Re: Non-optional consequences
"there is legitimate concern about the company and the threat of embedding spytech into the product"
But apparently not enough of a concern or threat that they really need to be banned, hence the constant deferral. Surely if this was a real threat there wouldn't have been an extension at all. Why give them more time to "spread their spytech" to more US companies and consumers?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
