Like the TSA at the airport.

Security that we never needed before, but now suddenly we do.

Now we’re dependent on a third party gatekeeper for permission to have a web site.

Free, for now.

It’s a move by the weasels-that-be to turn the Internet into yet another tool for profit and control.

  • Ashy@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    No it’s not.

    And it’s not really like the TSA on the airport. It’s more like a “having a door on your plane” type of security.

    • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      What if the issuer of the security certificate started charging you $1000 a year?

      Why wouldn’t they?

        • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          They’re free today. Maybe not tomorrow. But by then HTTP will have been “phased out” and asking the “security authority” for permission will have become common practice.

          • Shadow@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            They’re a non profit backed by a ton of major internet players, it’s not going to happen. https://letsencrypt.org/about/

            What you’re talking about was already the situation before LE existed, we’re not going back to that. There’s other free providers now too.

            • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Ok. That’s a good argument. I didn’t realize that the forces for good here were so strong in this.

              But frankly I’d rather not depend on them either.

              • towerful@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Well, self-sign your own certs and deal with the implications of not being a trusted root certificate authority

      • spaghetti_carbananaA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Some do. It depends on the type of certificate. Thankfully now we have LetsEncrypt so that there is a free alternative to the big CAs.

        To answer your initial question - yes it is necessary. Without HTTPS or encryption in general, anybody who can intercept your connection can see everything you’re doing.

        A real world example of this is let’s say you’re connected to a WiFi network that has no password and are browsing a plain HTTP site. Open wifi networks are unencrypted, as is HTTP.

        I can sit across the road in a vehicle, unseen, on a laptop and sniff the traffic to view what you’re doing. If you log into your bank, I now have your credentials and can do what I like, and you don’t even know.

        This is why we need encryption. It is an (almost) guarantee that your traffic is only viewable to yourself and the other end of whatever you’re connecting to and not anyone in the middle.

        Edit: for Anyone downvoting OP remember this is nostupidquestions. Take the time to educate if you know better but don’t downvote “stupid” questions lol.

        • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yes, letsencrypt etc. mitm etc. Thanks, I have heard that particular argument.

          Here’s another

          Because prospective customers get shy when the browser says that your site is “insecure”

          Because it makes for better google ranking.

          Because everybody’s doing it.

          So there you go. Mob hype and googlian dictatorship.

          That’s why we https

          • spaghetti_carbananaA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Because prospective customers get shy when the browser says that your site is “insecure”

            Because it factually is insecure. It is not encrypted and trivial to inspect.

            Because it makes for better google ranking.

            No, in this day and age it is permission to play. Firefox has a built in feature to only load HTTPS sites, which I have enabled. This has nothing to do with Google. Your issue is with expensive CAs, to which there is a free solution (Let’s Encrypt). Not HTTPS itself.

            So there you go. Mob hype and googlian dictatorship.

            Incorrect. It is a matter of safety and security and a trivial thing to implement. You are free to not use HTTPS if you want, just as people are free to not consume your service if you don’t.

            Calling it a “dictatorship” is hyperbole and demonstrates that you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and won’t listen to people that do.

            • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              You seem to be stuffed and pacified with popular explanations that amount to marketing. And so confidently parroted. But that’s the internet for you.

              It’s the fact of relying on the whim of a third party gatekeeper for permission to run my site that bothers me. It appalls me that you people take this laying down.

        • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Don’t play the fool.

          If “charging $1000 for security certificates” became common practice (much like HTTPS) then you would be stuck paying it.

          (And maybe there would be a “standards of behavior” clause in the security certificate contract too. lol)

          You are now dependent on a third party gatekeeper. He can bend you over literally any way at all. He just hasn’t yet.

          And that goes for the legal authority behind that authority too, of course.

          • udon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            That’s a good theory sir/lady, and actually was the case until around 10 years ago.

            Then Snowden happened, and we found out that the nsa is sucking all unencrypted traffic out of the net and into their databases.

            Then letsencrypt happened and now you can get your certificates for free. Don’t pay 1000$. Letsencrypt is free and you can automatically update certificates. If your hoster doesn’t offer https for free, choose a different hoster.

            • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yes it’s free today. Maybe not tomorrow. And the fact remains that you need permission from a third party (basically a gov official) to have a website now. Doesn’t that trouble you?

              • KingWizard@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                No, and its clear you don’t understand the fundamentals here and you are throwing around baseless stats.

                It’s not even about the certificate itself but the trust of who generates the cert. Just about anyone can generate a https cert, therefore it will always be free.

                Who’s going to trust a company selling certs for $1000? Now that money is involved, trust is lost and the cert becomes worthless.

                • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Consider. We’re all using HTTPS and depending on certs.

                  Suddenly a wild threat appears.

                  For our own safety, from now on, certs will only be issued by those who get special permission from the gov.

                  Google will be cooperating in this.

                  It’s technically trivial after all, because we’re all already using HTTPS anyway. It’s just a matter of changing the lock on the gate.

                  Thank you for your cooperation in these troublesome times.

                  (And a year later. We’re installing new security software. We need to charge you $1000/year now. This will have no effect upon our main clients…)

            • ares35@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              there’s still the very real possibility they’re hoovering all the encrypted data, too. and storing the stuff to/from ‘interesting’ end points for later ‘analysis’–that is, if they don’t already have the current tech broken.

              • udon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Sure, but one thing we learned is that encryption sure makes things more annoying for them

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Not sure I get this one. You can still run a website with http. Now it might alarm the browser and users. But you can do it.

    As for certificates being free but maybe not now. It’s actually the other way round. As I recall when https was pretty new the main way was via verisign, and it was not cheap to get one.

    The fact you could later get one for free for example via letsencrypt is what made it so everyone could run https (along with the changes that allow multiple certs on a single server with multiple domains).

    If it became expensive to get certs again I’d bet a lot of hobbyist stuff would go back to http or self signed and browsers would need to tone down the warning. But, I cannot imagine that happening now. Having most sites encrypted is a good thing.

  • ted@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    The problem with TSA is that it reduces our privacy and dignity in exchange for security (that security may be theatre). HTTPS is different because it increases privacy which allows us to keep more dignity (security that is not theatre.)

    TSA is like needing to strip so that your clothes don’t get wet while going out in the rain, while HTTPS is like wearing a raincoat so your clothes don’t get wet while going out in the rain.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    HTTP is like using a postcard, HTTPS is using a sealed envelope. Which would you use for your bank information?

    The “third party gatekeeper” does more than just secure data, it also acts as a validation that your site is what it says it is. So if someone jacks your domain out from under you and hosts something totally different, people can tell that something’s up.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        But would you be OK taking all the stuff you write on those websites, and scrawling it on a giant chalkboard in your town square instead? One where anyone can see (or even change) what you’ve written?

      • sab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        And http still works in any browser I know of.

        I kind of get your frustration though. I set up my personal website precisely to get away from big platforms; yet my HTTPS is validated by Google. It feels like a defeat still having them involved in the process.

        • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Thank you.

          Use http and Chrome calls you insecure and there’s a red flag and you have to hit a special button… daunting for the average user for sure.

          Firefox is good tho.

          One person pointed out that letsencrypt is backed by a bunch of good powerful people. Which might be bullshit but it makes me think again.

  • toasteecup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Go ahead, submit your credit card details in plain text. I’m sure nothing bad will happen.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Do you take login credentials that could be skimmed and used for identity theft?

        Maybe this one will strike home for people who think it’s a scam by The Man:

        With no HTTPS, every single thing you do on the web can be monitored by your ISP’s automated tracking system and sold to data warehouses that then sell the data on to AI aggregators who can profile your activity to figure out how to shape your future behaviour based on how you responded in the past.

        And HTTPS isn’t just about protecting secrets, it’s about validating the communication channel hasn’t been tampered with. Without it, anyone between you and your destination could be modifying what actually gets sent back to you, injecting anything from malware to slight changes in text content based on the above profiling info.

        HTTPS is part of what keeps the web free and federated.

        • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes, security. We love security now. The argument is well known.

          But now you need permission from an official to have a web site. That’s bad, right?

          • fubo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            You should probably be more concerned about DNS than HTTPS. DNS is a point where government censors actually do go after web sites they don’t like.

          • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            What? I’ve got all sorts of self hosted websites. Encrypted by HTTPS. No permission needed. If Let’s Encrypt vanished, I’d just switch to self-signing my certificates and using a pinning service.

            • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Doesn’t chrome flag self-signed certificates?

              Ok, I didn’t know that was a thing. Thanks