Re: [blink-dev] Re: Proposal: Marking HTTP As Non-Secure

Which standards bodies are those? Cause the W3C TAG is recommending
pervasive end-to-end transit encryption.
On 18 Dec 2014 14:22, "Jeffrey Walton" <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > Four proposed fine-tunings:
> >
> >  A) i don't think we should remove "This website does not supply
> > identity information" -- but maybe replace it with "The identity of this
> > site is unconfirmed" or "The true identity of this site is unknown"
> None of them are correct when an interception proxy is involved. All
> of them lead to a false sense of security.
>
> Given the degree to which standard bodies accommodate (promote?)
> interception, UA's should probably steer clear of making any
> statements like that if accuracy is a goal.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to blink-dev+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2014 22:43:34 UTC