4 ms·
As a cancer survivor, using the example of someone spying on your cancer.org visit as a motivation for encrypted SNI seems a bit excessive and insensitive. Ther
by comesee 8y ago
As a cancer survivor, using the example of someone spying on your cancer.org visit as a motivation for encrypted SNI seems a bit excessive and insensitive. There are definitely more neutral ways of motivating eSNI than invoking the fear of a stranger finding out you or a loved one has cancer. Shame on Mozilla.
- dagenix 8y agoThat example does make a very strong case for the feature - which I guess was the point. But, the audience for the post already knows that encrypted SNI is and why it's important. And if they don't, a much more light-hearted example would do. And it's not like there is much of an anti-encrypted-SNI movement that warrants a powerful response. So, yeah, I'd agree it seemed both jarring and unnecessary.
- comesee 8y agoYeah not sure why I'm being downvoted. Imagine if the example was HIV.org or ebola.org, totally doesn't seem necessary.
- Simon_says 8y agoYou're being downvoted because your own statement contradicts itself. You're so touchy about the cancer thing that you're complaining about it.
- comesee 8y agoI'm touchy about the cancer thing because I had my leg amputated and went through chemo for a year.
- Simon_says 8y agoGetting agitated over a hypothetical example is a bit of an overreaction.
- dagenix 8y agoI don't know comesee - but their saying it isn't at all hypothetical for them. It's called basic human decency - maybe give it a try?
- dagenix 8y ago> touchy about the cancer thing Wow. That is technically a valid English phrase. What boggles the mind is that someone could be so out of touch with societal norms and basic human decency that they would actually use it.
- dang 8y agoProbably because of the "Shame on Mozilla" bit, which is a trope of the online callout/shaming culture, which we're trying to avoid here. The rest of your comment looks fine to me, and you're obviously speaking from hard experience, which makes comments much more substantive.
- mort96 8y agoI get you, but I suppose the most obvious alternative examples are things like porn or illegal sites, which they might not have wanted to use. What alternative examples would you have preferred? Apple's contrived example from when they introduced private mode in Safari was shopping for presents and not wanting the recipient to find out, but that would be even less convincing when the person you're hiding your traffic from is the person next to you in the coffee shop.
- comesee 8y agoThe coffee shop being able to know all the domains you're visiting without your consent is already bad enough. I don't think they need to draw out a specific example. If the idea of the coffee shop knowing all the websites we visit is bad, we'll come up with our own examples, and that's something everyone can do. Almost no one researches cancer online.
- rocqua 8y agoCancer is something you may want to keep secret without being shameful. In privacy discussions, such examples are rare. Yet, those examples are useful because they prevent people dismissing the arguments because `people shouldn't be doing that anyway`. That is, no-one wants to keep people from going to cancer-related websites. This is very different from e.g. porn or STDs. I guess perhaps the exception are the nut-cases that believe people getting cancer `deserve it` because otherwise it wouldn't be part of gods plan. But luckily very few people consider those opinions relevant.