On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 14:16:41 +0000, Andy Green <andy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > >That wasn't the direction I was going with this. That's one way to get > >back doors into the software. The other is to have someone from the NSA > >(or other TLA) have a talk with very high level management and come to > > I did see your point, but my imaginer throws an exception at the idea. > Anyone could make a project to allow the forbidden thing, even if RHAT > turn their nose up at it anyone can make packages. Look at mplayer or > mp3 support for example. I doubt RHAT are on anyone's radar to start > bouncing, although MSFT likely have been for some time (especially since > they sing the song in the corridors of power about being a powerful > spearhead of American interests worldwide so deserving of special > antitrust treatment, etc, wouldn't surprise me if there was a quid pro > quo or three in there somewhere). TLAs don't care that much about the few people who will do things for themselves, they are much more interested in not having strong encryption available for the masses. They finally gave ground in some areas to support business interests. I probably should have used the FBI in my example, as they are more likely to actually sieze machines and care if the entire system is protected with strong encryption. I doubt RH is high on any list of the government to target for suppressing software. I think RH is a lot more likely than other companies to publicly balk if they were to be approached about doing that and only a tiny minority of the population uses it. Its take up may be higher by organized criminals than in the general population, but I don't have any stats on that one way or the other.
