Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#2Interesting timing.
Hadn't seen your post.......
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#3Maybe a little bit of a sensationalist title, websites switching to HTTPS only isn't that much of a threat, yes the bill is bad and yes he should be opposing it but Ars seem to frame it as though it's drastic or has a negative effect on anyone. While I disagree with the bill and the concept of monitoring peoples internet, I don't think they're doing it so they can find out what you're reading on Wikipedia or who you're messaging on Facebook.
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#4Maybe a little bit of a sensationalist title, websites switching to HTTPS only isn't that much of a threat, yes the bill is bad and yes he should be opposing it but Ars seem to frame it as though it's drastic or has a negative effect on anyone. While I disagree with the bill and the concept of monitoring peoples internet, I don't think they're doing it so they can find out what you're reading on Wikipedia or who you'…
> I don't think they're doing it so they can find out what you're reading on Wikipedia or who you're messaging on Facebook.
What makes you think that sort of information isn't exactly what they're interested in?
Even if they don't care about it right now, once it starts being collected, if any future government decides they do care about it, it'd be very easy for them to get their hands on it.
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#5They should do this anyways. It's well known to the technical elite that dragnet surveillance is going on— but it's not known to the general public.
It's arguably immoral that the site doesn't switch to https by default and give the public the privacy they think they already have.
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#6They should do this anyways. It's well known to the technical elite that dragnet surveillance is going on— but it's not known to the general public. It's arguably immoral that the site doesn't switch to https by default and give the public the privacy they think they already have.
That's a very good point. The majority of people have no idea that many Governments are already monitoring and data mining everything they say or do online. Websites should already start switching to HTTPS (or SPDY) to protect their users against this stealth monitoring, of which they know nothing about.
But if they don't and if this law passes (I hope it doesn't) maybe some good will come out of it, and it will jumpstart a trend for switching to encrypted connections.
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#7Anybody have a guess of what it would cost for Wikipedia to do 100% SSL for a country like Great Britain?
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#8They should do this anyways. It's well known to the technical elite that dragnet surveillance is going on— but it's not known to the general public. It's arguably immoral that the site doesn't switch to https by default and give the public the privacy they think they already have.
What makes you think that those with the resources to implement dragnet surveillance do not have access to properly signed certificates, which let them Man-In-The-Middle the connection without triggering a browser warning?
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#9Anybody have a guess of what it would cost for Wikipedia to do 100% SSL for a country like Great Britain?
Very little, they already have https support - I am sure that they could handle disabling http . that is not the point.
I see the point Jimmy Wales was making - it's the old: 'if you have nothing to hide' - and it should stand.
If you want to keep something private you have the right to do that....I don't care what I do in public....
Re: Jimmy Wales threatens to encrypt Wikipedia if UK passes snooping bill
#10They should do this anyways. It's well known to the technical elite that dragnet surveillance is going on— but it's not known to the general public. It's arguably immoral that the site doesn't switch to https by default and give the public the privacy they think they already have.
What makes you think that those with the resources to implement dragnet surveillance do not have access to properly signed certificates, which let them Man-In-The-Middle the connection without triggering a browser warning?
The fact that this would get noticed if they did this for dragnet surveillance. They can (and likely do) do targeted MITM, but doing it across the board would be noticed quickly.