The whole freaking point of HTTPS is to prevent man-in-the-middle scenarios. If somebody does listen to your connection without you noticing it, then it's an is

The whole freaking point of HTTPS is to prevent man-in-the-middle scenarios. If somebody does listen to your connection without you noticing it, then it's an issue of trust. Maybe Nokia is not diabolical, although as any other commercial for-profit entity they care much more about their bottom-line. It isn't any different than trusting Google with your email, but for example, suppose you connect to Gmail on the web from such a Nokia device, are you prepared to have your communications available to not just 1, but 2 commercial entities? The far bigger point however is that their servers represent a point of failure. I may trust that they won't do anything with my data, but can I trust that they are competent enough to secure their own servers? What about disgruntled employees with enough privileges? Considering how many people they fired and how bleak their future is, I'm sure they have at least some disgruntled employees. Again, you can say this about any service. You don't know how secure a bank's servers are, right? But on the other hand, why in the world does Nokia need to do this? A simple message informing users that SSL connections are slower should have been enough. Or at least a warning of some sorts that the connection is not entirely secure and in case you connect to your bank account you should do it from another device. Instead, you're left with the impression that the connection is secure, when in fact there's a man in the middle who's competence is doubtful, a fact proven by the deployment of this feature alone.