3 ms·

You changed your opinion quickly. Previously you said: > The plan is to disable some of the "more dangerous" features when the page is requested over HTTP And

by Touche 12y ago

You changed your opinion quickly. Previously you said: > The plan is to disable some of the "more dangerous" features when the page is requested over HTTP And now you're saying that every new feature falls into this category. Listen, I'm all for going all-in on SSL. What I'm not for is doing until SSL is as seamless and inexpensive as HTTP. What really concerns me is that the https-only nazis do not share this concern. It's never mentioned in their blog posts. It actually really scares me that something that has been so important for making the web as powerful for the cause of freedom is not even on the radar of the people who are controlling the direction of the web.

kijin 12y ago
No, I didn't change my opinion. I just clarified what I meant by "more dangerous", and IMO everything that involves javascript or access to surveillance hardware (camera, microphone, GPS, etc.) qualifies as dangerous. My fundamental disagreement with you is that I don't think we can wait until "SSL is as seamless and inexpensive as HTTP". That will never happen unless we can pose a credible threat to the profit margins of web hosts and CAs. And sending a horde of unsatisfied customers in their general direction is one of the most effective ways to pose such a threat.
mauricemir 12y ago
Its a bit like the ipv6 band wagon 20 years ago I or anyone with a trivial knowledge of the internet/networking, could have pointed out that developing a new standard with NO thought to inter operation would not work. Also having it developed by 19 university types and one guy from Bell labs was asking for trouble
Dylan16807 12y ago
>And now you're saying that every new feature falls into this category. Subtle misreading. It's not that new features are in that category by definition, it's that every major feature proposal kijin has seen so far has been of the dangerous sort.

by Touche 12y ago

kijin 12y ago

No, I didn't change my opinion. I just clarified what I meant by "more dangerous", and IMO everything that involves javascript or access to surveillance hardware (camera, microphone, GPS, etc.) qualifies as dangerous. My fundamental disagreement with you is that I don't think we can wait until "SSL is as seamless and inexpensive as HTTP". That will never happen unless we can pose a credible threat to the profit margins of web hosts and CAs. And sending a horde of unsatisfied customers in their general direction is one of the most effective ways to pose such a threat.

mauricemir 12y ago

Its a bit like the ipv6 band wagon 20 years ago I or anyone with a trivial knowledge of the internet/networking, could have pointed out that developing a new standard with NO thought to inter operation would not work. Also having it developed by 19 university types and one guy from Bell labs was asking for trouble

Dylan16807 12y ago

>And now you're saying that every new feature falls into this category. Subtle misreading. It's not that new features are in that category by definition, it's that every major feature proposal kijin has seen so far has been of the dangerous sort.