Or perhaps they've just missed the point of it, the whole reason people like us are appalled at what happened to Dmitry.
The editorial claims that he violated the DMCA by attempting to sell circumvention software in the US, and makes it sound like the fact that he was presenting a paper on the topic just made it more convenient for the FBI to pick him up. (It just meant that they knew where he would be.)
If this is the case, then the law seems quite tame, and almost justified. If I sell something in your country which is illegal, then I have committed a crime in your country, whether or not it is illegal in mine. Someone from Amsterdam could not come to the US and attempt to sell pot, even over the Internet. Regardless of any legal uses, it's still a crime in the US.
The Post editorial leaves the reader thinking that perhaps the law goes a little too far in defining what is illegal; perhaps its punishments are a little too harsh - but it is salvageable. If it just gets rewritten a bit -- touched up, here and there -- it could be a good law.
My interpretation of the events though (and feel free to blow me out of the water if I'm way off base here) was that Sklyarov developed a piece of software in Russia which was perfectly legal in Russia, and if Adobe or the FBI didn't like it, well, that was just too bad for them.
His mistake was to come to the US and give a public presentation about the technology and the methods of circumventing it. Under the DMCA, this is considered to be providing information about illegal circumvention measures, and is itself illegal. The FBI was able to pick him up because of the presentation, not necessarily the software itself.
This is the point which the Post missed -- that a person could be subjected to criminal charges for merely speaking out about copyright-protection technology, could get a criminal record for performing scientific research, could go to jail for doing legal work in your own country - and then talking about it.
I'm glad the the main5tream American press is starting to see the holes in the DMCA, but I'm worried that they may be presenting the wrong message - that the law is fundamentally good, but a little flawed, and just needs a couple of adjustments.