3 ms·
For many sites, and probably most non-commercial sites, yes. Anyone thinking about this issue can decide if that threat model applies to them: do they even have
by superkuh 5y ago
For many sites, and probably most non-commercial sites, yes. Anyone thinking about this issue can decide if that threat model applies to them: do they even have a log in, or is it just html files and jpegs in directories? etc.
- raggi 5y agoHow do you determine a users privacy requirements by site alone? The content does not imply relevance to privacy abuse; abusers come in all manners and may take abusive objection to content like w3.org that would to most people seem innocuous.
- superkuh 5y agoIt's pretty easy when you are the person that made the website (like most personal websites). Again, I am not advocating for not having HTTPS so I don't know why you think HTTP+HTTPS is less private. It is exactly as private only it is also human readable and requires no centralized authority's lease to be visitable.
- bawolff 5y agoWell that depends on what the jpegs and html files contain. For example, the fact you are reading the wikipedia article on Tiananmen square incident might be very sensitive if you live in China (ignoring the part where they block wikipedia). Other places might object to various other speech, etc. Although to be fair, the mass survelience threat model is probably less likely to have an active attack like tls stripping. But annonoyminity is all about hiding in the crowd; only securing the connection when you have something to hide from eavesdroppers means that you have no crowd to hide in when you need to.