- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:55:24 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <53C5341B.8090405@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >On 2014-07-15 15:42, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> Mark can of course do as he likes with his document, but I would >> not support adding this text to a WG document as I do not believe >> that it is accurate. >> >> It is quite common to have sensitive information in the path part of >> URLs (for instance, Amazon item numbers appear here), and in >> many cases, this is the only sensitive information required to >> reconstruct the user's browsing history. I don't consider this to >> be "very little actual privacy" loss. >> >> -Ekr > >Agreed. We shouldn't rely on a perceived difference that neither is >backed up by the specs, nor is there in practice. You're welcome to your uncompromising attitudes with respect to privacy, but people with more nuance in their lives will recognize that this may be the shilling we have to pay the king, if we want to hold on to the pound. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 15:55:47 UTC