RFC: backporting GEOM to the 4.x branch

[Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai]

-On [20050303 07:57], Matthew Dillon (dillon at 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...