News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Marking HTTP as Non-Secure by twistedpair on Saturday December 13, 2014 @02:08PM (#8745998)
Not having secrets - MITM isn't necessarily conducted by malicious attackers, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Consider for example a company that wants to identify usage behavior and buys traffic data from an ISP.

Really? Do you think we're all sheeple that are happy to have every facet of our lives tracked? You don't think that someone has a database of every taboo thing you considered buying or seen online, every contrarian political article you've read, etc? You don't think that they're sitting on this cache until they find a way to sell it to anyone that will buy it or score you some way in a Big Data metric? I know people in that industry. They tell me the public isn't ready the handle how much information is for sale about them.

Viewpoints like these feed the sheeple with naivety that they themselves are good people, so the corporations, government agencies and hackers that spy and exploit the gaping chinks in the armor of the Web would certainly have no reason to exploit such good citizens.

Re:Marking HTTP as Non-Secure by arielm on Saturday December 13, 2014 @05:09PM (#8746647)
You may have misunderstood my point as what I was aiming at is that MITM is always bad for us even if it's not done by malicious attackers but rather by for profit companies.

By not encrypting traffic, web masters who think they don't have secrets are really just selling their users. That's bad.