4 ms·

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

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
Apparently there's a limit on replies to a thread. But indicating that it's the publisher's content and not yours is not a dangerous line of thought it is the common line of thought through which all copyright which has been a thing for many hundreds of years now is based upon. My point was simply about the publisher ensuring that the content that they publish is received as intended by you the consumer. You seem to be conflating that with a consumer doing what they want with it after they've received it. What we're talking about here is third parties that are neither the publisher or nor the consumer altering the content but still pretending it is the publishers original work. For many hundreds of years now this has been an egregious violation of copyright and nothing about an "in an iPhone world" changes that. Your argument seems to be based around the core principle of you don't care if a third party alters content that you're trying to consume that you may rely upon to be accurate. Additionally your argument seems to be based around the hubris that you would be able to detect the alteration and simply switch connection methodologies to get around it. That is a completely false premise to base your argument around. You have no assurances you would be able to detect the alteration and you would also have no assurances that simply changing from cell to Wi-Fi would get you around where the alteration is made because you have no idea where in the chain of connections the content has been altered. All of this is reasonably solved by using an and to end encrypted connection. Is it perfect, no, there is always ways to alter data inside the encrypted connection but these are difficult ways. So we're back to the idea of reasonable assurances that what was published is what is consumed. The fact that you do not care that content you're consuming is totally untrusted does not mean the rest of the world it needs to facilitate you and continuing to consume untrusted content. If you wish to pursue consuming totally untrusted content you're free to do so with many proxies because even your old device will support a proxy method that will allow you to continue to have untrusted content. As for the rest of the world we are far better off understanding that there is a reasonable assurance that what is published and what I'm consuming are the same thing.

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

Apparently there's a limit on replies to a thread. But indicating that it's the publisher's content and not yours is not a dangerous line of thought it is the common line of thought through which all copyright which has been a thing for many hundreds of years now is based upon. My point was simply about the publisher ensuring that the content that they publish is received as intended by you the consumer. You seem to be conflating that with a consumer doing what they want with it after they've received it. What we're talking about here is third parties that are neither the publisher or nor the consumer altering the content but still pretending it is the publishers original work. For many hundreds of years now this has been an egregious violation of copyright and nothing about an "in an iPhone world" changes that. Your argument seems to be based around the core principle of you don't care if a third party alters content that you're trying to consume that you may rely upon to be accurate. Additionally your argument seems to be based around the hubris that you would be able to detect the alteration and simply switch connection methodologies to get around it. That is a completely false premise to base your argument around. You have no assurances you would be able to detect the alteration and you would also have no assurances that simply changing from cell to Wi-Fi would get you around where the alteration is made because you have no idea where in the chain of connections the content has been altered. All of this is reasonably solved by using an and to end encrypted connection. Is it perfect, no, there is always ways to alter data inside the encrypted connection but these are difficult ways. So we're back to the idea of reasonable assurances that what was published is what is consumed. The fact that you do not care that content you're consuming is totally untrusted does not mean the rest of the world it needs to facilitate you and continuing to consume untrusted content. If you wish to pursue consuming totally untrusted content you're free to do so with many proxies because even your old device will support a proxy method that will allow you to continue to have untrusted content. As for the rest of the world we are far better off understanding that there is a reasonable assurance that what is published and what I'm consuming are the same thing.