3 ms·
It's really telling that every anti-HTTPS opinion I have ever heard expressed is either ten years out-of-date (too slow), or completely and totally bonkers (NSA
by RIMR 8y ago
It's really telling that every anti-HTTPS opinion I have ever heard expressed is either ten years out-of-date (too slow), or completely and totally bonkers (NSA backdoor).
It seems to me that for-profit bloggers will be contrarian for pageviews, and aren't afraid to lie if enough stupid people will believe them.
- unqueued 8y agoHTTPS is a pain compared to HTTP, and I should not be pressured to use it, especially if I am on an internal network. Lets Encrypt has made it much easier, but it is still a significant and unnecessary barrier. And as helpful as things like the Lets Encrypt bot is, it still cannot be relied upon. And anyone who doesn't think we are being spied upon is bonkers. It doesn't matter how secure HTTPS is, because there are so many other ways we can be monitored.
- shakna 8y ago> And anyone who doesn't think we are being spied upon is bonkers. It doesn't matter how secure HTTPS is, because there are so many other ways we can be monitored. HTTPS doesn't guarantee that, and certainly isn't state-actor proof, but if state actors are your concern, you need more than HTTPS, not less. What it does, is ensure nobody messed with the data before you get it. The browser indicates that to you. Basically: HTTP - Sir, are you aware someone may have changed what is in this enevelope? HTTPS - Sir, this letter has/not been tampered with.
- whorleater 8y agoIt's really telling that every pro HTTPS opinion is ten years out-of-date (you can totally trust the certificate authorities), or completely and totally bonkers (my site being injected is somehow my problem). It seems to me that HTTPS advocates will follow a trend for pageviews, and aren't afraid to paper over HTTPS's glaring flaws if enough stupid people will believe them.