[flossyspeaker]

This is an old as time debate of "Security vs Convenience".

It's a lot easier to maintain web servers if they are only using the http protocol and not https. Does that mean I should not enable https? Same thing with letting Google start to categorize and selling your profile to organizations. It might be nice now, but in 5-10 years what will the landscape look like?

It's ultimately your choice to determine how much of your information you are willing to give up for the sake of convenience but you should think a little more about what the future could look like and start putting in some safeguards to protect yourself in the future.

[TheDong]

> It's a lot easier to maintain web servers if they are only using the http protocol and not https. Does that mean I should not enable https?

I think that's a totally different issue and I think it's harmful to this discussion to bring such an issue in.

The case of http vs https is not one of user security vs user convenience; it's user security vs sysadmin convenience.

There's a different tradeoff with giving user's more security which is less convenient for you to maintain, and you typically should do this (this is stuff like https, supporting 2fa, etc).

The better comparison is sharing data with third parties to provide users conveniences. This is a comparison between user's data security and user's convenience. That's the tradeoff being discussed.

Bringing in unrelated things like http vs https will only serve to muddy the waters and damage your point.

[sneak]

Giving up privacy for most people is not a security reduction. Privacy is extremely important, but it is relevant only to a tiny minority of people who care about it or otherwise require it. Most people neither care nor use their rights to privacy, so in practice, losing it, for them, is no real loss. It is an increase in convenience—at no cost. The cost is a societal one, borne only when “no privacy” becomes a widespread default. As it stands, there are other browsers that offer better privacy for those who care about such things.

[sanbor]

The NSA revelations shown that governments are doing mass surveillance for real and it is not just a nonsense conspiracy. Right now maybe only ver few might get affected by this. But if in the future the people in power use that information against you or your people you will regret it to exchange your privacy for convenience.

[Ntrails]

> if in the future the people in power use that information against you or your people you will regret it to exchange your privacy for convenience.

Alternatively if the people not in power have a revolution and murder all of us working in finance... well shucks I guess that could be something I'd regret.

Waving around arbitrary threats doesn't help if the people you're preaching to view them as low likelihood.

[JoshMnem]

Privacy is related to security. The ability for anyone with a little technical knowledge to gain large amounts of data about you is a big security risk for individuals and society.