Reprising a comment from the story on the original article this editorial is based on:<p>The TPP is not itself a law. It&#x27;s a meta-law, which commits its signatories to enact actual enforceable laws based on the framework established in the treaty.<p>No device can be destroyed &quot;under the TPP&quot;. The TPP instead demands that its signatories enact laws so that they have a judicial process whose remedies can potentially include the destruction of devices. The TPP hasn&#x27;t even been ratified yet, let alone enabled by law.<p>This seems like hair-splitting, but I don&#x27;t think it is. I think the question of what impact TPP will have on security research depends entirely on what the enabling laws for the TPP look like in each country. In the US, our laws already cordon off security and interoperability research from anti-circumvention enforcement.<p>The TPP itself also acknowledges non-infringing use. First, note that the Vice article selectively quotes the leaked TPP text, which does not demand destruction of &quot;anti-circumvention devices&quot;, but rather of devices engaged in prohibited activity. The TPP does not demand a prohibition on security research. Further, the TPP earlier (QQ.G.17) binds each party to balance IP law with fair use for criticism, comment, and research.<p>I&#x27;m not arguing that the TPP IP law is going to be a good thing for security research. It probably won&#x27;t be (at least, not outside the US). But it&#x27;s too early to know what it&#x27;s impact is going to be, and certainly to early to say that it&#x27;s going to result in the confiscation of security researcher laptops.