3 ms·

HTML/WWW is made with an idea of a backward compatibility. I agree with no more using log in on this device because everyone gets able to intercept my password

HTML/WWW is made with an idea of a backward compatibility. I agree with no more using log in on this device because everyone gets able to intercept my password from my precious account with 1k+ karma. But there are no reasons to disallow HTTP read-only connections which ends up in multiplying amount of digital garbage on the planet. I love this dumbphone as the one providing the best sound of my interlocutor, and having exactly as much features as I need including ability to read HN but not rest of Internets. If I would not find a way to read HN on this device I just stop using it against my will.

elmerfud 3y ago
The point of https everywhere isn't just to protect e-commerce or passwords or other potentially private-only information is the concept that everything that you do should remain a private conversation between you and the end host. Because there is a massive amount of eavesdropping and tampering of pages by service providers that happen a lot more than people realize and it's done totally transparently. So even for a site like HN if you want it to be read only are you sure that what you're reading is what was actually published? Backwards compatibility does not extend in perpetuity. It's also not reasonable to think that it should extend in perpetuity and that everyone else should be held back because you refuse to upgrade. As a website operator I would want to have a reasonable assurances that what I am transmitting is what will be received on the other side without being tampered or intercepted regardless of how private the communication may be.
- eimrine 3y ago
  I am OK if somebody like ISP will add his ads on the HN, typically it happens this way. I would agree that limits of technology is a thing if someone does something more interesting like replacing all pro-Lisp topics with pro-Java ones. But even in latter situation at least I have an ability to change Wi-Fi/GSM connection while in no-HTTP world I just go south with no good reason. Isn't HN's webserver (nginx/apache/whatever) has open HTTP by default? Isn't there a good reason for this?
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    Most websites will accept HTTP and then redirect to https. It's also not really about if you're okay with someone tampering with the content you're reading it's about assurances that the publisher can be reasonably assured what they're sending is what you're receiving. What you do with it after the fact they have no control over but this isn't simply about injecting ads it's about altering content in a way that the publisher did not intend. And it seems like an insane position to take to say you are fine with receiving content that you can have no reasonable assurance was not tampered with. Ultimately it's not your content it's the publisher's content. Again as a publisher I want to be reasonably sure what I send is what is going to be received. I take it based upon your position it would be reasonable to assume you are okay with libraries censoring out content in books or injecting new content in books. Also when you watch a movie the media player can arbitrarily cut, altar, or add new things to the content without your knowledge. Because this is the position you're taking by saying you are okay with content you are trying to consume to be altered without your knowledge. When this content is altered without your knowledge who will you get upset at? Because it's without your knowledge and so the only assumption would be it must be the content publisher who did this. I'm really having a difficult time determining if you're trolling or making an honest defense of using 15-year-old technology and expecting the world to additionally support 15-year-old insecure technology. Because this comes back to the original analogy of I want to use my 1965 Impala as my daily driver and refuse to upgrade it so I can use gasoline that does not cause mental illness through massive amounts of lead poisoning. The real problem you're having isn't that the piece of hardware is necessarily inadequate to do the task it's that the people who write the software for the hardware and do not allow you to continue to keep it current. So instead of making the argumentation that the world should remain in the past using insecure technologies your argument should be that when a manufacturer decides that they are going to end of life a product there should be legislation that requires all of the software to control that product become open sourced so I can continue to be maintained by the community should they continue to want to use it.
    - eimrine 3y ago
      > Ultimately it's not your content it's the publisher's content. This is a dangerous reasoning which leads to such a sad things like TPM. > When this content is altered without your knowledge who will you get upset at? Because it's without your knowledge and so the only assumption would be it must be the content publisher who did this. The phone supports 2 sim cards plus Wi-Fi, so if somebody would replace all pro-Lisp articles with pro-Java ones, I just change a connection.

elmerfud 3y ago

The point of https everywhere isn't just to protect e-commerce or passwords or other potentially private-only information is the concept that everything that you do should remain a private conversation between you and the end host. Because there is a massive amount of eavesdropping and tampering of pages by service providers that happen a lot more than people realize and it's done totally transparently. So even for a site like HN if you want it to be read only are you sure that what you're reading is what was actually published? Backwards compatibility does not extend in perpetuity. It's also not reasonable to think that it should extend in perpetuity and that everyone else should be held back because you refuse to upgrade. As a website operator I would want to have a reasonable assurances that what I am transmitting is what will be received on the other side without being tampered or intercepted regardless of how private the communication may be.

eimrine 3y ago
I am OK if somebody like ISP will add his ads on the HN, typically it happens this way. I would agree that limits of technology is a thing if someone does something more interesting like replacing all pro-Lisp topics with pro-Java ones. But even in latter situation at least I have an ability to change Wi-Fi/GSM connection while in no-HTTP world I just go south with no good reason. Isn't HN's webserver (nginx/apache/whatever) has open HTTP by default? Isn't there a good reason for this?
- elmerfud 3y ago
  Most websites will accept HTTP and then redirect to https. It's also not really about if you're okay with someone tampering with the content you're reading it's about assurances that the publisher can be reasonably assured what they're sending is what you're receiving. What you do with it after the fact they have no control over but this isn't simply about injecting ads it's about altering content in a way that the publisher did not intend. And it seems like an insane position to take to say you are fine with receiving content that you can have no reasonable assurance was not tampered with. Ultimately it's not your content it's the publisher's content. Again as a publisher I want to be reasonably sure what I send is what is going to be received. I take it based upon your position it would be reasonable to assume you are okay with libraries censoring out content in books or injecting new content in books. Also when you watch a movie the media player can arbitrarily cut, altar, or add new things to the content without your knowledge. Because this is the position you're taking by saying you are okay with content you are trying to consume to be altered without your knowledge. When this content is altered without your knowledge who will you get upset at? Because it's without your knowledge and so the only assumption would be it must be the content publisher who did this. I'm really having a difficult time determining if you're trolling or making an honest defense of using 15-year-old technology and expecting the world to additionally support 15-year-old insecure technology. Because this comes back to the original analogy of I want to use my 1965 Impala as my daily driver and refuse to upgrade it so I can use gasoline that does not cause mental illness through massive amounts of lead poisoning. The real problem you're having isn't that the piece of hardware is necessarily inadequate to do the task it's that the people who write the software for the hardware and do not allow you to continue to keep it current. So instead of making the argumentation that the world should remain in the past using insecure technologies your argument should be that when a manufacturer decides that they are going to end of life a product there should be legislation that requires all of the software to control that product become open sourced so I can continue to be maintained by the community should they continue to want to use it.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    > Ultimately it's not your content it's the publisher's content. This is a dangerous reasoning which leads to such a sad things like TPM. > When this content is altered without your knowledge who will you get upset at? Because it's without your knowledge and so the only assumption would be it must be the content publisher who did this. The phone supports 2 sim cards plus Wi-Fi, so if somebody would replace all pro-Lisp articles with pro-Java ones, I just change a connection.