11–20 of 80 posts
"Facebook expects partner services to be optimized for smartphones and feature phones, and be free from JavaScript or SSL/TLS/HTTPS elements" No HTTPS? Really??
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946
Although I suppose a bit of steganography is enough...
Edit: steganography, not stenography.
"Facebook expects partner services to be optimized for smartphones and feature phones, and be free from JavaScript or SSL/TLS/HTTPS elements" No HTTPS? Really??
It looks to be related to the above paragraph: “Websites that require high-bandwidth will not be included. Services should not use VoIP, video, file transfer, high resolution photos, or high volume of photos.” — Facebook points out that operators are giving up resources for the project for free, so this is a limit to prevent them totally being taken to the cleaners. Perhaps HTTPS is too heavy for the large number of…
Can someone talk about why no SSL, HTTPS etc. Wth happened to we care abut your privacy?
Can someone talk about why no SSL, HTTPS etc. Wth happened to we care abut your privacy?
Better than their first attempt but still not the real thing. If you want to give internet for free to some people there are no alternatives than paying them a full blown data connection with no artificial limits. I believe that my original comment of 2 weeks ago is still relevant: "Dear Mark, this open-to-ISP initiative is one way to look at what you're doing. Another one is closed-to-most-of-the-Internet. Let's tur…
Don't expect business to solve all issues for humanity, because they won't.
A government is needed to take responsability we don't want to entrust business with and to do necessary things no business wants to do, and it needs to be strong to be able to do it even if business opposes.
"Facebook expects partner services to be optimized for smartphones and feature phones, and be free from JavaScript or SSL/TLS/HTTPS elements" No HTTPS? Really??
My completely-uninformed guess is that they don't want people to tunnel out to the real Internet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9203946 Although I suppose a bit of steganography is enough... Edit: steganography, not stenography.
Yes, it's unfortunate they can't be given the whole Internet, but the fact they can get anything at all should be celebrated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks to be related to the above paragraph: “Websites that require high-bandwidth will not be included. Services should not use VoIP, video, file transfer, high resolution photos, or high volume of photos.” — Facebook points out that operators are giving up resources for the project for free, so this is a limit to prevent them totally being taken to the cleaners. Perhaps HTTPS is too heavy for the large number of…
Assuming a dumb pipe, SSL is no harder on the ISP than unencrypted traffic. It's likely that they want unencrypted because the data is then easily cacheable, drastically reducing cost on network operators.
Better than their first attempt but still not the real thing. If you want to give internet for free to some people there are no alternatives than paying them a full blown data connection with no artificial limits. I believe that my original comment of 2 weeks ago is still relevant: "Dear Mark, this open-to-ISP initiative is one way to look at what you're doing. Another one is closed-to-most-of-the-Internet. Let's tur…
Does someone want to partner up to create the Internet.org that should have been?