4 ms·

So man in the middle in the developing world is bad, but pervasive tracking in the developed world is absolutely fine. Got it. Edit for replies to this message

by s_Hogg 7y ago

So man in the middle in the developing world is bad, but pervasive tracking in the developed world is absolutely fine. Got it. Edit for replies to this message: I accept the distinction being made, but that doesn't mean I'm more happy about one thing than the other. Both suck.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
floatboth 7y ago
MitM is a fundamental breach of trust between you and the websites you visit. The websites themselves tracking you… well, whatever, visit better websites, block third-party trackers (Firefox actually does that out of the box), use Tor Browser. (Also, the tracking is not exclusive to the "developed world" lol)
- jancsika 7y ago
  A thing affects a tiny percentage of the world population. An ethical stance is made. A thing affects enormous percentage of world population. A shrug is performed.
  - thewhitetulip 7y ago
    There is a big difference between MiTM and tracking. When google tracks me when I'm in India it is not for finding out if I am against my PM and a threat to the party and if they want to silence me
asadjb 7y ago
Man-in-the-middle shows someone my bank password. Tracking only shows them who I am and what sites I visit (simplifying explanation I know). I'd much rather be tracked online and have my bank details safe than the other way around.
- Arbalest 7y ago
  That's not necessarily true. If it is on page Javascript tracking, the script could well snoop the password before it is even in transit. This is perhaps still better than a MitM as at least the bank has had some chance to vet the vendor of the tracking script. Still, if the tracking script vendor is compromised, we're back to square one.
gorty 7y ago
> So man in the middle in the developing world is bad, but pervasive tracking in the developed world is absolutely fine. Who are you quoting?
codedokode 7y ago
it is important that Kazakhstan's government lied about the purpose of certificate: it said it was necessary to access government sites and for connection security. But actually connection security was compromised. Browsers and OS vendors must provide clear explanations, when adding a third-party certificate. For example, Android shows a notification that traffic can be intercepted and allows to disable third-party root certificates.

by s_Hogg 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

floatboth 7y ago

MitM is a fundamental breach of trust between you and the websites you visit. The websites themselves tracking you… well, whatever, visit better websites, block third-party trackers (Firefox actually does that out of the box), use Tor Browser. (Also, the tracking is not exclusive to the "developed world" lol)

jancsika 7y ago
A thing affects a tiny percentage of the world population. An ethical stance is made. A thing affects enormous percentage of world population. A shrug is performed.
- thewhitetulip 7y ago
  There is a big difference between MiTM and tracking. When google tracks me when I'm in India it is not for finding out if I am against my PM and a threat to the party and if they want to silence me

asadjb 7y ago

Man-in-the-middle shows someone my bank password. Tracking only shows them who I am and what sites I visit (simplifying explanation I know). I'd much rather be tracked online and have my bank details safe than the other way around.

Arbalest 7y ago
That's not necessarily true. If it is on page Javascript tracking, the script could well snoop the password before it is even in transit. This is perhaps still better than a MitM as at least the bank has had some chance to vet the vendor of the tracking script. Still, if the tracking script vendor is compromised, we're back to square one.

gorty 7y ago

> So man in the middle in the developing world is bad, but pervasive tracking in the developed world is absolutely fine. Who are you quoting?

codedokode 7y ago

it is important that Kazakhstan's government lied about the purpose of certificate: it said it was necessary to access government sites and for connection security. But actually connection security was compromised. Browsers and OS vendors must provide clear explanations, when adding a third-party certificate. For example, Android shows a notification that traffic can be intercepted and allows to disable third-party root certificates.