[jessaustin]

If it had hooves and a tail then it could have been a horse.

Seriously, it's difficult to imagine that the process that produced this could have produced anything else. Everything was done in secret. The few admitted to the proceedings were required mafia-style to agree to their generally corrupt direction and total secrecy ahead of time. The later one got in, the fewer scraps one could beg from the head table. The officials responsible are all looking forward to comfortable corporate positions after the whole mess goes into effect.

These observations typically inspire scores of well-informed "this is simply how it is done in these modern times" rejoinders. As if that weren't an even bigger indictment of these modern times. The comparison that comes to mind is NSA-supplied curve constants in cryptography. Sure NSA might not have derived the constants in such a fashion that would leave them able to break cryptography. At this point, however, why would a thinking human being assume their innocence? When rules for the public are created in public the motivations of the rulemakers can be scrutinized by the public, before the public is subject to those rules. Take for example the just-defeated Ohio pot initiative, which was billed as simple legalization but was in fact a permanent pot-growing monopoly for the few farmers who had paid for the advertising. Those rules did not withstand public scrutiny.

From a giant secret proceeding like this, we can be sure that the problems identified so far by EFF, etc. are only the tip of the iceberg.