This business of forbidding “circumvention of security or policy” is a whim of Server Fault. There is no such rule here, nor should there be.
This is a venue for technical questions. Questions should be judged on their technical merit, not on some perceived notion of whether the asker may be trying to violate some policy. Just because an administrator has made a technical configuration that prevents a particular way of accomplishing a goal doesn't make that goal a bad thing. Just because an administrator has issued a policy that a certain thing should not be done does not mean there isn't a good reason to do this thing (such as an order given by your boss in a corporate environment, which the administrator isn't carrying on).
If the purported purpose of a question offends you, you're free to refrain from answering. If you dislike DRM, skip questions that ask how to enforce DRM. If you venerate firewalls, skip questions about firewall piercing. But do not prevent others from answering these questions.
Note also that unless the asker goes somewhat out of his way to tell you, you will never be sure whether he's asking about circumventing a policy because he wants to do something that the policy prevents, or because he wants to have his policy reviewed to make sure there aren't any holes in it. Black hat questions are valuable to white hats.
By the way, this topic comes up regularly on Security Meta, and the outcome of the discussion is invariably that Security.SE does not discriminate on hat color.
This question is perfectly on-topic here, and I've voted to reopen it. It might actually get better answers on Security, because a lot of the expertise is related to network security, but it is also well-suited to this site since the stealth techniques will be implemented on Linux.