Somebody claiming to be Kyle Spaans wrote:
>"On the other hand, there are several provisions that would allow for
>the circumvention of digital locks, which include: reverse engineering
>for software compatibility; encryption research; personal information
>protection; access for persons with perceptual disabilities; and
>unlocking wireless devices."
>Is this even true? And if so, how can I convince him that these
>provisions aren't enough? I'm thinking of trying the "government
>controls over private property" angle.
The reverse engineering for compatability and encryption research are very
much there. I know the others were discussed in comittee, but do not have
on hand exactly which ones they passed. He was there, though, so I expect
these are indeed the set of (all of) the exceptions.
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)