zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
This sounds like the final death blow to the web as a useful platform for anyone who isn't a corporation.

>>JohnFe+16
This is bad but how is it going to affect the usefulness of my personal web site, that will never use that API to check who's reading it, not or human? Same thing for a lot of sites, probably the vast majority of them.

>>pmontr+x8
One day Google may well flag your sure as lower security, refuse to let you show ads, or disappear you from search results.

>>afandi+7a
You already get flagged as hazardous and uncool for not using https, even on a perfectly-static site.

Some of us called that out as a slippery slope leading to ubiquitous gatekeeping, but we were shouted down in the name of (as usual) "security."

>>Camper+1c
That is because without https, there is no guarantee that the site requested is bring delivered as the site intends. For example, an ISP could insert data or scripts into the page.

>>garden+Ch
And monkeys could fly out of my butt. Not everyone has the same threat model.

Faced with a choice between a vague future threat that might happen (an adversarial ISP or other MIM attack) and a certain future threat that will happen if we let it (incumbent gatekeepers locking down the Web), I'll take my chances with the former, and opt for less gatekeeping rather than more.

>>Camper+bj
It's not a "might happen." ISPs, especially in places like hotels and other public WiFi spots, were replacing ads on sites with their own ads. I don't know if they did anything more nefarious but they were probably also snooping and logging to at least some degree.