31–40 of 167 posts
A good step forward. Does the NY Times itself track what its users read? Does it provide that information to others? If so, this change amounts to not protecting user privacy as much as insisting that only the NYT can monetize their users' privacy.
Random coffee shop / hotel / etc wifi owners and other users on the network will only know that you're reading nytimes.com, and not which particular section/article.
Oh no, this was my go-to site whenever I had to login to public wifi and https wouldn't redirect :(
http://apple.com will probably always work since that's what ios uses when you join a network. I think specifically this url: http://www.apple.com/library/test/success.html
A good step forward. Does the NY Times itself track what its users read? Does it provide that information to others? If so, this change amounts to not protecting user privacy as much as insisting that only the NYT can monetize their users' privacy.
I don't see how anyone can monetize user privacy without NYT's permission, with or without HTTPS. All of the monetization methods, ad trackers on NYT pages, browser fingerprinting, malware on your computer, etc works with or without HTTPS.
They mention it has been a complex undertaking and not complete yet - does anyone know why they can't just sit a traffic manager in front of everything with SSL offloading? Also does anyone know what the new personalisation features are that they mention being able to offer now HTTPS in place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Random coffee shop / hotel / etc wifi owners and other users on the network will only know that you're reading nytimes.com, and not which particular section/article.
And your session cookie..
A good step forward. Does the NY Times itself track what its users read? Does it provide that information to others? If so, this change amounts to not protecting user privacy as much as insisting that only the NYT can monetize their users' privacy.
Random coffee shop / hotel / etc wifi owners and other users on the network will only know that you're reading nytimes.com, and not which particular section/article.
It's nice to see more news media moving towards using HTTPS. NYTimes now joins a small club, alongside the Guardian and the Washington Post. Here's a dev blog post on the WaPo moving to https: https://developer.washingtonpost.com/pb/blog/post/2015/12/10... And one on the Guardian moving to https: https://www.theguardian.com/info/developer-blog/2016/nov/29/...
Google Chrome is supposed to soon start flashing a "not secure" warning on HTTP sites that have password forms [0]. That's probably at least one motivation for these publisher moves to HTTPS [0] https://security.googleblog.com/2016/09/moving-towards-more-...
Oh no, this was my go-to site whenever I had to login to public wifi and https wouldn't redirect :(
They mention it has been a complex undertaking and not complete yet - does anyone know why they can't just sit a traffic manager in front of everything with SSL offloading? Also does anyone know what the new personalisation features are that they mention being able to offer now HTTPS in place?
It's also possible that terminating the SSL and then passing through unsecured traffic lower in the stack is not ideal due to where the different parts of the site are hosted - e.g. passing traffic unsecured back and forth between private DC and public cloud.
Note: All speculation based on having implemented SSL migrations at large media companies.