>> 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
