4 ms·

Strongly disagree. At the very least, all sites should serve HTTPS. I don't want to get ads and spyware injected from my ISP, nor do I want everyone tracking wh

Strongly disagree. At the very least, all sites should serve HTTPS. I don't want to get ads and spyware injected from my ISP, nor do I want everyone tracking what I read, on news sites for example. Provide HTTP if you want, but only for backcompat.

badsectoracula 6y ago
> I don't want to get ads and spyware injected from my ISP Honestly this is a notion that i do not understand. Why do you accept your ISP doing this? Why aren't people banding together and complain about it in an organized manner? If there aren't alternative ISPs in your area it means there will be a lot of people affected by this so more voices to be heard. Why are you just accepting ISPs adding ads and spyware to your content as some force of nature that everyone else must work to keep at bay?
- edoceo 6y ago
  In many places there are not alternatives, all available vendors have a history of hijinks. It's quite hard to band many small voices together and even when we do government agencies pick the wrong thing. It's not really accepting. It's more like picking the least-shitty of a shitty set of options.
  - badsectoracula 6y ago
    But as i wrote if there are no alternatives then it means there is a larger pool of people to band together. And you can start by making noise towards the company as one voice not with the government. Honestly this sounds like you've given up without trying and then blaming the sites for not trying to work around your ISP being shitty. Here the blame lies with your ISP, not the sites.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      These are brilliant ideas. It's amazing it doesn't actually play out this way.
- Spivak 6y ago
  This isn’t about having a shitty ISP specifically it’s the fact that the network path between your machine and the server is by definition untrusted. The much harder problem is securing the entire internet so that you don’t need encryption. Or you could just encrypt the content and be sure you have a clean connection.
- aseipp 6y ago
  > Why aren't people banding together and complain about it in an organized manner? Because the notion of collective organizing has been completely eroded and squeezed out of modern society at every level and replaced with "consumer choice". Is this supposed to be a difficult question or a rhetorical one? I'm not being factitious, that's the actual answer and it's very easy to observe if you look around. (If you check your watch I'm sure it's only a matter of time until someone here literally replies telling you to get a new ISP, in fact.) That said, even beyond the need for collective organizing of regulation for cases like ISPs, it's been like a decade since Firesheep made waves over the internet because it turns out just being able to snoop passwords at Starbucks was in fact, not good, and actually was quite bad. So it's not like ISPs are the only unscrupulous actors out there, and unless you want to get into the realms of "This software is illegal to possess" (normally a pretty hot-button topic here) then someone has to deal, in this case. The whole pathway between a user and their destination is, by design, insecure; combine that with the fact the internet is practically a wild west, and you have a somewhat different problem. Making system administrators adopt TLS en masse was probably the right course of action anyway, all things considered, and happens to help neutralize an array of problems here, even if you regulated ISPs and punished them excessively for hijinks like content manipulation (which I would wholeheartedly love to see, honestly.) (The other histrionics about "simplicity" of HTTP/2 or text vs binary whatever are all masturbatory red herrings IMO so I'm just ignoring them)
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Why do you accept your ISP doing this? You say this as if ISPs don't exist as natural monopolies that can unilaterally ignore customer complaints because "Who cares what you think? You're stuck with us.".

badsectoracula 6y ago

> I don't want to get ads and spyware injected from my ISP Honestly this is a notion that i do not understand. Why do you accept your ISP doing this? Why aren't people banding together and complain about it in an organized manner? If there aren't alternative ISPs in your area it means there will be a lot of people affected by this so more voices to be heard. Why are you just accepting ISPs adding ads and spyware to your content as some force of nature that everyone else must work to keep at bay?

edoceo 6y ago
In many places there are not alternatives, all available vendors have a history of hijinks. It's quite hard to band many small voices together and even when we do government agencies pick the wrong thing. It's not really accepting. It's more like picking the least-shitty of a shitty set of options.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  But as i wrote if there are no alternatives then it means there is a larger pool of people to band together. And you can start by making noise towards the company as one voice not with the government. Honestly this sounds like you've given up without trying and then blaming the sites for not trying to work around your ISP being shitty. Here the blame lies with your ISP, not the sites.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    These are brilliant ideas. It's amazing it doesn't actually play out this way.
Spivak 6y ago
This isn’t about having a shitty ISP specifically it’s the fact that the network path between your machine and the server is by definition untrusted. The much harder problem is securing the entire internet so that you don’t need encryption. Or you could just encrypt the content and be sure you have a clean connection.
aseipp 6y ago
> Why aren't people banding together and complain about it in an organized manner? Because the notion of collective organizing has been completely eroded and squeezed out of modern society at every level and replaced with "consumer choice". Is this supposed to be a difficult question or a rhetorical one? I'm not being factitious, that's the actual answer and it's very easy to observe if you look around. (If you check your watch I'm sure it's only a matter of time until someone here literally replies telling you to get a new ISP, in fact.) That said, even beyond the need for collective organizing of regulation for cases like ISPs, it's been like a decade since Firesheep made waves over the internet because it turns out just being able to snoop passwords at Starbucks was in fact, not good, and actually was quite bad. So it's not like ISPs are the only unscrupulous actors out there, and unless you want to get into the realms of "This software is illegal to possess" (normally a pretty hot-button topic here) then someone has to deal, in this case. The whole pathway between a user and their destination is, by design, insecure; combine that with the fact the internet is practically a wild west, and you have a somewhat different problem. Making system administrators adopt TLS en masse was probably the right course of action anyway, all things considered, and happens to help neutralize an array of problems here, even if you regulated ISPs and punished them excessively for hijinks like content manipulation (which I would wholeheartedly love to see, honestly.) (The other histrionics about "simplicity" of HTTP/2 or text vs binary whatever are all masturbatory red herrings IMO so I'm just ignoring them)
yellowapple 6y ago
> Why do you accept your ISP doing this? You say this as if ISPs don't exist as natural monopolies that can unilaterally ignore customer complaints because "Who cares what you think? You're stuck with us.".