#1 and #2 are not hindered by "more security". They're local proxies you set up and decide to trust. In a proper setup, you would use encrypted communication to

#1 and #2 are not hindered by "more security". They're local proxies you set up and decide to trust. In a proper setup, you would use encrypted communication towards that proxy, and that proxy would use encrypted communication towards the appropriate server, maintaining privacy and authentication while implementing their purpose. Both of them are a bit of a hack, though, as this really belongs in the client application. More generally, more security does not stop any legitimate use-cases. You just chose to extend your trust. #3 doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand. Network interception is never something a user wants, and does not implement additional security. It's common in enterprise and banking environments for all the wrong reasons (enough that these industries were trying to harm TLS1.3 when they realized that the increased security was troublesome). Such a setup is by no means necessary, and due to there being Bad People in this world, the ability to do so is dangerous. Repressive governments that wish to control or manipulate information is a very good example, and sacrificing silly enterprise politics is a very small price to pay to help the repressed. The result of There are quite a few places where this is the case, even though it might be hard to imagine for someone in the west (despite filtering occurring in the west too, whenever the government dislikes a site).