4 ms·

Funny that this comes from *.gov. It's in their (the governments) interest to keep traffic unencrypted so that they can intercept and store everything (makes li

Funny that this comes from *.gov. It's in their (the governments) interest to keep traffic unencrypted so that they can intercept and store everything (makes life of CIA/FBI/NSA easier). Why bother enforcing HTTPS? /me confused The people at NSA are probably like "Oh god why? No, stahp it".

vtlynch 10y ago
It's almost as if the government is made up of many departments and people who have different goals and values...
- konklone 10y ago
  And this is a White House policy, with their official blog post and rationale here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/08/https-everywhere-government https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/08/https-everywhere-... "It is critical that federal websites maintain the highest privacy standards for the users of its online services. With this new action, we are driving faster internet-wide adoption of HTTPS and promoting better privacy standards for the entire browsing public." (Disclaimer: I work on https://https.cio.gov https://https.cio.gov, at GSA.)
noobiemcfoob 10y ago
It's only in the NSA's interest so long as having open access to criminal communications is more valuable than allowing all of their flock to walk around unprotected. Eventually the balance will flip, and our protectors will come to the rescue! Just in time, I'm sure.
tommorris 10y ago
The government also have an interest in ensuring that the nation's businesses don't fuck up due to easily preventable infosec failure. Because infosec fails equals lost consumer confidence, lost economic development, lost taxes and much else besides. Governments have wider interests beyond simply sniffing all your traffic. This is why the UK's National Cyber Security Centre - which is the friendly business-and-civilian-facing side of GCHQ - publish lots of guidance telling people to use TLS. https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&q=allintext%3Ahttps+site%3Ancsc.gov.uk https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&q=allintext%3Ahttps+s...
- wereHamster 10y ago
  Oh, I get it. Government illegal hacking and capturing of data due to increased infosec doesn't equal to lost consumer confidence, lost taxes and all that (or only to a lesser extent). Priorities, eh..

vtlynch 10y ago

It's almost as if the government is made up of many departments and people who have different goals and values...

konklone 10y ago
And this is a White House policy, with their official blog post and rationale here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/08/https-everywhere-government https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06/08/https-everywhere-... "It is critical that federal websites maintain the highest privacy standards for the users of its online services. With this new action, we are driving faster internet-wide adoption of HTTPS and promoting better privacy standards for the entire browsing public." (Disclaimer: I work on https://https.cio.gov https://https.cio.gov, at GSA.)

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

It's only in the NSA's interest so long as having open access to criminal communications is more valuable than allowing all of their flock to walk around unprotected. Eventually the balance will flip, and our protectors will come to the rescue! Just in time, I'm sure.

tommorris 10y ago

The government also have an interest in ensuring that the nation's businesses don't fuck up due to easily preventable infosec failure. Because infosec fails equals lost consumer confidence, lost economic development, lost taxes and much else besides. Governments have wider interests beyond simply sniffing all your traffic. This is why the UK's National Cyber Security Centre - which is the friendly business-and-civilian-facing side of GCHQ - publish lots of guidance telling people to use TLS. https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&q=allintext%3Ahttps+site%3Ancsc.gov.uk https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=20&q=allintext%3Ahttps+s...

wereHamster 10y ago
Oh, I get it. Government illegal hacking and capturing of data due to increased infosec doesn't equal to lost consumer confidence, lost taxes and all that (or only to a lesser extent). Priorities, eh..