Caveat 4.11.24
Ep 213 | 4.11.24

Is a department of space in the future?


Bryce Kennedy: You know, you look at the FAA does one thing, the FCC does one thing, BIS looks at export controls for this. You know, State Department does this, commerce does this. And I realized very quickly that there was no cohesive approach to space for the US for the most part. So that's where my original thought to what if we created a Department of Space where there was one, well, one stop shop where people could go for information and at least some guidance from a national standpoint?

Dave Bittner: Hello everyone and welcome to "Caveat" N2K CyberWire's Privacy, Surveillance, Law and Policy podcast. I'm Dave Bittner, and joining me is my co-host Ben Yelin from the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security. Hey, Ben.

Ben Yelin: Hello, Dave.

Dave Bittner: On today's show, Ben and I are joined by Bryce Kennedy, president of the Association of Commercial Space Professionals. He's sharing his concept for a Federal Department of Space. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney. All right, Ben, we are going to go slightly off script here because we have two main stories we're going to cover together, and they're not entirely unrelated. So we're going to start at the top here. Coverage from "WIRED" about finally, maybe, perhaps we could be seeing federal privacy legislation making its way through Congress. Ben?

Ben Yelin: It's possible. It's possible.

Dave Bittner: What's going on here?

Ben Yelin: I would not- if I were a betting man, I still would not wager any of my money on this happening.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: But this is a very promising development. So two members of Congress, Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, and representative Cathy McMorris Rogers, a Republican also from Washington put together a bipartisan proposal that was just released called the American Privacy Rights Act, or APRA. That bill would limit the types of consumer data that companies can collect, retain, and use, allowing only the collection of the data that these companies would need to operate their services. The bill would allow users to opt out of targeted advertising. People could view, correct, delete and download data from these online providers. There would now be a national registry of data brokers, and those data brokers would need to have users opt into having their data sold, which would be a pretty radical development. The most controversial aspect of all of these bills is this issue of preemption. So states, including one that we'll talk about in our next segment here, are passing comprehensive data privacy laws. It started with California. The way this law, and basically all other proposals are structured, is the federal law would occupy this territory and would preempt state law, meaning the federal law would be in effect and the state law would not. So states like California and their representatives look skeptically upon these laws saying that, you know, California has done something stronger than what's contained in this bill. So, for the sake of Californians, this would actually be a step back in terms of data privacy. I think there's a creative solution that the sponsors have come up with here, allowing states to craft laws related to things like civil rights as that relates to data privacy and not be preempted under this potential federal statute. So it'd be a limit on the preemption authority of this federal law. So how close are we to actually getting this thing done? I think the best news I can share so far is that nobody's panned it.

Dave Bittner: I think there is a --

Ben Yelin: Since where we are, right?

Dave Bittner: Yeah, I think there is a desire among members of both parties to craft a bipartisan solution on data privacy. The obstacles are inertia and the kind of nitty gritty of the details of the proposal as they made- as it makes its way through the committee process. So whether it's preemption, that's going to be the hangup as it was at the end of 2022 when there was a federal data privacy bill that was making its way through Congress. Speaker of the house at the time, Nancy Pelosi from California, was worried about that preemption element. And that's part of what killed that piece of legislation. So whether it's that or some other issue that ends up grinding the gears which tends to happen with our United States Congress, you know, there are always those pitfalls, but this is certainly a promising development. These are two serious, well-respected lawmakers. McMorris Rogers has been in Republican leadership but she is also, I wouldn't say on the moderate side, but just kind of on the bipartisan side of the ledger in terms of House Republicans. And Senator Cantwell is bipartisan enough that she has co-proposed bills with Ted Cruz on --

Ben Yelin: Wow.

Dave Bittner: -- federal aviation matters because they serve as the chair and raking member respectively of the Senate Commerce Committee. So I'm going to say I'm hopeful.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. I have to say one of the things that really surprised me about this is, as I was reading up on it, is how little it is watered down out of the gate, right?

Dave Bittner: Yeah. They really put their best foot forward here.

Ben Yelin: Just the ability to opt out of targeted advertising. That seems huge to me if it makes its way through. Just imagine how much better your online experience would be if you could just flick a button that turned off the creepy following of advertising around the net, right?

Dave Bittner: Oh, totally. I mean, it would be a complete game changer. Now, from a policy perspective, I think that's a double-edged sword. I guess maybe not from a policy perspective, but from a user's perspective that would cut down on the amount of free content you would be able to consume on the internet, because everybody's got to eat. If you opt out of targeted advertisements, it's going to force media companies in particular, I think, to put things behind a paywall, which I think, you know, is the future. I pay for journalism that I --

Ben Yelin: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: -- want to read and respect. But that's definitely a potential drawback I could see.

Ben Yelin: I want to push back on that and here's --

Dave Bittner: Yeah. Push back on it.

Ben Yelin: Well, because here's- I think that neglects to remember the, I don't know, half a century or so of advertiser supported media that we have had that- and still have that is television and radio, right? Where you do not have the degree of targeted advertising that we have today with online stuff, and everybody made a lot of money, right? So the degree of targeting was, okay, this is sports, well, who watches sports?

Dave Bittner: People who drink Bud Light.

Ben Yelin: Right. So we're going to put that in front of them. Like, why can't we allow that amount of granularity that doesn't infringe on the creepiness factor? You still know if I- if I'm on Facebook and here are the groups that I'm interested in, you still know a lot about me, but you don't have to know my location. You don't have to know my sexual orientation or whether or not I have a certain disease, right, to be able to put things in front of me. And it all worked just fine. I feel as though we've lost track of the fact that that doesn't necessarily have to be a requirement for a profitable system of advertising and advertisers supported media.

Dave Bittner: I think there's something to that. I'm sure the companies would push back on it.

Ben Yelin: Right.

Dave Bittner: But, you know --

Ben Yelin: I mean, that's been their differentiating factor. That's been their secret sauce.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: And what has put them in the position to put the traditional media companies, you know, back on their heels.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. And they would say, well, our model of offering you free content basically, depends on this targeted advertising. And without targeted advertising, we wouldn't be able to, you know, keep as many writers on the payroll. I'm not in a position to evaluate how true that is, and whether that's actually a deciding factor. I'm kind of interested in seeing the counterfactual where this law is passed. Most people opt out of targeted advertising, and we see if some of these companies end up surviving. I will note that there is a threshold for applicability under this law. So small businesses, those with $40 million or less in annual revenue and limited data collection would be exempt under this law.

Ben Yelin: Right.

Dave Bittner: Enforcement would be focused on businesses with 250 million or more in yearly revenue. There are also carve outs for governments and quote entities working on behalf of governments such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. And there are also exceptions for cybersecurity and fraud fighting non-profits. So we have those carve outs. The fact that enforcement would be focused on businesses with more than 250 million in yearly revenue means that this is targeted at the big guys.

Ben Yelin: Right.

Dave Bittner: And I do think it's a greater probability that they could absorb this change.

Ben Yelin: Well, I mean, I think we can look at what happened to Facebook when Apple turned on a bunch of privacy stuff on their iOS devices, right? And that affected Facebook.

Dave Bittner: And they did the chicken little routine.

Ben Yelin: They did. And it affected Facebook's bottom line in the billions. But Facebook is still profitable, right? I mean, there's no danger. It was not an event that put Facebook in any sort of mortal jeopardy.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: Now, I suppose, I mean, these big companies are going to be coming great guns with their lobbyists to water this down, right?

Dave Bittner: Yeah, they are. And if they can't water this down, they're going to try and kill it. They're going to probably run targeted ads, which is the irony of all ironies, right? Telling people to call their members of Congress and don't stifle innovation and --

Ben Yelin: Right.

Dave Bittner: -- keep content free, et cetera, et cetera. So I think we all have to look at that with a watchful skeptical eye. It may seem like there's kind of consensus around this, but something really kicks into gear. This isn't just true for data privacy laws, but really for all pieces of major legislation. Like when there's actually a chance of it passing, everybody gets serious and the lobbyists descend on the hill, they schedule meetings, they rally the troops. You know, I think in a way that doesn't happen when an idea is just up high in the sky. So I think no matter what, because of how strong this bill is, I think there's going to be a major pushback from the industry, and they have creative ways of getting it out into the public consciousness that this is going to- even though it's really just bad for them, they're able to convince a lot of people that it's bad for everyone.

Ben Yelin: Right, right.

Dave Bittner: Well, we will have a link to that story in the show notes. Particularly, we've been leaning on some of the coverage from "WIRED" for our conversation here. So do check that out to see some of the nuances there. I want to follow up on that with- at a more local level and hyperlocal for you and me, both being Marylanders.

Ben Yelin: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: Me lifelong and you, you know, having moved.

Ben Yelin: I'm an adopted Marylander, you know?

Dave Bittner: That's right. Maryland passed a couple of privacy bills the past week or so, and these are a big deal. What do we need to know about this, Ben?

Ben Yelin: It's a huge deal. So Maryland's general assembly session, as we're recording this, ended at midnight last night. And just under the wire, they passed two major pieces of data privacy legislation. The first is Maryland Online Data Privacy Act, which broadly would impose wide ranging restrictions on how companies may collect and use the personal data of consumers in the state. There are a lot of similarities between this law and some of the other comprehensive state data privacy legislation that we've seen starting with CCPA, but there are a series of really important consumer protections in this bill. This bill would require controllers of data, so these big companies, to establish a secure and reliable method for a consumer to exercise their rights as part of this bill. There would be- there are timeframe and related requirements for a controller to respond to and to comply with requests from consumers. The controller has to notify a consumer within a specified amount of time if that controller doesn't take action on the consumer's request. There are all these kinds of specified rules and procedures that allow consumers direct access to challenge their data collection. So I think it's a really interesting promising step for the State of Maryland. If these companies violate any of these consumer protections, then they would be violating the Maryland Consumer Protection Act because these violations would be considered unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices. So you have that as kind of an enforcement mechanism. The state can level civil and criminal penalties against these companies who violate these consumer protections. In terms of thresholds in this bill, it applies to companies that control or process the personal data of at least 35,000 consumers, excluding personal data control to process solely for the purpose of completing a payment transaction. So I think that excludes those kind of payment applications.

Dave Bittner: Oh, I see. Sure.

Ben Yelin: But I think any, when we're talking about a threshold of 35,000 consumers in Maryland, obviously all of the big companies we know and love would qualify. The other threshold provision beyond that $35,000 is even a company that only has a customer base of 10,000 consumers in the state. If they derive more than 20% of their gross income from the sale of personal data, they would also be subject to the regulations under this piece of legislation.

Dave Bittner: Now, the other one is called the Maryland's- the Maryland Kids Code.

Ben Yelin: Yes.

Dave Bittner: What does that entail?

Ben Yelin: So, the Maryland Kids Code Act prohibits social media companies -- again, it's targeted the big guys. So they have those same type of threshold requirements, video games, and other online manufacturers from tracking people under 18 and from using manipulative techniques like autoplaying videos or bombarding children with notifications to keep young people glued online. This is really, I believe, only the second or third kids code type statute that's been enacted across the country. And this certainly has raised the hairs of industry leaders and their lobbyists groups because they're concerned about the cost of complying with this Maryland statute. Certainly creates a burden on them. Any covered entity under this piece of legislation that violates the bill's requirement, that does allow these companies to market to children in a way that violates the provision of this bill would have to pay $2,500 per affected child for each negligent violation and 7,500 for- per effective child for each intentional violation. So when you add that up and the number of childhood users in Maryland of these applications or video games, et cetera, those are pretty significant penalties. I know a lot of kids who, including two of my own in the state of Maryland who consume online media.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: And I think this would change their online media experience. So another just really interesting progressive groundbreaking bill. As I said, these both have passed the Maryland General Assembly. They're now on the desk of the Governor of Maryland, Westmore. Per custom, the governor in Maryland either signs almost all bills or allows them to become law without his signature. Vetoes are exceedingly rare in our state government, especially for policy reasons. Sometimes there are vetoes if bills are duplicative, but the lobbyist groups here are pretty aggressively going after Governor Moore to try and- trying to get him to veto these bills. I don't think that they're going to be successful. I think these are going to be enacted. And Maryland has certainly taken a lead in legislation protecting data privacy.

Dave Bittner: Well, the coverage from the New York Times talks about this group called Net Choice, which is a trade group that represents folks like Amazon, Google, and Meta.

Ben Yelin: Yes. We've talked about them a good deal in the past, because they're the plaintiffs in a lot of these Supreme Court cases that deal with various laws attacking big social media companies.

Dave Bittner: So we do, we suspect that they'll come after these Maryland bills?

Ben Yelin: Totally.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Ben Yelin: So once these bills are signed into law, that's when the lawsuits begin. There are a bunch of potential grounds for lawsuits here, including issues of federal preemption. In some circumstances, they're going to throw everything they can at the wall and see what sticks. I think it's far too early to say what the disposition would be of these laws, though my hunch is that they'll probably survive. There have been facial challenges to these laws in other states, and for the most part, those have withstood judicial scrutiny. States have significant leeway in regulating the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. And I think the argument from these states is by ensuring data privacy, by granting consumers the protections contained in these two pieces of legislation, that is a proper use of Maryland's police powers.

Dave Bittner: Well, before we wrap up this whole conversation here, let's swing back to where we started. To what degree would the proposed federal legislation preempt what Maryland has done here?

Ben Yelin: And I kind of think it would preempt it pretty significantly. Now, if you are solely concerned about data privacy, I think that's fine, because the current federal legislation is quite strong. My concern would be if the legislation is watered down significantly, the federal legislation, but still contains those elements of preemption, or what the courts recognize as preempting state law, that would be very ba- very bad for the state of Maryland and other states who have passed comprehensive data privacy laws. And in that case, I think you would start to see opposition from the Maryland Congressional Delegation and they might be able to kill a weak data pri- federal data privacy bill if it preempts something stronger like the bill we're seeing coming out of the State of Maryland.

Dave Bittner: All right, well, we will have links to these stories in the show notes, and of course, we would love to hear from you. If there's something you'd like us to consider for the show, you can email us, it's [ Music ]

Ben Yelin: Ben, it is always a pleasure when our next guest gets to join us here. And that is Bryce Kennedy, president of the Association of Commercial Space Professionals. Bryce, welcome. So one of the things we want to highlight today is this notion that the US should, in your opinion have a Department of Space. Can you make that case for us?

Bryce Kennedy: Yeah. So this came about when I was doing my LLM and we were researching, and I was just starting to get into the space industry. And as I was starting to look at the policy and the regulatory framework of everything, I realized how disparate everything was for, you know, space companies, decisions made, all this other stuff. And, you know, you look at the FAA does one thing, the FCC does one thing, BIS looks at export controls for this. You know, state Department does this, commerce does this. and I realized very quickly that there was no cohesive approach to space for the US for the most part. I mean, granted, there's the Space Council, but from what I hear, it doesn't have a lot of teeth or as much as people would like. So that's where my original thought to what if we created the Department of Space where there was one, well, one stop shop where people could go for information and at least some guidance from a national standpoint.

Dave Bittner: And were you thinking about a cabinet level assignment here?

Bryce Kennedy: I was thinking that, yeah, when I originally wrote this paper,

Ben Yelin: So the last cabinet agency we designated was the Department of Homeland Security back in 2002. I would guess that there would be pushback from critics about creating a new cabinet level position. So I guess my question is, what is your answer to that potential pushback? Why is this necessary?

Bryce Kennedy: You know, I wrote about that in my paper to highlight exactly what not to do, but also I used it as a point of exactly what was needed. So it was kind of twofold. And let me say this, so I kind of wanted to debate here to see what you guys thought too, because the more I really get into space and the- kind of understand as we start to shape the industry at large, you know, it is a domain, it's a lane of commerce. And Matt Fetrow here at AFRL in Albuquerque, he once said, space isn't special. It's just another place to do business. And once he had said that, not that I'm walking back my comments of Department of Space potentiality, I'm trying to find similarities like the Department of Homeland Security that would exist. But to your question the thing that scares me the most is the lack of cohesion. And, you know, for what it's worth, going through a lot of the 911 reports and just looking at the breakdown of the different agencies that had this information on the terrorists and, you know, the- down to the local police stations, and no one could communicate to each other, nor would they share information which led to, you know, potentially, this disaster. That would be my argument for a department of space where if we're looking at it from a security standpoint or just purely if we- the US wants to be a commercial, you know, behemoth, that I think would be extremely necessary. So we don't have that problem. And then use the DHS in their, you know, some would say failure as it stands right now for just typical government bloat to not do that.

Dave Bittner: What do you suppose the current apparels are if we do nothing?

Bryce Kennedy: I'll put my lawyer hat on right now. The thing that scares me the most, I was having a conversation, you know, here in Albuquerque, we do a lot with Air Force research labs, and they're really pushing for- to get off the ground, obviously space commerce with their cyber sitters and all kinds of awardee programs. I was talking about how we really need to understand that regulations should be a little bit more agile so we can get our commercial entities off the ground, you know, way beyond just Lockheed's, Boeing's and all this group. And I was ta- talking about the perils of export controls and how just even a stamp of ITAR required materials puts in massive burden on a space startup to overcome that and then also limits their trait. And it was funny, he goes, boy, I had no idea. We just stamped that it needed to be ITAR approved on everything to cover our butts. He had no idea the impact of what that was doing for the commercial industry. And so I think that is one of the things that really worries me the most is that there are these requirements that are coming from commercial from all these different entities, and yet the entities themselves don't talk. And that is one of the huge barriers I think for our commercial industry.

Dave Bittner: You know, I see the domain of space of- is getting more and more crowded, right? And one example is, you know, in the, I guess you could say the consumer facing space, although it certainly has expanded more than that given the situation in Ukraine. But I'm thinking about the Starlink satellites, right? So we have this constellation of satellites that have gone up and even down to the level of home astronomers are perturbed, right? Because it's blocking their view of the heavens. Who has say over an entrepreneur wanting to put up a constellation of satellites? What are the hoops and guardrails that exist right now?

Bryce Kennedy: Yeah, I think I forget who oversees that, but [laughs] I think as it stands right now, other than, and I could be wrong, it could be the FCC. I need to double check that, but let's go with that, FCC. That there's a certain color for satellites that go up, but it's not a requirement. It's purely right now public opinion and public outrage to your point of astronomers saying, we don't know if it's a star anymore, or it's blocking the stars. And so Starlink will go back and allegedly paint their, you know, their things. And see, that's the thing that is- I could go on about this forever, but the education to the people that they, A, have a voice that B, they need to have a voice for this because they are going to shape the future of it. And then B, you know, Biden just proposed this new tax on launch carriers for anyone going up in space. And it's like, well, you know what? We tax the airlines, why wouldn't we tax this? The problem is that, I was talking to someone at the commerce department, they're like, well, the problem where this falls short is it doesn't tax anyone outside the US, just the US. And so here's another hurdle again, that potential commercial industry would have to face is, you know, you look at the companies, I think someone said that space startup companies fail at a great 95 to 97% rate. It's massive, massive. And to impose another tax or another limitation is just, to me, such a shame. But one of the things that I'm trying to do is really get the public to understand, like I said, that they have a voice, but also to not just want, like, hey, we need more regulations, or it shouldn't just be playboys and billionaires or this, that thing. To understand that the domain is much, much more and to have that diverse opinion is really good right now.

Dave Bittner: Can I ask you a stupid question?

Bryce Kennedy: Yeah, please.

Dave Bittner: I mean, I guess that applies to many of my questions, but couldn't we expand the jurisdiction of NASA? Which is not a cabinet level agency to deal with these sort of regulatory jurisdictional battles about private enterprise going into space? What would be wrong with simply expanding NASA's reach into that area?

Bryce Kennedy: I wish it was a stupid question because then I'd have a really stupid answer, but that's a really good question. This is where I would say, okay, so one of the big arguments is that NASA should focus on exploration and experimentation and anything beyond that, people start to get very weary of their overreach into these things. To your point though, they have come, they have done a lot of the groundwork from environmental risk assessments to, you know, orbital launch issues to, you know, the ISS and working international cooperation and how does this work and how does that work? So they've laid a lot of the groundwork, but the one thing in my opinion, and I know there's going to be NASA acc- accolades out there that will land base me and they should, is that they're still, for better or for worse, I think one of the pure entities out there that really continue to share information beyond any other space, you know, organization in the entire world. And I think once they start getting into jurisdiction issues or commercial issues, and, you know, granted, they do prop up a lot of commercial industry right now through their experimentation and their awards. But once you start getting into that, I think it taints it, in my opinion, a bit more than- and would take away from the overall mission. And I think we need the NASA right now, I still think we need that kind of beacon out there where people, you know, you see a James Webb picture of the universe, it still inspires something so deep and it doesn't say at the bottom, you know, sponsored by Boeing. So it's --

Dave Bittner: Well, it shields them from politiciz- politicization as well.

Bryce Kennedy: Yeah, I think that's a great point. Like NASA is one of the few federal entities that rises above the fray because like most of what we associate with NASA is super cool pictures, as you said, from the web telescope and you know, landing the rover on Mars. So I do think there's some merit in that.

Dave Bittner: Are there existing players who you think would be naturally resistant to this idea, you know, with the DOD say, hey, listen we don't need anybody, you know, putting their business in our spy satellites and that sort of thing.

Bryce Kennedy: Yeah, you mean in terms of?

Dave Bittner: You have all these established players, you know, the DOD, the communications companies, the SpaceX is the world, even NASA. They're used to a certain status quo. And to have someone come in and say, hey there, you know, there's a new sheriff in town. I could imagine there being an understandable resistance to that.

Bryce Kennedy: Sure. Yeah. Well, you look at the debris mitigation and who controls what and getting anything off the ground. Like everyone is taking their piece of the pie as quickly as possible. The other thing- and so yes, and we we're seeing it right now, you know, one of the things that we're trying to do is just get people trained to understand how to even do an FAA license or an FCC license. And it's not that they're bogarting the information, it is just that the subject matter experts are retiring. It's been done this way, so why do it any other way? You know, the government really breeds this mentality of like, if it isn't broke, why fix it? And then the other part is if we start ceding control, then that means job security. You know, one of the things that I start off in my class, I teach adjunct class at New Mexico Tech of Space Law and Policy to engineers, I show them the Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. And at the bottom, you know, it's survival, it's the base layer of food, shelter, and water. And I go, this is where most basal level decisions are made from, and it's survival. And as much as we want it to be something else and pretend that we're not just a bunch of primates, you know, walking around, that is the thing. And so each agency to me, the more I get to understand them, has that mentality. It is survival, survival, survival. And you know, what do you do in survival? Moms throw cars off their children, you know?

Dave Bittner: Right.

Bryce Kennedy: We rush into fires. Like, can you imagine that as an agency level for survival? That's why I think any kind of department of space or kind of you know, coalescing of groups into one would probably not be- not happen unfortunately.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Bryce Kennedy: That's my standpoint now.

Dave Bittner: So you sort of have a, I guess, a wise resignation. Is that a fair phrase?

Bryce Kennedy: It is, it is. Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry that this came full circle, but it's one of these things where unless, unless, unless, unless. This is the thing that every- I do say about the US is it would take another act of war, a disaster where I could see that potential. I hope it doesn't happen. Where there could be a department of space fold into one, like we saw with DHS.

Ben Yelin: Do you think we could have a spinoff show of Space Force, the widely panned Fox comedy with Steve Carrell, that is about the Department of Space?

Bryce Kennedy: Oh, it would be brilliant. Oh, yeah.

Ben Yelin: And can you be the co-creator.

Bryce Kennedy: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: All that, and --

Bryce Kennedy: It would be brilliant.

Dave Bittner: -- all that and bureaucracy too, right?

Bryce Kennedy: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: All right. Well, Bryce Kennedy is president of the Association of Commercial Space Professionals. Bryce, thank you so much for taking the time for us today.

Bryce Kennedy: I appreciate it. Thanks for having me back on. [ Music ]

Dave Bittner: That is our show. We want to thank all of you for listening. A quick reminder that N2K Strategic Workforce Intelligence optimizes the value of your biggest investment, your people. We make you smarter about your team while making your team smarter. Learn more at Our executive producer is Jennifer Eiben. The show is mixed by Trey Hester. Our executive editor is Peter Kilpe. I'm Dave Bittner.

Ben Yelin: And I'm Ben Yelin. Thanks for listening. [ Music ]