Re: Proposed Statement on "HTTPS everywhere for the IETF"

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 6/2/2015 11:51 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Joe Touch <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.  Non-secure HTTP just gives them more information.

Try again?

--Richard



>
> > How do they do their banking, or buy things?
>
> Often through state-run companies (i.e., whose HTTPS content they can
> screen).
>
> Joe
>