DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2005-03
Re: RFC: backporting GEOM to the 4.x branch
-On [20050303 07:57], Matthew Dillon (dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Personally speaking I have no problem making ultra encryption available
> to the general public, but I do believe (personally speaking) that the
> *default* should be something slightly less secure just so criminals
> and terrorists (at least the stupid ones, which is most or they wouldn't
> be criminals or terrorists), don't get an automatic boost from our work.
Since when did we dictate policy on this level? Any serious organised
criminal or terrorist works in a team/cell and has the brain/clue to bump it
to another level from the default. So I really think your reasoning here
holds no ground.
So why are we even being concerned about this given all the other security
stuff we have in base already?
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://ashemedai.deviantart.com/
http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/
Now twilight hides the clear, and haunts the day away, we cross the last
frontier and it sets our hearts ablaze...