March 7, 2013
3:03 a.m.
Garth, Now that most of the substantive issues are behind us, perhaps you could explain this more fully:
On 3/5/13 3:33 PM, Garth Bruen wrote:
It is my opinion that this objection, if supported by At-Large, in fact represents a more serious threat to the public interest than deployment of the string itself.
Would you be so kind as to explain yourself? Not your view on the objections, but the view you've expressed -- that some affirmative act by At-Large can have greater adverse consequences to the public than the most debt-leveraged, highest ROI driven, for-profit exploit of identifiers associated with human health is likely to create. Eric