>> the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a
>> second trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the
>> root now, or the acta vigilantes.  as dissent becomes less tolerated,
>> let alone supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our
>> deployments.
> Wouldn't this simply change the focus of who can attack from the USG
> (which, as far as I am aware, has not attacked the root)

see smb's url re rightsholders having alleged bad sites blocked.

randy

Reply via email to