TL;DR: don't click the link! Your eyes will bleed! This article is not at all about whether the web should be encrypted. It's barely even about EFF's "HTTPS

TL;DR: don't click the link! Your eyes will bleed! This article is not at all about whether the web should be encrypted. It's barely even about EFF's "HTTPS Everywhere". It's essentially a provocative title slapped onto re-postings of quotes from other people. >HTTPS is the keystone of Internet security and privacy. >In particular it protects against "search hijacking". Oh, phew! I can go back to submitting passwords over HTTP again. >The Web, having just turned 20, shows signs of fatigue and >its core technologies seem to be increasingly unable to >cope with sophisticated attacks. If "The Web" is having a problem, it's that new-style web apps usually have the security mindset of page-by-page websites while having the functionality of full-on client apps. >the out-of-control proliferation of pseudo-standard >ways to secure Web protocols Holy shit! They're using pseudo-standards! Set phasers to "kill"! Oh, wait, most sites are using fairly standard methods of securing data? (e.g. HMAC, OAuth, etc) Hmm... My eyes!!! They burn!!! EDIT: in case my flippancy was confusing, web standards and a secure web are very important. If I just consider the question posed by the title of TFA, I'd have to say "Hell yes, the web should be encrypted!" Most of everything ever written was obscured, so why the hell wouldn't be do the same with the web? Anyone remember security envelopes for mail? Using code words when talking about drugs on the phone? The web's no different from mail or phone except that it's massively more complex than a phone line and no one in this damned country [US] can understand anything more than a 9 second* soundbite. * See: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/05/132671410/Congressional-Sound-Bites http://www.npr.org/2011/01/05/132671410/Congressional-Sound-...