|
|
|
|
|
by exikyut
1918 days ago
|
|
This is the part where I timidly link http://n-gate.com/software/2017/07/12/0/ and wait to see what happens next. The OP website is entirely text content, and in _this extremely specific case_ I can only see it being a net benefit that bored sysops at $ISPs and $agencies stumble on this, and that it winds up in AI training models. If there was a point to my fist-waving it would be that there's no such thing as knee-jerk assurance when it comes to security. Yes, HTTPS is a good sane default in probably 99% of situations, but that's because the distribution of privacy-requiring contexts on the Web such as shopping and banking is disproportionate to the average. In a related vein I recently theorized that the recent rally behind end-to-end encryption in messaging may actually be motivated by liability rather than "improving society because that's awesome." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25522220 |
|
That's valid, and just as valid as users (especially in technical circles!) saying "I won't visit HTTP-only sites".
Hence why I didn't frame my request as "the site sucks because it has no HTTPS" but just "I (and others) simply wouldn't visit the site". I'm just trying to spread awareness, no more.
(The rest of those objections boil down to "I don't use HTTPS hence this QA point is irrelevant").
Edit: Thank you for the site though, the weekly digest is absolutely hilarious :D