4 ms·
Sure, but security isn't everything, there is also accessibility, and I balance them by allowing even plaintext HTTP traffic on non-sensitive websites, because
by forgotmypw17 5y ago
Sure, but security isn't everything, there is also accessibility, and I balance them by allowing even plaintext HTTP traffic on non-sensitive websites, because to me it is more important to allow access than to provide so-called "privacy", which IMO means very little with HTTPS anyway.
- robin_reala 5y agoIt depends what you’re hosting. As a basic example, Wikipedia might be a non-sensitive website to most people, but if you’re a teen with questions about your sexual identity, living with homophobic parents, then HTTPS will ensure that they just see wikipedia.org at the router level. The same when I worked at GOV.UK: we were just as likely to offer information on paying your council tax as services for spouses suffering domestic abuse.
- forgotmypw17 5y agoIf you're an abuse victim desperate for information, and all you have is a device which you found at the bottom of the closet which is five years old and has the clock set wrong, what do you think is better? Option 1: Being able to connect to a public WiFi network and browse Wikipedia over HTTP. Option 2: Being "secure" in not being able to access the information at all due to HTTPS limitations?