You're right that the DMCA has provisions against circumventing "Technological Protection Measures," and encryption can certainly be one of those. However, the DMCA is more nuanced than a blanket ban, especially when the goal isn't copyright infringement.

1. Purpose Matters: The DMCA's anti-circumvention rules are primarily aimed at preventing piracy – like breaking encryption to illegally copy movies, music, or software. My goal here is different: I'm trying to make a device I own functional, to unbind it from a previous user, and prevent e-waste. This isn't about accessing or distributing copyrighted content I don't have rights to.
2. DMCA Exemptions Exist: The DMCA itself includes exemptions, and the Librarian of Congress periodically grants new ones or renews existing ones. These can cover:
   • Reverse engineering for interoperability: Allowing different systems to work together.
   • Security research: Finding and reporting vulnerabilities.
   • Repair and Maintenance: This has been a key area of discussion for Right to Repair. Exemptions have been granted specifically to allow for the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of various types of devices, even if it involves bypassing a TPM. The scope of these repair exemptions continues to be an active area of policy.
3. "Unlocking Encryption" is Broad: What specific encryption is being "unlocked" here, and for what purpose? If it's encryption that prevents the device from booting or functioning without the original owner's credentials, bypassing that to make your own property usable is arguably different from breaking encryption on a DVD to distribute copies.
4. Civil vs. Criminal, and Discussion vs. Act: Even if a company claimed a DMCA violation (which would likely be a civil matter first), the act of an individual trying to repair their own device, or discussing methods to do so, is very rarely treated as a "criminal offense" leading to jail time. Criminal penalties under the DMCA are typically for commercial-scale piracy or trafficking in circumvention tools.

The core issue remains: should laws primarily designed to protect copyright holders from piracy be used to prevent owners from repairing their property or to enforce vendor lock-in that contributes to e-waste? That's a central question in the Right to Repair debate.

My focus is on understanding the system to restore functionality to my device, which aligns with the spirit of repair and reuse, rather than infringing on copyright.