On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/2/2015 2:19 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx
> <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/2/2015 11:51 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx <mailto:touch@xxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/1/2015 10:16 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> > > Do it. Do it boldly and fearlessly. Make the statement and implement it.
> > >
> > ...
> > > Don't be tied to legacy. Anything that doesn't support HTTPS at this
> > > point needs to upgrade and deserves to be broken.
> >
> > Leaving out the have-nots - or those whose access is blocked by others
> > when content cannot be scanned - isn't moving forward.
> >
> >
> > [citation-required]
> >
> > Where is this place where the entire HTTPS web is not accessible?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
>
> Search for HTTPS.
>
>
> This is all that that search turns up:
> """
> Chinese authorities started blocking access to the secure (https)
> version of the site on 31 May 2013, although the non-secure (http)
> version is still available – the latter is vulnerable to keyword
> filtering allowing individual articles to be selectively blocked.
> Greatfire urged Wikipedia and users to circumvent the block by using
> https access to other IP addresses owned by Wikipedia.
> """
>
> If censors want to block the IETF website, they can do it with or
> without HTTPS.
But that's not what they DID.
They blocked the activity they couldn't monitor.
I would rather not preemptively knuckle under to censorship. If it turns out that we turn on HTTPS and nobody can see it, we can adapt to that fact.
--Richard