3 ms·
It's absurd because you're describing it as some sort of money shakedown when 1) Google isn't profiting off of this and 2) you can get certificates for free.
by wishinghand 9y ago
It's absurd because you're describing it as some sort of money shakedown when 1) Google isn't profiting off of this and 2) you can get certificates for free.
- romwell 9y agoThe complaint is not about the cost of the certificate, it's about handing the control to availability to someone else. What you are describing is how things are working for now. First, there's now guarantee Let's Encrypt will be here tomorrow. You're pinning the future of the Internet onto the shoulders of maybe a dozen people who run it. Second, CA's are - by definition - centralized. There's no guarantee that, in principle, you'll always be able to get a certificate for them. The Internet was designed to be distributed and hard to break. HTTPS-only Internet is going backwards on this. I'm all for security and privacy, but any solution that requires a centralized third-party for the whole system to function is, in my opinion, broken by design. There's that, and there's making the system needlessly complicated for many tasks. There are very, very many websites and users (I'd say - the absolute majority) who are OK with the Dangers Of HTTP (that is, some intermediate party being aware that you read a certain webpage). Worrying about that in the age where every step is tracked, every face detected, and every page is full of trackers seems, to me, facetious.