zlacker

>>codero+(OP)
The long-term solution is simply not to work anywhere that insists on running a MITM attack on all of your communications.

>>db48x+D2
Without an SSL MITM, Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS's) are much less effective.

If you're using your company's network, then they have every right to monitor all of the activity on it. They're trying to protect trade secrets, future plans, customer data, employee records, etc. from attackers who would use that information to do harm to the company, its customers, and its employees. If you don't want your employer to know what you're doing, then don't use the company computer or company network to do it. And while you may think that you're too tech savvy to fall prey to malware 1) not everyone at your company is, and 2) no amount of savvy will protect you from all malware, especially ones that gain a foothold through an unpatched exploit. And there's also that whole other can of worms: malicious employees.

>>wildmu+n4

  If you're using your company's network, then they have every right to monitor all of the activity on it.

This is tantamount to steaming open and resealing the envelopes of all physical mail. Have some god damn ethics, I'd sooner quit than snoop traffic in this manner.

>>riffic+ke
If the use of the MITM is public it is more like requiring you to leave outbound paper mail in an outbox without an envelope, then have the internal mail office archive it and add the envelope. Perfectly reasonable.

What you do while on work should not be personal and thus cannot be snooped upon.

If you need to send a personal paper letter, you would go to the post office, not send it using the company's stamps, right?