3 ms·
Trading security for convenience is rarely a good idea. The rest of the world should not conform the to failures of certain areas to provide internet.
by satanspastaroll 7y ago
Trading security for convenience is rarely a good idea. The rest of the world should not conform the to failures of certain areas to provide internet.
- oneeyedpigeon 7y agoNo, but it's a good idea to have the option, so long as people are aware of the implications.
- rkagerer 7y agoUnfortunately convenience usually does tradeoff against security. Thoughtful UX can deliver both, but it's rare to find in practice. That casual dismissal of davidmurdoch's counterargument comes across tone-deaf to people stuck on crappy connections.
- davidmurdoch 7y agoI see your point. But we trade security for convenience 24/7/365. We could all have bulletproof glass in our homes, personal security cameras everywhere, backup generators, panic rooms, etc, but we don't, because it's not convenient (and I know the expense is primarily what makes it not convenient, but I think it's still a valid argument). Providing access to Wikipedia over http to people in third world countries may be worth the risk of someone MITMing the site with propaganda. The suggestion is only to give some users the option.
- pixl97 7y agoMitm with propaganda is the least of the worries. Full on exploit code is. The fact is as an ecosystem develops completely increases. Lifeforms in that ecosystem have to spend more time and effort protecting themselves from outside attacks as time progresses.