7 ms·

> My expensive TV has banner ads in the menus (well, it did until I blocked about two dozen domains) Just wait until Google has pushed everyone into encrypted

• post-it 5y ago
  The TV will still need to update its certificates and work on corporate wifi, so there should always be a way to feed it your own certificate and MITM DNS. I think, anyway.
  • krisrm 5y ago
    You'll have to pay extra for the "enterprise" TV ;)
    • Spivak 5y ago
      I mean fine, I’ll gladly pay more just give me the option.
      • freeflight 5y ago
        You just fell for the con!
        • Spivak 5y ago
          But why is it a con though? Marginal cost of TV is $600, amortized business cost for projected sales is $400, expected average lifetime revenue from user data and ads is $60 ($15/"user"/yr for 5 years which is damn good for an ad network), throw in a 6.3% profit margin and we get TV priced at $999.99. Throw away the ads and user data collection and up the profit to 10% to make it worth their while (since someone willing to pay more is on average worth more to advertisers and so decreases the value of their network) and we get a TV priced at $1099.99. This seems totally fair to me.
          • freeflight 5y ago
            > But why is it a con though? The product would work just fine without all the extra monetization, that's how it worked for the longest time. Nobody asked for savings trough selling their privacy, that was very much forced on us, and now they force the upsell to "enterpise privacy edition" as the solution to a problem they themselves introduced.
      • anonymousab 5y ago
        Unfortunately, the "extra" will probably be another 0 on the end of the cost, alongside a minimum order requirement and needing to get the procurement through someone with connections.
        • mananaysiempre 5y ago
          This is more or less what happened with Windows 10 editions, as far as I can tell from reading the list.
  • the_pwner224 5y ago
    Only until they implement cert pinning, unfortunately.
• matt123456789 5y ago
  HTTPS can be implemented in a decentralized way without a single party having access to your sites visited. DNS-over-HTTPS is by its nature centralized. So is DNS. Your DNS provider has a list of all sites they’ve resolved for you, whether it’s encrypted over using TLS or not. Maybe that doesn’t go against your point, but I wanted to clarify that the two technologies have very different privacy implications.
  • perryizgr8 5y ago
    > HTTPS can be implemented in a decentralized way How does that work? AFAIK there is always a root authority.
    • nicce 5y ago
      Keys can be exchanged without root authority. Root authority is only required for identifying that website owner is who he claims to be.
      • xyzzyz 5y ago
        Yes, and without verifying that the owner is who he claims to be, exchanging keys is not of much value.
        • c22 5y ago
          I dunno, knowing the owner hasn't changed since last time seems almost as good.
    • erikerikson 5y ago
      No. There are roots and you can install any root you like including one you create. Is that some amount of centralization? I don't think so though convenience and efficiency encourage it on a single and not very important dimension. Once a CA signs a cert they are no longer involved in the HTTPS protocol and really that's the bulk of the use case. As GP noted, it certainly includes "without a single party having access to your sites visited".