Remove mention of encrypted boot

[dngray]

Closes: #1514

I'm not a fan of encrypted boot, or suggesting it for a number of reasons.

1. It's slow, as decryption happens without acceleration features like AES-NI, SSE, etc
2. Only LUKS1 is supported unless you use a patch/development branch, that means compiling it yourself, this is not likely to be compatible with distribution upgrades
3. It doesn't relate to privacy, private data is not stored in /boot
4. It does not provide authentication, ie any form of tamper protection ie if the content of /boot is in any way predictable, an attacker can modify the volume to contain whatever they want
5. Better off would be to write a TPM guide that uses systemd-cryptenroll, and later systemd-measure. Use TPM to make measurements a requirement now for Windows 11. For more info about that see Utilization of TPM with PIN systemd-cryptenroll #1855

See "Summary of Resources and their Protections" of https://0pointer.net/blog/authenticated-boot-and-disk-encryption-on-linux.html

[github-actions]

🎊 PR Preview 0a98bcb has been successfully built and deployed to https://privacyguides-privacyguides-org-preview-pr-1850.surge.sh

🕐 Build time: 71.107s

_{🤖 By surge-preview}

[blacklight447]

Loosk good

[privacyguides-bot]

This pull request has been mentioned on Privacy Guides. There might be relevant details there:

https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/v2-28/8091/1