4 ms·

I've seen this tendency on HN - if this person/entity does something, I suspect it must be bad or selfish. On the subject of HTTPS - do you think the interests

I've seen this tendency on HN - if this person/entity does something, I suspect it must be bad or selfish. On the subject of HTTPS - do you think the interests of ordinary consumers are in any way served by continuing on HTTP? Countless websites, even those accepting login credentials used to think that it was acceptable to not take the trouble to set up HTTPS. The only thing the operators of these websites cared about was being marked "insecure" by the most popular browser. The shift to HTTPS was a definite win for privacy for every person who uses the web. But no. Apparently, the "biggest reason" for the people working at Google pushing this because it was good for Google. They didn't care about all the benefits for end users, they only cared about themselves. It's sad that slander like this can become mainstream view in a forum like HN. Disclaimer - no connection to Google in any way. Don't even own Google stock.

glogla 8y ago
> Apparently, the "biggest reason" for the people working at Google pushing this because it was good for Google. I mean, when I do stuff at my job, I also do things that are good for the company that pays me. That's the job, right? The problem is that Google has positioned itself in a way where things that are good for Google might be bad for humanity as a whole.
- capitol_ 8y ago
  Stating that the push for https is bad for humanity is a preposterous statement. Please back it up with some facts.
scotty79 8y ago
> if this person/entity does something, I suspect it must be bad or selfish. Isn't that the basic assumption that whole our economy rests upon?
close04 8y ago
I think calling it the "biggest reason" is wrong but not necessarily entirely wrong. There's a difference between Google's reasons and your benefit. It could simply mean the interests aligned. I get my credentials encrypted and Google gets more [insert stuff here]. When the interests don't align the result is a bit different. You could be sending tracking/location data every few minutes, adblockers could be crippled, you could be forced to sign in to sync Chrome data, etc. Usually the very same stuff Google relies on for revenue. So what I'm saying is that it's not that outlandish to assume Google had more reasons than your benefit.
- tyingq 8y ago
  "Biggest" doesn't mean only. I don't see a more compelling motive as the top one.
tyingq 8y ago
"I've seen this tendency on HN - if this person/entity does something, I suspect it must be bad or selfish." Companies tend to do things that advance their competitive advantage. "slander" - really? For "I suspect", followed by a theory that an online ad company might bandwagon something (otherwise good) that helps them for less than altruistic reasons?
Xelbair 8y ago
Google is a corporation, the only goal of corporation is to make money. So yes, that is the biggest reason - their business objective. It just happened that it also did something good for everyone.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > only goal of corporation is to make money A corporation can set any goal the founders please. Making money need not be the dominant one. Obviously making enough to stay solvent helps with longevity.
  - leesalminen 8y ago
    Alphabet is a publicly traded company and the officers have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders. This normally means maximizing profits. A corporate officer could make a case to shareholders that not maximizing profits in X area could have Y long term benefit, but that’s not very common these days.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Maximising shareholder value is very often not what's best for shareholders. The current popular myth that it is somehow mandatory has been coincident with a definite change for the worse. Hasn't Amazon been notable for actively avoiding profit through much of its existence? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard-business-review-the-pernicious-nonsense-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard... https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
      - anoncake 8y ago
        They reinvested their profits in themselves. That's not really avoiding profit (and I think there is a definition of profit that includes the company gaining value)
Ajedi32 8y ago
Google has long held the stance that anything that's good for the web is good for Google. Google is nearly ubiquitous online these days, so people spending more time online will almost certainly benefit their business. That's why they don't need any ulterior motivation for efforts like HTTPS Everywhere, Google Fiber, or Chrome. The very fact that those technologies make the web safer, faster, or more powerful already benefits Google indirectly.
- newscracker 8y ago
  > Google has long held the stance that anything that's good for the web is good for Google. Not denying that, but this could be reversed and would still make sense: Google has long held the stance that anything that's good for Google is good for the web.
TheKarateKid 8y ago
Sorry, but there's really no reason to force HTTPS on static webpages, news sites, or any site where you're just browsing/consuming. Google is smart enough where they could've enforced the penalty on sites that should use HTTPS, such as those with any kind of form submission or login. But they chose not to without much of a reason, and that's why I can believe it helped some hidden motive of theirs.
- driverdan 8y ago
  > Sorry, but there's really no reason to force HTTPS on static webpages... I downvoted you because this is wrong. There are at least two good reasons for it: 1. It prevents MitM attacks. For example, some ISPs and free WiFi APs inject arbitrary code into unencrypted pages. 2. It improves privacy by hiding the request headers, including hostname.

glogla 8y ago

> Apparently, the "biggest reason" for the people working at Google pushing this because it was good for Google. I mean, when I do stuff at my job, I also do things that are good for the company that pays me. That's the job, right? The problem is that Google has positioned itself in a way where things that are good for Google might be bad for humanity as a whole.

capitol_ 8y ago
Stating that the push for https is bad for humanity is a preposterous statement. Please back it up with some facts.

scotty79 8y ago

> if this person/entity does something, I suspect it must be bad or selfish. Isn't that the basic assumption that whole our economy rests upon?

close04 8y ago

I think calling it the "biggest reason" is wrong but not necessarily entirely wrong. There's a difference between Google's reasons and your benefit. It could simply mean the interests aligned. I get my credentials encrypted and Google gets more [insert stuff here]. When the interests don't align the result is a bit different. You could be sending tracking/location data every few minutes, adblockers could be crippled, you could be forced to sign in to sync Chrome data, etc. Usually the very same stuff Google relies on for revenue. So what I'm saying is that it's not that outlandish to assume Google had more reasons than your benefit.

tyingq 8y ago
"Biggest" doesn't mean only. I don't see a more compelling motive as the top one.

tyingq 8y ago

"I've seen this tendency on HN - if this person/entity does something, I suspect it must be bad or selfish." Companies tend to do things that advance their competitive advantage. "slander" - really? For "I suspect", followed by a theory that an online ad company might bandwagon something (otherwise good) that helps them for less than altruistic reasons?

Xelbair 8y ago

Google is a corporation, the only goal of corporation is to make money. So yes, that is the biggest reason - their business objective. It just happened that it also did something good for everyone.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> only goal of corporation is to make money A corporation can set any goal the founders please. Making money need not be the dominant one. Obviously making enough to stay solvent helps with longevity.
- leesalminen 8y ago
  Alphabet is a publicly traded company and the officers have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders. This normally means maximizing profits. A corporate officer could make a case to shareholders that not maximizing profits in X area could have Y long term benefit, but that’s not very common these days.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Maximising shareholder value is very often not what's best for shareholders. The current popular myth that it is somehow mandatory has been coincident with a definite change for the worse. Hasn't Amazon been notable for actively avoiding profit through much of its existence? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard-business-review-the-pernicious-nonsense-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard... https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
    - anoncake 8y ago
      They reinvested their profits in themselves. That's not really avoiding profit (and I think there is a definition of profit that includes the company gaining value)

Ajedi32 8y ago

Google has long held the stance that anything that's good for the web is good for Google. Google is nearly ubiquitous online these days, so people spending more time online will almost certainly benefit their business. That's why they don't need any ulterior motivation for efforts like HTTPS Everywhere, Google Fiber, or Chrome. The very fact that those technologies make the web safer, faster, or more powerful already benefits Google indirectly.

newscracker 8y ago
> Google has long held the stance that anything that's good for the web is good for Google. Not denying that, but this could be reversed and would still make sense: Google has long held the stance that anything that's good for Google is good for the web.

TheKarateKid 8y ago

Sorry, but there's really no reason to force HTTPS on static webpages, news sites, or any site where you're just browsing/consuming. Google is smart enough where they could've enforced the penalty on sites that should use HTTPS, such as those with any kind of form submission or login. But they chose not to without much of a reason, and that's why I can believe it helped some hidden motive of theirs.

driverdan 8y ago
> Sorry, but there's really no reason to force HTTPS on static webpages... I downvoted you because this is wrong. There are at least two good reasons for it: 1. It prevents MitM attacks. For example, some ISPs and free WiFi APs inject arbitrary code into unencrypted pages. 2. It improves privacy by hiding the request headers, including hostname.