4 ms·
Well HTTPS wouldn't have prevented that. In the AOL case the company at the other end of the connection released the information. I guess someone in a sensiti
by TomOfTTB 16y ago
Well HTTPS wouldn't have prevented that. In the AOL case the company at the other end of the connection released the information.
I guess someone in a sensitive position (e.g. someone with access to the routers at a major ISP) could intercept a every bit of traffic and produce a similar result but it doesn't seem likely and there's a flip side to this argument which is it puts a financial strain on the companies themselves.
Wikipedia, for instance, surely wouldn't have the processing power to switch all its connections to https. So they'd have to significantly upgrade their infrastructure at an equally significant cost.
- Joakal 16y agoHTTPS may not be able to prevent companies releasing information, but the article shows the similar kind of information that eavesdropping could yield. You say Wikipedia wouldn't have the processing power to switch all connections to https, but I see that eavesdroppers wouldn't have the processing power to decrypt all connections to https. I would point to Iran and similar countries happy that users don't use encrypted connections but I found too many replies of "It won't happen to us [in this peaceful country]."
- cookiecaper 16y agoAgain, HTTPS isn't the only mechanism by which one can encrypt his/her communications. Persons in Iran should use a VPN or something like Tor or I2P. I don't think there's a reason to force Wikipedia to use HTTPS by default.