GNU, security, and RMS

[Dick Dunn]

I've seen several postings which seem to assert that the GNU folks won't be
interested in security because that's somehow at odds with free software.
I haven't quite been able to make the connection.  Is there some other part
of the FSF philosophy (or RMS' personal philosophy, or whatever) that says
that security is a Bad Thing?  For example:

> | }Security:	ACLs? Get rid of root? Security monitors? Auditing?
> | }		Provably secure(A1)?
. . .
> ...provably secure?  From RMS???  You dream...

Does this imply that security is not a concern, or only "provable" security
at some level?  Seems to me that if you're after some level of security,
being able to prove it is closely related (albeit not equivalent) to
knowing what you're doing.

>...(On the other hand, the lack
> of security that RMS prefers would be the biggest stumbling block in getting
> people to *use* GNU...

This is what really makes me wonder--*does* RMS really prefer a lack of
security, or are we/you/they putting words in his mouth?  I just can't make
the leap.  For example, I think I can like the idea of free software a
whole bunch without wanting someone else to be able to read my private
correspondence at will.  Just because I trust me with my machine doesn't
mean I trust everyone in the world who owns a terminal and a modem.
-- 
Dick Dunn      UUCP: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd           (303)449-2870
   ...CAUTION:  I get mean when my blood-capsaicin level gets low.