Fair enough. All depends on your threat model and risk appetite
Thanks. We're working on an improved site with HTTPS. Coming very soon, I hope!
I just mostly mourn all the caching and sharing potential along the way gone in the world where everyone totally needs a private secure tunnel to the very server containing most mundane, public and irrelevant information.
My caching proxy disagrees with that.
My threat models are bad 4g connections and greedy telcos.
> Tampering of content has nothing to do with your privacy; it's a security matter. A nefarious man-in-the-middle could insert content which attacks your browser or redirects it to a malicious site, etc.
Curious, why that doesn't happen when I access https://verybadguy.tld/this_page_absolutely_doesnt_have_harm... for the first time? Isn't it the browser's job to handle harmful content?
Here are two hurdles:
1. Can you prove me wrong?
2. Next, given 1, can you rationally justify not rolling out HTTPS everywhere.
In other words, is it actually a valid argument that "often, nothing bad happens when you use HTTP, so it is okay".
Tampering of content has nothing to do with your privacy; it's a security matter. A nefarious man-in-the-middle could insert content which attacks your browser or redirects it to a malicious site, etc.
That attacker could be on a network close to you, or a network close to the site. It's not a matter of trusting or not trusting the original site that serves the HTTP.
Therefore it doesn't matter that you're just accessing the site as an anonymous visitor without an authenticated account, just viewing public content.