-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 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) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPYQnqAAoJENEcKRHOUZzePWcP/2o82goGvtbpxR7ukHvvJvzh HpJD58bs0beoyt8pb0d2Qwpca9h+ij3VGhy9lWa2qrO8c04hrd+G2+YLEGfG93FF rga1rONawiLKMJ0RvjKkDPr5l8QNt3NfBCHX8qgXn7hH+k2pKpeS/XkLwgKxTrCG CvIHgsc+KvFWHGNCRX2OdUqX7nOg7VMOigN1ykBR74XJb1q+SGlMdDXOS9jOYRYW gfkc9lnTkmmrY/BV4eWCUTD7WfPZuS1y+ODPEFFMk/yuT1vUpaAE23iUjYfVn2wJ 1yaL9pi1v/AeoY56JwL7lN+HCU2L0tjhgU1gr8X5SxIQ/briUC/qnyblHh2z7HrJ wsaDR8A2c8yKGnt8CrAVJwBjcfXczh1yXfHoS5xypk2X+TF7r296DaqFHHPzSohb Z6dXA54Snu28QzOc4mMatMpeDyJl+4Sm6Cl+vwxKpGYcVzq0Bfio+HNMfcheMkV7 vfh+1TJ3e2QMuCXNB1Sui159uJEgLGzYFe5ofLgZBXNhp7WcSkB7ET2mTM0y4yn4 fdAjgxPaDodqnmHVqgmeBqn3r4XpzPcGVLQrBvLT1PZnLu+DS1FE2a56PvKLoBLy 9Ss/m6co5Eszl/Q6uBZFP+3PliUhJzSzhijaQR7Jf6OX4e7vBf8EWtq+Tr/oyiDx TmpufrKv7rT85owhgxos =gX1n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ fsfc-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
