I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I feel HTTPS everywhere does not belong in that list. Secure by default doesn't sound evil to me, and Let's Encrypt made it easy enough to get free HTTPS certificates (and for non technical people, almost all hosting services I've seen offer it out of the box)

A static blog that takes no user input/data doesn't need HTTPS.

Here's a good lecture about why HTTPS everywhere isn't as important as people think. http://n-gate.com/software/2017/07/12/0/

A static blog that takes no user input/data will still leak the pages on that blog you visit, and the times you visited them. Knowing that you went to a particular page on a particular blog is a lot more information than knowing if you went to a domain. If I know you read about Conan the Barbarian on three different blogs, I know to send you ads about Conan the Barbarian (as a trivial example.)

I think authors want to ensure their writings are not edited, censored or otherwise tampered with while in transit to the reader. HTTPS isn't perfect, but this is one of the benefits it provides. It isn't only about encryption or privacy.

The NSA (and who knows who else) has the ability to tamper with TLS encrypted traffic, so that’s a moot point. Also easily defeated in the client by adding a rogue proxy and CA.

I don't think there's anywhere near a consensus that your statement here is true. In fact, I think it would be a surprise to the majority of the tech community if that were the case.

Pretty sure Troy Hunt have already mentioned why even a static blog should use HTTPS.

https://www.troyhunt.com/heres-why-your-static-website-needs...

In a perfect world, sure, static sites don't need HTTPs. However, ISPs and other malevolent middle-parties have demonstrated why HTTPS is a must.

We've seen everything from injecting tracking javascript, to injecting their own ads, to outright replacing content with unrelated content that the ISP wants to push.

in a perfect world, we would not secure the transport but the content itself. and everyone should be able to build their own web-of-trust. why i as a (web-) publisher and my readers have to rely on the grace of just a few root CAs? i know technically it is possible to import my home-made CA cert in browsers, but it's not made easy: my server cert can not be signed by more than 1 parties; android requisites an unlock code in order to have custom CA certs - first when i saw this i was like "why the hell?", i mean i can imagine this is safety feature for simple users but come on!

That's not a "good lecture" it's a funny blog post. I'm not sure why you'd take it seriously.

That link does not load for me. The redirect to the the captcha is broken. Sincere question - is that the point? In other words Google blocks the captcha loading since the site isn't using HTTPS?

Let's Encrypt has de facto monopoly. I think we could have added HTTPS if we had dozens of projects like Let's Encrypt otherwise this is just handing over too much control to one organisation.

> Let's Encrypt has de facto monopoly.

Is that even remotely true?

There are alternatives to Lets Encrypt - AWS has an equivalent project where they issue free SSL certs for AWS resources.

If it is for AWS resources it is not equivalent.

AWS don’t owe non AWS customers free certificates, though.

It is possible to host LetsEncrypt alternatives, though. The viability is another matter, though.

LetsEncrypt doesn't owe anyone free certificates, either. The point is that AWS isn't an alternative unless you're spending money with AWS. Nobody is wondering whether you can get a certificate by paying someone.

Equivalent in the sense that, if you're in AWS (which is a non-insignficant amount of people) then you have options other then Lets Encrypt.

And zerossl exists for non-aws

> Let's Encrypt made it easy enough to get free HTTPS certificates

Just checked.

My hosting provider asks 2x more money for SSL addon (which includes unique IP, unlimited subdomains, and free certificate). They wrote on the support forum I need that addon regardless on which certificate I gonna use, the included free one, or any other like lets encrypt.

Not gonna switch hosting nor pay 2x more for it just to please Google.

> Not gonna switch hosting nor pay 2x more for it just to please Google.

Let's not pretend that HTTPS only exists to please Google. It has very real benefits for your users.

My web site has no comments or other user-generated content, runs no CMS, uses no cookies, collects no data except standard web server logs, hosts no executables, and has no secret nor security sensitive content.

At Starbucks I can inject arbitrary content into the browser of anyone who visits your site over HTTP and take control of their browser.

Furthermore, congrats on your site but you’re 0.01% of sites like that. Should we keep an insecure web because your hosting provider is ripping you off? TLS is easy and free in 2021.

> Furthermore, congrats on your site but you’re 0.01% of sites like that.

Thanks to the rise of the almighty platforms we've lost the will and know-how to do it ourselves.

> TLS is easy and free in 2021.

Only if you're relying on complicated cloud infra or (non-free) managed providers that do everything for you. It's a lot of work to set this up on your own.

It's impossible to be simple at this point. It's like the automotive industry which collectively decided to use computers for everything. You can't repair things yourself now. It's ironic, too, because now the industry finds itself with a chip shortage. I can imagine lots of scenarios where our complicated infrastructure requirements bite us.

There should always be the option of not using TLS. It should be first-class and not require expertise to access or use.

It's actually very easy to set up a TLS server using certificates from Let's Encrypt or any other ACME-compliant certificate provider. If you're using Apache, mod_md[0] will manage all the details for you. After enabling mod_md and mod_ssl, a simple TLS server only requires a few lines of extra configuration compared to a basic non-TLS site:

  MDCertificateAgreement accepted
  MDomain example.org
  <VirtualHost *:443>
    ServerName example.org
    ServerAdmin [email protected]
    ServerAlias www.example.org    # optional
    DocumentRoot htdocs/root
    SSLEngine on
  </VirtualHost>

If you're using Nginx rather than Apache I believe it still requires an external script to handle certificate renewal, but the process remains fairly simple. The same scripts will also work with Apache if you don't want to use mod_md.

[0] https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_md.html

I don't like when Google, or anyone at all really, tries to globally police the internets.

It's up to web site owners to decide whether to implement encryption, and up to users to decide whether to use these web sites or not.

Website owners can decide: don’t use a cert.

Users can decide: find a browser which doesn’t put importance on cert usage. You’ll find this hard to find because every browser manufacturer realizes that 99.9% of users cannot make sound security decisions, so they shouldn’t have to. Things should default to secure.

There’s a trade off between protecting users and having a 100% free and open internet. An insecure internet is untrustworthy and therefore not useful, IMO.

So what. We’ve all done this stuff and it’s fun for like 5 minutes.

It’s been possible for decades and doesn’t end up being a common problem. And even if it was the risk is just crap injected into someone’s blog.

> It’s been possible for decades and doesn’t end up being a common problem.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3804608

This is far more common than you think. ISPs, hotels, cafes, mobile providers do this en masse far more than you think. Have you forgotten the NSA “SSL added and removed here”? That was a highly targeted attack against infrastructure. What we’re discussing here is 10x easier to achieve.

> And even if it was the risk is just crap injected into someone’s blog.

That “crap injected” has full control over the DOM, any authentication, and everything displayed. How many of your users would happily put their creds into a fake login modal that popped up claiming to be SSO for a popular identity provider?

Without encryption active attacker could redirect users to different website, which would collect more data than your website does normally. They could also inject ads and javascript into users' sessions through your website.

If an active attacker has sufficient motivation, hacking user's computer is way more profitable than messing with their home router in the middle.

Redirecting an unencrypted webpage could be the first step a hacker uses to take over a user's computer. It's best to minimize attack vectors as much as possible

It doesn’t matter much what your web site has today. If it’s available over HTTP an attacker can inject whatever it wants into the page without too much trouble at all.

I think you're mixing different problems here. You can't blame Google nor HTTPS if your hosting provider is trying to rip you off. You don't need unique IPs or unlimited subdomains to get an SSL certificate, these are just forced requirements from your provider.

Your hosting provider sounds incompetent. There is no need for unique IP to host TLS encrypted website, SNI support nowadays is ubiquitous. Let's Encrypt issues wildcard certificates for free as well.

There is no technical reason for asking 2x more money for encryption in 2021.

I agree with you except for the HTTPS part. In some nations it's not unheard of for ISPs to inject ads and tracking into webpages. This also opens the door for malware.

Let's Encrypt's with its certbot made it easy enough to get a cert and every major webserver supports HTTPS out of the box with good documentation.

Not unheard of? Pretty sure Comcast at least used to do this. They are a pretty big player in a well know country that most people here would know of.

The certbot client is pretty awful (it does not cooperate well with automization) but otherwise I agree 100%. HTTPS everywhere and Letsencrypt have been huge boons to security.

Can you expand "it does not cooperate well with automization", because that's not something I've ever heard before.

Some of its commands modify the config files so if you ever need to fix something manually you can very easily end up changing the config and breaking something.

I use dehydrated instead.

Certbot seemed pretty easily automated to me as a guy who just set it up for the first time a few days ago on a new Arch install. The wiki is a pretty great resource if you're still having problems.

Don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is absolutely true.

Handing web standards over to an advertising company has been of the most damaging things ever done to the internet.

I second that. The whole problem is that Google is supplying a trojan horse that they use to prevent people from developing solutions from protecting their privacy and in fact they use it to gather even more data about people -- something that ensures unfair advantage over competition.

Even more reason to help push Mozilla Firefox.

Having typed that, I sure hope there are people at Mozilla who would help ensure that Mozilla does no evil :(

They may have noble intent, but they also have conflict of interest given Google basically signs their paychecks. [I do use Firefox regardless]

Unfortunately, from the look of it it seems like Mozilla overflows with people determined to make Firefox irrelevant.

They did lose a bit of focus in the past, but I believe they're getting it back with some privacy-oriented side-projects like Firefox Relay.

Hopefully they don't go under :(

The layoffs last summer tell us all we need to know about the direction Mozilla's headed. I think they're toast. Brave and -- dare I say it? -- even Edge have brighter prospects.

They're all based on chromium though. That gives Google a lot of leverage because every time these projects decide to do something different from upstream it adds to the maintenance burden.

If Google decides to make some fundamental changes to their core engine that would make, say, ad blocking a lot more difficult, would the other chromium-based browsers deep-fork the entire codebase to keep ad blockers working while at the same time integrating the new features as fast as possible in order to remain competitive with Chrome?

Microsoft has the resources to do it, but they may not care. Brave and Vivaldi would almost certainly care, but they may not have the resources to do it.

I could spend all day criticizing Mozilla but I'll use Firefox to the bitter end because of this. In the end there are only three engines in widespread use these days: Chrom(e|ium), WebKit/Safari and Gecko. As far as I know Safari is irrelevant outside of Mac world, so losing Gecko would be terrible for the open web.

Gecko is already effectively lost -- the groups doing cutting-edge work were cut back in August. We're just watching the implosion.

I switched from Firefox to Brave in October and suggest others do the same. Personally, I believe Brave would indeed "deep-fork" the Chromium codebase if necessary, and I'd guess there's a significant chance that other Chromium-based browsers would use it in preference to a submarined upstream.

I'm not willing to write Firefox/Gecko off until I encounter significant issues in the wild, although I agree that the future doesn't look bright.

Check out Vivaldi while you're at it.

A Chromium fork too. Meh.

Albeit a neat skin they put on it, I'll admit.

It seems as if google or is eh moles are monitoring this site because it is not the first time a reasonable anti google comments gets treated like this with no replies explaining why

Bear in mind, that many subconsciously are unhappy with their workplace's policies and effects on the world, but at the same time have linked their personal esteem and identity with work.

By threatening their self esteem, their very identity, by validating what the know deep inside them, that they work to do evil, without wanting to, they must strongly reject/defy such claims to reassert and restore their veiled view of themselves.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Even if socia Kali am h happens then the employees pass to own the company thus they would have more of an incentive to act like this blaming this on capitalism seems like a baseless claim in this specific situation

That quote isn’t specific to capitalism and would apply to any economic system where people have salaries.

Kay, stand corrected then. Edited the first line and left only the quote.