Then they shouldn't be announcing in a press conference that "there is no danger".

Those were the exact words used.

They're being a bit weasely in their words, though. They didn't technically "develop" a sterile seed product— they merely acquired a company that had already developed one. And they didn't technically commercialize a sterile seed product— yet. Due to public backlash, they backed off. But according to the VP of the company that developed the technology, they still plan to commercialize it.

In this case, Mister Toews is not at all actually interested in protecting children from pedophiles. He is simply playing the pedophile card to get this ridiculous legislation passed. The CBC made an interesting observation about the bill:

Toews is a joke, and this country would be so much better off without him. The same goes for the rest of those idiots in the CPC.

Trust me, it's based in reality. I'm stuck in the middle of it right now.

The ReDigi case that's going on right now has a great chance of deciding it once and for all. It's one case that's well worth paying attention to.

Especially in this case, where the "Post MegaUpload Era" isn't even three weeks old.

I think that's more likely. If Steve wants to use a name, he'll use it, and leave it to the lawyers sort out the mess later. It's not the first time, and won't be the last.

To follow up, the article saying that it was a chip failure is dated yesterday, while the article claiming it was a programming failure is dated today. Presumably, this is new information to shoot down the previous claims, but TFS (in typical Slashdot "editorial" style) fails to actually make that distinction, and puts both claims together as part of a single summary.

The second link makes the following claim:

However, the third link says nothing of the sort. It sounds like TFS is just a mishmash of conflicting theories from different articles.

No they don't. What they have is an arrangement of bits. The bits are not the document. The bits + the passkey = the document. In their current form, the bits do not represent the document in a meaningful way.

If the document were a paper document, it would not be the actual paper that they are looking for. The paper is meaningless. A photocopy of the document on a different piece of paper would suffice, assuming it could be guaranteed that it was a true, complete, unaltered copy. It's the contents of the document that matter. They do not currently have those contents. They just have a meaningless arrangement of bits.