4 ms·

I'd love for Google to block all HTTPS traffic coming from Nokia's server, citing security concerns. That would make Nokia change their tune real quick.

TallGuyShort 14y ago
That's great for security, but not for freedom. The problem is that people just assume they're secure, and they should be aware that if they're going to use these browsers, they're trusting Nokia with their information in exchange for a faster and more compact data transfer. But having Google refuse service because you choose to trust Nokia is silly. A warning shown to users would be a more palatable solution, in my opinion.
gcb0 14y ago
it's not insecure if you trust the company. should google block everypass.com just because it have your banking acount password? if i'm on a slow connection and have to use this browser to compress my connection to my bank, i will decide if i trust the browser to do so. I just think nokia should have been even more open about this. and probably gave me an option on the browser. In that they sinned.
- esrauch 14y ago
  I don't see how everypass.com is relevant. In this case when I go to https://www.google.com https://www.google.com I expect that any traffic can only be seen by Google, the entire reason I typed "https" was specifically so that it was only a conversation between me and the site that I'm connecting to and no other middle men. It is of no consequence what company it is; it would be inappropriate for Google to be seeing my encrypted traffic to hotmail and it would be inappropriate for Microsoft to see my encrypted traffic to gmail. Google continuing to serve traffic under those conditions is misleading and Google (or any other site that supports https) shouldn't allow it.
nathan7 14y ago
Of course, when Google breaks them they'll write a fully-fledged browser for those phones that works as smoothly as the thin-client one. Because they merely chose to do that not because the former is impossible, but because they wanted to be evil. They'll just "change their tune".

TallGuyShort 14y ago

That's great for security, but not for freedom. The problem is that people just assume they're secure, and they should be aware that if they're going to use these browsers, they're trusting Nokia with their information in exchange for a faster and more compact data transfer. But having Google refuse service because you choose to trust Nokia is silly. A warning shown to users would be a more palatable solution, in my opinion.

gcb0 14y ago

it's not insecure if you trust the company. should google block everypass.com just because it have your banking acount password? if i'm on a slow connection and have to use this browser to compress my connection to my bank, i will decide if i trust the browser to do so. I just think nokia should have been even more open about this. and probably gave me an option on the browser. In that they sinned.

esrauch 14y ago
I don't see how everypass.com is relevant. In this case when I go to https://www.google.com https://www.google.com I expect that any traffic can only be seen by Google, the entire reason I typed "https" was specifically so that it was only a conversation between me and the site that I'm connecting to and no other middle men. It is of no consequence what company it is; it would be inappropriate for Google to be seeing my encrypted traffic to hotmail and it would be inappropriate for Microsoft to see my encrypted traffic to gmail. Google continuing to serve traffic under those conditions is misleading and Google (or any other site that supports https) shouldn't allow it.

nathan7 14y ago

Of course, when Google breaks them they'll write a fully-fledged browser for those phones that works as smoothly as the thin-client one. Because they merely chose to do that not because the former is impossible, but because they wanted to be evil. They'll just "change their tune".