: (Score:1)
An ADSB receiver would probably be useful but a transmitter probably uses too much power for drones. Plus, as someone else noted, it would likely overload the system.
But something like ADSB, with a straight broadcast packet and no handshaking with the receiver, but with lower power and range (ADSB is powerful enough to be tracked from orbit) would work.
THird party cookies (Score:1)
Just saturate the system. It's easy. (Score:2)
At present, there is no limit to how many Drone-IDs you can register. So register 10,000 of them! It will be easy to generate a different (registered!) transponder code for each flight. After all, it is NOT the specific drone that is being regulated, but the transponder (and, implicitly, the operator). There is no rule saying that a specific ID must be permanently and uniquely linked to any particular drone: It is linked to the OPERATOR.
I can have a single ID and 10,000 drones, so long as I fly only one
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA will have no problem tracking down those who violate flight rules. But others trying to invade your privacy will have a slightly steeper hill to climb.
The rule also allows the use of session ids to add a layer of privacy since only public safety orgs can request the id operators of of drones using them.
Sensitive information? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is thinking ahead of the really big market I see ... obviously no one cares if you get an UPS package or pizza delivered. The only real use case where the information would be sensitive is drugs, your friendly neighbourhood pusher will just have to use a local drone courier which mixes the drugs up with other business.
Google against tracking (Score:3)
Is there a glitch in the matrix or something? Google of all companies complaining about tracking? Ha Ha Ha.
I sort of agree and would go further. Drones shouldn't have to be trackable. Also unless there is some key exchange authentication requirement (maybe there is, I don't know), I don't see why a criminal wouldn't just use a cloned ID.
Re: (Score:1)
WTF? (Score:2)
I WISH hypocrisy had consequences! The kind that corps like Google could feel.
Tragically, it's practically a virtue in the USA.
Also, WTF are people complaining about tracking IDs on drones? You don't have the right to fly heavy objects over everybody at dangerous heights; likely in populated areas with full anonymity!
You must have a licensed vehicle to drive big killing machines on the public roadways AND you must be licensed yourself to operate it; plus mandatory insurance (also likely forced by law to b
Re: (Score:1)
Google is complaining about LOCAL tracking, which they don't have cheap access to. They want INTERNET tracking, which they have cheap access to, and will aggregate in with everything else they track about us. They will likely lobby to change license plate laws to require all cars broadcast their location/IDs, since so many already have wifi access point software & hardware built in. They can't track a license plate easily, but they can track electronic ID's cheaply. It sounds like tin foil hat stuff
Re: Google against tracking (Score:2)
I sort of agree and would go further. Drones shouldn't have to be trackable. Also unless there is some key exchange authentication requirement (maybe there is, I don't know), I don't see why a criminal wouldn't just use a cloned ID.
They can clone license plates too, and airplane registration numbers, and that's not enough of a reason to not have those things.
Not sure what the definition of tracking is here, but most people strongly disagree that a flying camera or guided rock should be totally anonymous in public airspace.
Using privacy as the excuse is extra rich, because it's the same thing used to pour on hate for ALPR, but a flying camera/sensor platform without a transponder is freedum? Makes no sense. Transponders are the most
Hmmm (Score:1)
Americans wouldn't accept surveillance? (Score:1)
> American communities would not accept this type of surveillance of their deliveries or taxi trips on the road. They should not accept it in the sky."
Are you kidding me? Americans accept full warrantless wiretapping of their communications by their government without blinking an eye. There's a lot of things they shouldn't accept.
Again and again (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Alphabet concerned about privacy? (Score:2)
Just allow both (Score:2)
Just allow drone operators to use internet based or RFID systems, whichever they prefer. That way big companies can have their "privacy" and smaller operators can function without the overhead/complexity.
Non-existant barrier, easy solutions exist now (Score:2)
Here's a solution made for drones: uAvionix drone ADS-B transponder [uavionix.com]. Google can follow the same rules that the rest of us follow.
As a pilot, I find it disconcerting that anyone can directly receive the ADS-B transmissions from my aircraft, know who I am and all manner of details about my flight. I honestly do not like this. However, it is important to draw a distinction between an aircraft and a car - cars are limited to roads. If the driver of a car starts driving in an unlawful manner it is pretty eas
I wonder what they'll say about license plates. (Score:2)
Those also "broadcast" an ID to their surroundings. More primitive, but same exact purpose and function.
Also, Google bitching about privacy ... *ba-dum TISS*
clear monopolistic arguments (Score:2)
So clearly Google is making arguments here with very little respect for the intelligence of the government or other people who may care about these regulations. It's a poorly disguised attempt to lock in a scale-based monopoly at the expense of common sense regulations.
I think a lot of us here remember fondly the days when companies like Google cut through this kind of BS coming from Microsoft and they simply provided useful services fairly. It's... sad to see the culture that was developed 20 years ago s
IDs can lead to lists (Score:1)
Short-range drone jammers are already a thing. Now we could have services selling whitelists or blacklists based on IDs so we can choose which drones are allowed in our private airspace (in the US: 83 ft or the highest point of a ground-attached structure, whichever is lower, based on legal precedent).
Trump had nothing to do with it (Score:2)
Remote ID has been in the works for years. The FAA realized years ago back in the Obama administration that they couldn't uninvent UAV technology so they've spent the last several years trying desperately to control it. Part 107 certification is a joke but God help you if the FAA catches you doing something they don't want you to do. The commercial UAV companies (yes, DJI, I'm looking at YOU), took it upon themselves to bork your expensive machine (yes, those $30,000 Matrices) unless it can contact the m
Internet tracking is a security vulnerability (Score:2)
Google, please don't advocate for flying IoT devices - we all know the security nightmare the current pool of IoT devices is causing to the world already.
Imagine DOS attack, pretending thousands of drones are heading for the white house, or the inauguration of a new president, etc. With internet, sources can be spoofed, net bots can be used, other ways (such as TOR) may be used to obfuscate the reporting origin. Amateur drones would operate no different than other amateur IoT devices, a large number of them
Re:Love that leftist slashdot bias (Score:5, Informative)
Either slashdot is biased, or you are just dumb. Let's check. The "Trump administration" wording was lifted directly from the first link in this article. The FAA language from your linked slashdot article was lifted almost directly from the link in that article (expect slashdot abbreviated United States to U.S.).
So I guess I have my answer.
Re: Love that leftist slashdot bias (Score:2)
Only one more week? Woohoo. Oh wait, you're just "incorrect as usual King Friday."
Re: (Score:3)
"Orange man bad no matter what." It is about time you understood that. Don't inject the bleach, bad for you.
Re: Love that leftist slashdot bias (Score:4, Informative)
Nope, if orange man did something good that would be fine, he just seems to have a knack for doing the wrong thing no matter what. It's not the Democrats who twisted themselves in knots to justify throwing out 150 years worth of Republican political philosophy of balanced budgets, states rights and small government.