[JoshTriplett]

He's pro-technology, pro-privacy, anti-DRM, anti-DMCA, etc. I'm hoping that he will use this role to make the government a little less technophobic, a little less inclined to use laws to prop up companies that can't cope with new technologies, and a little less inclined towards mass spying and data collection.

On the other hand, I have no idea how much influence this role actually has; we'll see how it goes over the next few years.

[sukilot]

DRM is technology. Don't confuse "anti-tech" with "pro-entrenched wealthy interests"

[JoshTriplett]

DRM is a technology that restricts the invention of future technologies. DRM enumerates what you can do with data, which by design restricts future possibilities as well as present ones. One of the key features of non-DRMed data is that it can be used in novel ways that its original authors never thought of.

On balance, I feel comfortable classifying DRM systems as "anti-technology": they prevent the further advancement of technology past the vision of what the authors of the DRM system could think of and deigned to allow. More importantly, laws and policies that enforce DRM are anti-technology.

But in any case, a clarification then: against DRM enforced by law, such as via the DMCA, or enshrined into "standards" that are then used by governmental entities. DRM enforced solely by technology, without the backing of laws like the DMCA, is not necessarily a governmental issue, though it's still something to fight against.