4 ms·

Here's the truth about security: people are clueless about it and so corporations and governments abuse that by pushing their own agendas, not related to securi

Here's the truth about security: people are clueless about it and so corporations and governments abuse that by pushing their own agendas, not related to security. Same corporations that tell you to "secure" your unimportant static website with https also want to force you to run random javascript in your browser from unknown parties, identify you at all times, link everything to your phone number, etc. In the end we are all going to be worse off with this let's encrypted web, with more control than ever in the hands of those few US corporations.

bovermyer 8y ago
What are you talking about?
yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
How are those related? Letsencrypt doesn't try to identify anyone, and certainly doesn't run JavaScript on your site.
- grosjona 8y ago
  I wonder what would happen if Let's Encrypt started charging for their service AFTER HTTPS became compulsory. Seems like a great (but evil) business strategy. All these CAs could just start increasing their prices and we'd all be forced to pay. If you understand human behavior, then you know that this WILL happen eventually.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    I would think that there are enough competing vendors, and they are sufficiently interchangeable, that one vendor having low prices will drag the whole market down. That is, I believe that CAs are actually a nearly efficient market.
  - tialaramex 8y ago
    This might even make sense as "a great (but evil) business strategy" except Let's Encrypt isn't a business, it's provided by a charity, ISRG, the Internet Security Research Group, set up for exactly this purpose by people from Mozilla (a charity) and the EFF (another charity) I suspect that the people behind ISRG weren't as paranoid as the Free Software Foundation about being corrupted by some hypothetical evildoers (the FSF has a whole mechanism to try to ensure that if you somehow take over the Foundation you can't use its resources to counter its original purpose) but you're going to need a bit more than a vague idea that people are capable of evil as an explanation for why good things are actually not good.
    - schoen 8y ago
      I don't know who has what legal remedies when a nonprofit acts inappropriately, but another observation is that most of Let's Encrypt's technology is developed in public. https://github.com/letsencrypt https://github.com/letsencrypt If you needed to set up another ACME-compatible CA on the same model (which could then be a drop-in replacement compatible with the existing client base), it would be a lot less expensive (although it would require datacenter build-out, hiring an operations team, and a variety of PKI-specific stuff like key ceremonies, HSMs, cross-signing, CPS, and audits).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
userbinator 8y ago
Don't forget the other elephant in the room: certificate revocation. If your site isn't using HTTPS it will always be "not secure", but always accessible. If it is, then it's accessible until someone decides to revoke your certificate for whatever reason. The old quote is relevant again: "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

bovermyer 8y ago

What are you talking about?

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago

How are those related? Letsencrypt doesn't try to identify anyone, and certainly doesn't run JavaScript on your site.

grosjona 8y ago
I wonder what would happen if Let's Encrypt started charging for their service AFTER HTTPS became compulsory. Seems like a great (but evil) business strategy. All these CAs could just start increasing their prices and we'd all be forced to pay. If you understand human behavior, then you know that this WILL happen eventually.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  I would think that there are enough competing vendors, and they are sufficiently interchangeable, that one vendor having low prices will drag the whole market down. That is, I believe that CAs are actually a nearly efficient market.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  This might even make sense as "a great (but evil) business strategy" except Let's Encrypt isn't a business, it's provided by a charity, ISRG, the Internet Security Research Group, set up for exactly this purpose by people from Mozilla (a charity) and the EFF (another charity) I suspect that the people behind ISRG weren't as paranoid as the Free Software Foundation about being corrupted by some hypothetical evildoers (the FSF has a whole mechanism to try to ensure that if you somehow take over the Foundation you can't use its resources to counter its original purpose) but you're going to need a bit more than a vague idea that people are capable of evil as an explanation for why good things are actually not good.
  - schoen 8y ago
    I don't know who has what legal remedies when a nonprofit acts inappropriately, but another observation is that most of Let's Encrypt's technology is developed in public. https://github.com/letsencrypt https://github.com/letsencrypt If you needed to set up another ACME-compatible CA on the same model (which could then be a drop-in replacement compatible with the existing client base), it would be a lot less expensive (although it would require datacenter build-out, hiring an operations team, and a variety of PKI-specific stuff like key ceremonies, HSMs, cross-signing, CPS, and audits).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

userbinator 8y ago

Don't forget the other elephant in the room: certificate revocation. If your site isn't using HTTPS it will always be "not secure", but always accessible. If it is, then it's accessible until someone decides to revoke your certificate for whatever reason. The old quote is relevant again: "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."