3 ms·
It does add a "tax" of sort in the form time or attention that must be paid to keep a website up. You can't just sling some files in a directory and be done --
by oofoe 6y ago
It does add a "tax" of sort in the form time or attention that must be paid to keep a website up. You can't just sling some files in a directory and be done -- you have to pay for certificates or pay (in time and executable capability) to keep LetsEncrypt up to date.
And, as wonderful as LetsEncrypt is, it's not forever. At some point, they're gonna' get tired of messing with it or it will get taken over by private equity (see .org) and for whatever reason, it won't work any more.
And sure, that's always been true, new stuff obsoletes old and things fall by the wayside. But my current browser can access modern websites as well as sites from the dawn of the Web. But FireFox 85, 87 or 90 will probably make https mandatory -- and that amazing continuity is gone.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoThere are good reasons to insist on the use of HTTPS for all sites on the public web, with no exceptions or excuses. This topic has cropped up before: • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21912817 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21912817 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24640183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24640183 • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22147858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22147858
- jevgeni 6y agoThese links list literally SOME and not ALL cases that need encryption.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoI'm afraid I don't see your point here, please elaborate.
- jevgeni 6y agoYour point is "this should be applied to ALL sites", while your argument for it is "because it is relevant for SOME sites".
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoNot so. In the top link, points 2, 3, and 5, apply to all public websites.