[freedomben]

If your goal is to waste people's time, cause them to question their sanity, and guarantee that they're way too pissed off when they finally figure out what happened that instead of teaching others about how important it is too use HTTPS from the start, they talk about how awful your API is and how much they hate your company for a terrible design, then yes this sounds like a good plan.

[josephcsible]

If it were a generic 403, sure. But if the 403 message said something to the effect of "this API key is no longer valid because it has previously been observed over insecure HTTP", then wouldn't that be fine?

[freedomben]

Yes agreed, I think that would improve it, although depending on the situation it may still cause substantial pain. Also apologies, after re-reading my previous comment it seemed unnecessarily harsh toward you, though that wasn't my intention!

On the subject though, an example of how it could cause a lot of pain, many bigger corps don't allow developers to have "real" API keys, and they certainly can't generate new ones themselves, so this might mean one slip-up with curl results in at best a ticket with another team. It also might end up bringing down production in a horrible way, for example if the dev or an ops person is debugging and curls the endpoint from a pod in prod and forgets to explicitly put the https, curl will default to http which would then immediately cause the prod key to be revoked with no second chances. That could even happen on a GET request, which normally GETs are supposed to be safe/side-effect free! If you're operating at a big scale, that could be utterly disastrous, causing a widespread production outage immediately.

If it's a dev that is just testing a key locally that isn't used anywhere else, then it's obviously less of an issue, but taking that into account starts to balloon the complexity around your token revocation code.