1202 protects copyright management information, Here's the double fuck for you data optimizers, sync restorers and even making an analog copy of a digital work: IT IS ILLEGAL TO ALTER OR REMOVE THE COPYRIGHT INFORMATION which may be contained in the digital signal. Hell, it could just be written on the CD, but if it doesn't go with the copy, even if the copy is fair use, the copier is a violator. Remember the penalties are no joke.
1202 is generally cited as another protection for cookies as well, and despite the direct and limited exceptions we touched on earlier, it basically makes it illegal to tamper with or delete or edit cookies, password files, or prefs files, even if they're corrupted. Again and again, it's not whether you actually infringe, it's an act that could have the effect of infringing that's illegal. If your prefs file has your serial number or name in it as a copyright control process, even if the developer couldn't care if you delete and start over, even if doing so is fair use under existing doctrine, under 1202 it's a crime.
It's interesting to note the exceptions to 1202 in 2037 and the latest version of 2281: broadcasters, commercial FCC approved broadcasters, don't need to broadcast the copyright information, but everybody else does. If you have a pirate radio station you're not only busted by the FCC, but also by the data police since you do not have an exemption to keeping the copyright information intact with the broadcast, performance or other "ephemeral copy".
In Both bills, in 1201(f) and 1202 (d), law enforcement is granted sweeping powers, especially in the senate bill where basically every government contractor is given a blanket exemption. So none of this applies to the various law enforcement agents, at least in pursuant to your duties.
Lastly, both bills provide some measure of exemption from liability for ISPs. Section 512 basically sets forth the terms a large commercial ISP would like to protect them from the violations of their users. Since they are predicated on a reasonable presumption of ignorance, they might not be applicable to smaller ISPs that might presumably know more about the activities of their users.
What's interesting about these provisions is that access is specifically granted to the ISP to violate the users rights to privacy on the suspicion or report of copyright violation. Under 512(g) a copyright owner need only provide your ISP with a sworn statement that he or she thinks you're violating their copyright and the ISP is required to investigate and not required to tell you that it's done so.
This is an obvious and striking extension of civil search and seizure and grants rights to copyright holders in the electronic world that are without precedent in the physical world.
Lets say you're in a flame war with some reporter, and winning, he could quite easily obtain the full contents of your account on the premise that he thinks your storing copies of his data on your disk beyond your fair use, or that you've downloaded them from the New York times web site, say. If he finds that nude Daffy Duck picture, you're busted.