Danny O'BSep 19, 2017
I don't know how to say it any other way. If I tell you how to bypass EME, just that act is breaking the law. Same if I wrote a script to do it. We can't even *talk* about this software without taking on legal risk
Show threadKyle R. Conway

@mala Thanks for writing about this. As an end-user―disconnected from the actual discussion; but deeply caring about the outcome―this result is disheartening. A years-long argument affecting the present and future of computer use for seemingly everyone.

It's hard to believe both ignorance and malicious intent, but I have to ask―are there any arguments on the other side that swayed or could have swayed you? I find DRM inherently unpalatable, but I don't want to believe it totally lacked reason.

Sep 19, 2017 at 4:27amWeb
Show threadDanny O'BSep 19, 2017
@K_REY_C I think the steelmanned version of Tim and others' arguments is that DRM can be improved by creating a standard contained environment for the binary blobs that protects privacy (and potentially) security. The counter-argument is that entire environment is a legal minefield for anyone investigating or auditing it, so one of the key ways that privacy and security is advanced -- which is third-party oversight, is stripped away.
Show threadKyle R. ConwaySep 19, 2017

@mala Right. So they undermined their own best argument (at least on security/privacy) by not pressing for an legal exemption for investigation/auditing. *sigh*

Also, this is my first encounter with the term "steelman" and I must thank you for introducing it to me. Wonderful!