What I see here is a catalogue of ways things could possibly go wrong
with a process like this in place, if it were mishandled, and the
worst case happened. Balanced against an implied hypothetical status
quo which is merely the absence of these potential problems. It seems
to me a perspective firmly grounded in the notion that the status quo
is problem-free, and that any slight possibility of a significant
problem with a procedure intended to address the situation is
therefore a reason not to implement that procedure. My impression is
that the status quo is rife with problems and needs to be addressed,
so we're weighing the potential for an occasional problem against the
certainty of frequent problems now. That perspective seems missing
from this objection.
I also think some of this catalogue of potential problems is based on
a misreading of the current proposal, but that's a separate issue that
a few other people have already addressed.
-- Cos