3 ms·

> forcing everybody to https so they can increase their control over the internet how does this increase their control?

by jraph 6y ago

anchpop 6y ago
It prevents ISPs from snooping. But personally I don't really buy the shadowy conspiracy theories. I think HTTPS makes the internet better (people want to be able to trust their connections are secret), and anything that makes the internet better is good for Google.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > But personally I don't really buy the shadowy conspiracy theories. I think HTTPS makes the internet better I guess both can be true.
- wvenable 6y ago
  There is a trade off. Encryption everywhere protects the clients from the network. That's great for most usage but it's a negative if it's your local network and you want to have more control over clients using it. Right now it's possible to selectively block client activity on your network (your smart TV snooping or showing ads) but that's going to get much harder in the future. You'll have to chose all or none when it comes to clients.
- userbinator 6y ago
  You want encryption only through the untrusted parts of the network, because otherwise it is secret from you.
zo1 6y ago
It takes away control from the user that no longer has full and relatively-easy control over the data flowing through their hardware. With Google controlling the browser, the web renderer, the HTTP protocols, the add-ons available in the browser and preventing data manipulation due to HTTPS, they have an encryption-protected pipe straight from their servers to the user's screen. And it's all done under the guise and blessing of "privacy". It's really a bleak future for the web. Sorry, I went on a bit of tangent. But to answer your question: HTTPS makes it incredibly difficult to introspect and alter content that is flowing through the web and your browser. Allowing a user (and his ISP if done correctly) to easily at the network level alter the content, one can do all sorts of magic that we haven't even begun to explore because it's effectively impossible. The big usage of this would be ad-blocking and removal. At this point the two biggest ad-blocking mechanisms we easily have available are: DNS-blocking of ad servers, and add-ons/plugins that are allowing introspection of the data on the web pages visited. Both of those avenues are being attacked. Add-on APIs and capabilities are being neutered in little bits and pieces both on Firefox + Chrome. And DNS is being attacked with things such as DNS over HTTPS (again under the guise of privacy). Not to mention that even SSL certificates that allow MITM for the user are being attacked by initiatives such as embedding SSL certificates into binaries, and certificate pinning (which luckily seems to have been abandoned). We need FOSS/Stallman-level activism and wars against this stuff that is eating away at the rights we have over our own hardware. Whatever you call this issue, it should be right up there with "right to repair", "own our own data", "right to be forgotten", etc. Edit, wrong acronym.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- userbinator 6y ago
  It used to be DRM, but privacy and security are the most prominent excuse under which freedoms are being attacked today, because "why would you argue against privacy and security?" --- just like drugs, terrorism, and child porn. I have a MITM proxy on my network that strips ads, rewrites pages with custom stylesheets, and all that across every single device connected to it, and it's hard but not impossible to set everything up, and they are only trying to make that harder. I agree with you completely, except for "right to be forgotten" --- which tends to become interpreted more as a "right to rewrite history". "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  I have trouble believing Google feels threatened by users choosing to MITM their own connections with self-signed certificates. There’s no way you’re going to see a noticeable percentage of consumers do that, so how would it affect their bottom line?
- ilogik 6y ago
  nobody is making you use chrome. I'm using firefox

> forcing everybody to https so they can increase their control over the internet how does this increase their control?

by jraph 6y ago

> forcing everybody to https so they can increase their control over the internet how does this increase their control?

It prevents ISPs from snooping. But personally I don't really buy the shadowy conspiracy theories. I think HTTPS makes the internet better (people want to be able to trust their connections are secret), and anything that makes the internet better is good for Google.

wtetzner 6y ago
> But personally I don't really buy the shadowy conspiracy theories. I think HTTPS makes the internet better I guess both can be true.
wvenable 6y ago
There is a trade off. Encryption everywhere protects the clients from the network. That's great for most usage but it's a negative if it's your local network and you want to have more control over clients using it. Right now it's possible to selectively block client activity on your network (your smart TV snooping or showing ads) but that's going to get much harder in the future. You'll have to chose all or none when it comes to clients.
userbinator 6y ago
You want encryption only through the untrusted parts of the network, because otherwise it is secret from you.

zo1 6y ago

It takes away control from the user that no longer has full and relatively-easy control over the data flowing through their hardware. With Google controlling the browser, the web renderer, the HTTP protocols, the add-ons available in the browser and preventing data manipulation due to HTTPS, they have an encryption-protected pipe straight from their servers to the user's screen. And it's all done under the guise and blessing of "privacy". It's really a bleak future for the web. Sorry, I went on a bit of tangent. But to answer your question: HTTPS makes it incredibly difficult to introspect and alter content that is flowing through the web and your browser. Allowing a user (and his ISP if done correctly) to easily at the network level alter the content, one can do all sorts of magic that we haven't even begun to explore because it's effectively impossible. The big usage of this would be ad-blocking and removal. At this point the two biggest ad-blocking mechanisms we easily have available are: DNS-blocking of ad servers, and add-ons/plugins that are allowing introspection of the data on the web pages visited. Both of those avenues are being attacked. Add-on APIs and capabilities are being neutered in little bits and pieces both on Firefox + Chrome. And DNS is being attacked with things such as DNS over HTTPS (again under the guise of privacy). Not to mention that even SSL certificates that allow MITM for the user are being attacked by initiatives such as embedding SSL certificates into binaries, and certificate pinning (which luckily seems to have been abandoned). We need FOSS/Stallman-level activism and wars against this stuff that is eating away at the rights we have over our own hardware. Whatever you call this issue, it should be right up there with "right to repair", "own our own data", "right to be forgotten", etc. Edit, wrong acronym.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
userbinator 6y ago
It used to be DRM, but privacy and security are the most prominent excuse under which freedoms are being attacked today, because "why would you argue against privacy and security?" --- just like drugs, terrorism, and child porn. I have a MITM proxy on my network that strips ads, rewrites pages with custom stylesheets, and all that across every single device connected to it, and it's hard but not impossible to set everything up, and they are only trying to make that harder. I agree with you completely, except for "right to be forgotten" --- which tends to become interpreted more as a "right to rewrite history". "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
johncolanduoni 6y ago
I have trouble believing Google feels threatened by users choosing to MITM their own connections with self-signed certificates. There’s no way you’re going to see a noticeable percentage of consumers do that, so how would it affect their bottom line?
ilogik 6y ago
nobody is making you use chrome. I'm using firefox