On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 6/2/2015 2:19 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu
<mailto:touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>> wrote:
On 6/2/2015 11:51 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu
<mailto:
touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
> <mailto:touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu <mailto:touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>>>
wrote:
>
> On 6/1/2015 10:16 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > Do it. Do it boldly and fearlessly. Make the statement and
implement it.
> >
> ...
> > Don't be tied to legacy. Anything that doesn't support
HTTPS at this
> > point needs to upgrade and deserves to be broken.
>
> Leaving out the have-nots - or those whose access is blocked
by others
> when content cannot be scanned - isn't moving forward.
>
>
> [citation-required]
>
> Where is this place where the entire HTTPS web is not accessible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
Search for HTTPS.
This is all that that search turns up:
"""
Chinese authorities started blocking access to the secure (https)
version of the site on 31 May 2013, although the non-secure (http)
version is still available – the latter is vulnerable to keyword
filtering allowing individual articles to be selectively blocked.
Greatfire urged Wikipedia and users to circumvent the block by using
https access to other IP addresses owned by Wikipedia.
"""
If censors want to block the IETF website, they can do it with or
without HTTPS.
But that's not what they DID.
They blocked the activity they couldn't monitor.
I would rather not preemptively knuckle under to censorship. If it turns
out that we turn on HTTPS and nobody can see it, we can adapt to that fact.
--Richard