I wouldn't say that's locked though. The place I currently work is on 6.1. We're not locked to it, we're going to upgrade, but in a few weeks or so. I can unde

I wouldn't say that's locked though. The place I currently work is on 6.1. We're not locked to it, we're going to upgrade, but in a few weeks or so. I can understand the reason to put off encrypting the field too. Upgrades, or backporting, are just work like any other project and I guess that other things for now take preference. After all, before field encryption came along the risk balance calculation had already been done (even if only implicitly) that storing the field unencrypted in the database was safe enough. The availability of encrypted fields doesn't change that, though making some things safer doesn't necessarily fall neatly into the "requirements" bucket despite being a good idea.