- From: Michael Martinez <michael.martinez@xenite.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 22:32:37 -0500
- To: public-webappsec@w3.org, blink-dev@chromium.org, security-dev@chromium.org, dev-security@lists.mozilla.org, mozilla-dev-security@lists.mozilla.org
On 12/19/2014 8:33 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > So how is marking some Websites as "non-secure" (they all are) improving the situation? Shaming Website owners for not using encrypted connections, especially when your only concern is that you don't want some random stranger to see that you are reading a blog, is not acceptable. > I think you’re fundamentally confused, I do not believe that anyone who is making this proposal is trying to force site operators to use HTTPS. Then I suggest you go back and reread the other posts from people who have said exactly that. It is precisely this kind of inattention to what is actually being said that keeps resetting this conversation. I am very ill right now and I don't have the energy for further discussion. I hope that the people who need to consider these things see past the needless nit-pickery and think about the big picture. You won't be able to undo the damage this proposal will do, if it is carried out, even if that turns out to be less than some of us fear. -- Michael Martinez http://www.michael-martinez.com/ YOU CAN HELP OUR WOUNDED WARRIORS http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/
Received on Saturday, 20 December 2014 03:33:08 UTC