There is no good connection between them. However, I've seen legislators often conflate the two in order to promote pro-DRM legislation in the name of protecting the children.

I was certainly aware of the connection between anti-CP and copyright, but I have never heard of a connection to DRM specifically. I thought the connections were limited to the shared interests of fighting CP and fighting copyright infringement, like monitoring peer to peer networks and requiring ISPs to keep records and comply with requests from law enforcement.

CP is often used as a justification for stricter internet controls, which leaks over into non-CP areas.

Common strategy. Use a cause that no one will argue against in order to push rules that serve a broader agenda.

Yeah, but that only makes sense when there is a connection. Requiring ISPs to keep more detailed records of internet usage, while terrible, does at least make sense as an anti-CP measure, even if the real purpose is to make it easier to sue file sharers. But DRM doesn't have any plausible connection to CP.

But OK, I'm not going to go too far down the road of imagining that legislators and lobbyists are behaving rationally. The more important point is that while I've seen plenty of examples of using the fight against CP as a front for the copyright agenda, all of those examples did bear some reasonable facade of plausibility.

Can you give an actual example of where they've been so brazen as to actually try to claim DRM was a tool for fighting CP?

Oh, you're right. I read the original exchange too hastily. I think the OP was being a bit sarcastic.

Now I read it as him expressing the spirit of the opportunistic conflation between the two issues, even though there isn't any literal case where CP was used to justify DRM.

edit: Interesting side-note, I seem to get the same number of upvotes on comments where I have to say 'oops, you're right' as on comments where I don't. Hmm.