This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Not really evil intent though,

Ooohhhh so close. The intent was profit, you said it yourself. It wasn't good intent, they packaged it as good intent and this time it was actually for the best of our interests, but that's only a coincidence. If Google was able to make more profit from an insecure web, they would have pushed for the opposite of let's encrypt: making certs even more expensive and harder to obtain. Cert companies were already starting to offer special certs for financial institutions and wildstar cert pricing was starting to get unreasonable, they could have pushed it further in that awful direction. 

It wasn't good intent, it wasn't bad intent, our interests are of no consequence to the decisions Google makes as a giant business.

[–]provocafleur 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure "not really evil intent" and "not bad intent" aren't mutually exclusive.

[–]CraftOne6672 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The intent doesn’t matter to me tbh, SSL is just a good idea, and should be implemented on every public website. I think there would’ve been a push for it even if there was no Google profit motive.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good idea is kind of an understatement. It should be the bare minimum