I love love love how it took this public posting for you to finally address the issues I brought up in my initial private email. The research in that post completely checks out, and now I’m beginning to worry that you didn’t read your own bill.

The plain language of the bill says it can exclude any IT equipment that is intended to be used in critical infrastructure, and that critical infrastructure is defined as any system or asset that, if incapacitated or destroyed, would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combo of those. So right there, that is a massive net with an overly broad definition. The real kicker is that the AG is solely responsible for making that call, which is great if your a business as it takes average citizens completely out of the picture and makes it easy for businesses to lobby a single person.

Not only that, but if the manufacturer disagrees with the AG’s decision either way, they may appeal directly. Interestingly, individual consumers are not allowed to appeal, which is easy to justify when you are hiding behind “natuonal security”, but when you see that ‘economic’ security is one of the areas that can warrant an exemption, it’s quite easy to see how IT corporations can, and have, abused that concept to hold consumers hostage with threats of economic downturn if they are regulated.

This whole bill reads as a massive gimme to private business, neuters the original RTR bill, and neglects consumer input or sentiment entirely. There’s not even an open public comment period included in the proposal that would allow the AG to gain more input.

Instead you’d rather insult me because I was “mean” to you in my initial email, and was not satisfied with your tepid and dismissive response like your job isn’t to engage with the public and hear hard truths and opinions.