On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:02 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Jeu 23 mars 2006 20:05, seth vidal a écrit : > > > if I were in the same position I would, of course, use encrypted file > > systems - but to have that overhead for the default is a bit extreme. > > > > Sounds like the IT group in corporation needs to stop being so naive. > > What I find naïve is continuing to believe security can be special-cased. > Do you think company users bother to report every single > security-sensitive documents they manipulate ? Do you think home users > think about it ? > > Either you do it for everyone and it has a chance to be in place when > it'll really be needed or you shouldn't bother at all. The kind of > bureaucracy that would be needed to identify exactly what bits needed to > be protected is just never going to happen. I think if we made it the default we'll end up with a lot of users unable to get into their data when a disk partially fails. -sv
