Throughout the Brighton Digital Festival, Lighthouse Arts will be exhibiting a project from Julian Oliver and Danja Vasiliev called Newstweek. If you’re in town for dConstruct—and you should be—you ought to stop by and check it out.
It’s a mischievous little hardware hack intended for use in places with public WiFi. If you’ve got a Newstweek device, you can alter the content of web pages like, say, BBC News. Cheeky!
There’s one catch though. Newstweek works on http:// domains, not https://. This is exactly the scenario that Jake has been talking about:
SSL is also useful to ensure the data you’re receiving hasn’t been tampered with. It’s not just for user->server stuff
eg, when you visit http://www.theguardian.com/uk , you don’t really know it hasn’t been modified to tell a different story
There’s another good reason for switching to TLS. It would make life harder for GCHQ and the NSA—not impossible, but harder. It’s not a panacea, but it would help make our collectively-held network more secure, as per RFC 7258 from the Internet Engineering Task Force:
Pervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated in the design of IETF protocols, where possible.
I’m all for using https:// instead of http:// but there’s a problem. It’s bloody difficult!
If you’re a sysadmin type that lives in the command line, then it’s probably not difficult at all. But for the rest of us mere mortals who just want to publish something on the web, it’s intimidatingly daunting.
It’ll cost you <$100/yr plus a half-hour of server reconfiguration. I don’t see any excuse not to.
…but then, he also thought that anyone who can’t make a syndication feed that’s well-formed XML is an incompetent fool (whereas I ended up creating an entire service to save people from having to make RSS feeds by hand).
Google are now making SSL a ranking factor in their search results, which is their prerogative. If it results in worse search results, other search engines are available. But I don’t think it will have significant impact. Jake again:
if two pages have equal ranking except one is served securely, which do you think should appear first in results?
Google will be promoting SSL sites above those without, effectively doing the exact same thing we’re upset about the lack of net neutrality.
I don’t think that’s quite fair: if Google were an ISP slowing down http:// requests, that would be extremely worrying, but tweaking its already-opaque search algorithm isn’t quite the same.
Mind you, I do like this suggestion:
I think if Google is going to penalize you for not having SSL they should become a CA and issue free certs.
I’m more concerned by the discussions at Chrome and Mozilla about flagging up http:// connections as unsafe. While the approach is technically correct, I fear it could have the opposite of its intended effect. With so many sites still served over http://, users would be bombarded with constant messages of unsafe connections. Before long they would develop security blindness in much the same way that we’ve all developed banner-ad blindness.
My main issue—apart from the fact that I personally don’t have the necessary smarts to enable TLS—is related to what Ashe is concerned about:
Businesses and individuals who both know about and can afford to have SSL in place will be ranked above those who don’t/can’t.
I strongly believe that anyone should be able to publish on the web. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t share my fellow developers’ zeal for moving everything to JavaScript; I want anybody—not just programmers—to be able to share what they know. Hence my preference for simpler declarative languages like HTML and CSS (and my belief that they should remain simple and learnable).
It’s already too damn complex to register a domain and host a website. Adding one more roadblock isn’t going to help that situation. Just ask Drew and Rachel what it’s like trying to just make sure that their customers have a version of PHP from this decade.
I want a secure web. I’d really like the web to be https:// only. But until we get there, I really don’t like the thought of the web being divided into the haves and have-nots.
Still…
There is an enormous opportunity here, as John pointed out on a recent episode of The Web Ahead. Getting TLS set up is a pain point for a lot of people, not just me. Where there’s pain, there’s an opportunity to provide a service that removes the pain. Services like Squarespace are already taking the pain out of setting up a website. I’d like to see somebody provide a TLS valet service.
(And before you rush to tell me about the super-easy SSL-setup tutorial you know about, please stop and think about whether it’s actually more like this.)
I’m looking forward to switching my website over to https:// but I’m not going to do it until the potential pain level drops.
For all of you budding entrepreneurs looking for the next big thing to “disrupt”, please consider making your money not from the gold rush itself, but from providing the shovels.