> James Knott wrote:
> First of all there is a difference if it is a portable or a desktop. On
> a portable at least the HD should be encrypted. It should be an option
> NOT to do it. elow I will asume we are talking desktops
>> What about a doctor, with confidential records on his computer?
> There standard security measures will be sufficuient. If you make it
> more secure, you will make it less secure. Most docters are not computer
> savy and will start doing things in a simpeler way to go around the
Not "less secure", but potentially less _accessible_, I think.
>> sensitive corporate data?
> Depending on how large the cooperation is, and what the data is. Normaly
> standard security will be sufficent. The danger lies more in a person
> taking printouts or sending info to an emailadress.
>> Someone with nosey kids?
> If security is your solution for your nosey kids, the problem is not
> security. Normaly standard security with chmod and chown should be
> enough that your kids do not see what you do not want them to see.
> Yes, there will be situatuations that extreme security is needed. The
> examples you gave were not one of these.
My University-owned workstation has a root password that is known to the IT
staff. Now, if I had sensitive medical data, _then_ encryption would be
more justified. Quite frankly, the IT staff is rather Windows-oriented, so
I need never hesitate to put something like my Palm data on here.