3 ms·
OH NOES! Hey Eric! :P The problem we have with our project is that we're dealing with a ton of subdomains and not a lot of data I would consider "sensitive" en
by vippy 11y ago
OH NOES! Hey Eric! :P
The problem we have with our project is that we're dealing with a ton of subdomains and not a lot of data I would consider "sensitive" enough to really necessitate encryption. While I appreciate the sentiment of the project, and value your commitment to privacy, for our use case it's definitely a bit of a pain in the butt.
That, and I know getting IT departments to move to install certs on their old infrastructure for things that might not require encryption is definitely painful. And the errors generated by expired certificates and "insecure content warnings" are confusing, and don't add value to projects that don't benefit from encrypted connections. We've been hearing all about it.
- djcapelis 11y agoHonestly, now that I read down the thread, it kinda sounds like you don't have your shit together and you want to blame someone else who created something awesome for it. It's not important whether you consider the data sensitive enough to bother doing your job. It's actually your users, which, if they've installed HTTPS Everywhere, they do. So get your shit together! :)
- konklone 11y agoFWIW, vippy's not referring to the browser extension, but to the federal policy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/08/https-everywhere-government https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/08/https-everywhere-...
- djcapelis 11y agoAh ha! Thanks!
- vippy 11y agoYes, thank you konklone. My primary complaint with the policy, and I'm hesitant to complain because, let me be clear, it is a good policy, is that we're now held accountable to a metric that adds engineering complexity and additional costs to our small team, and has created some confusion amongst our hundreds of customers who, arguably, don't serve content that, in my professional opinion, requires an encrypted connection to meet the needs of their millions of users.