| Classic n-gate. > > If we encrypt only secret content, then we automatically paint a target on those transmissions. > None of those things are my problem. > > [HTTPS] guarantees content integrity and the ability to detect tampering. > The legions of browser programmers employed by Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Microsoft should do something about that. It's not my flaw to fix, because it's a problem with the clients. I re-ordered the quotes a bit, but I'm reasonably confident I didn't misrepresent what he was trying to say. The counter-arguments after this are good, but the first couple of things are, imo, already sufficient to make HTTPS a very very important thing. Though… I find myself wondering whether he's really all that wrong, after all. > Users must keep themselves safe. Software can't ever do that for you. Users are on their own to ensure they use a quality web client, on a computer they're reasonably sure is well-maintained, over an internet connection that is not run by people who hate them. > It's just software. It can't fix your society. |
And not use insecure websites, I guess. I don't know how that person expects the browser to magically protect the user if their server transmits in plain text.