Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Internet

Re:Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Inte... by zatkin on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @01:23AM (#9568257)

It seems that enabling HTTPS on the Internet.org proxy is what the EFF wants out of the project.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Inte... by pavanky on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @01:37AM (#9568283)

That is just the technical issue they are against. They also oppose the internet having singular entities acting as gatekeepers. Here is the summary from the last paragraph.

    We have confidence that it would be possible to provide a 
    limited free Internet access service that is secure, *and    
    that doesn't rely on Facebook and its partners to 
    maintain a central list of approved sites*. Until then, 
    Internet.org will not be living up to its promise, or its name.

(emphasis mine)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Inte... by Rambunctious on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @02:16AM (#9568369)

Although slightly more nuanced than a blanket YES/NO, it would have been more helpful if there were more concrete suggestions on acceptable process mechanisms for 'limited free Internet access'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Inte... by nitrogen on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @04:01AM (#9568617)

"[L]imited" probably means bandwidth limited.

[ Parent | on HN ]