>I think the author is arguing here that the MITM attack wouldn't bother with encrypted traffic (which is obviously a very weak argument). I think the author i

>I think the author is arguing here that the MITM attack wouldn't bother with encrypted traffic (which is obviously a very weak argument). I think the author is arguing that SSL requires active eavesdropping, which: 1.) Might break encryption (see Superfish), while the user thinks they're using proper SSL (author argued about the "false sense of security" in a separate section) 2.) Might just break things -- more an argument about software stability than privacy or security.