Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla SSL Policy Considered Bad For the Web
Chandon Seldon writes "The issue of digital certificates for SSL and the policies surrounding them comes up repeatedly. I've written an article criticizing the behavior in Firefox 3, which includes a serious comparison of the current Mozilla policy — restricting encrypted HTTP to paying customers — to a violation of net neutrality."
In four mouse clicks I've added that site to my exceptions list. It warned me, I read and understood the warning, I acted.
Good for you, but people like you - and me and the rest of the people here - aren't "normal". Grandma won't know what the hell to do (besides call you). She might even think "those evil hackers" "got her".
Self-signed certs are a potential problem, but Firefox could have worked out a better way of handling it. A more novice-friendly way.
Basically, we need Bruce Schneier and Jakob Nielsen to marry and have children. We'd better contact Dr. Moreau to work out the breeding program. :)
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Speaking of ugly: What is this für currency you speak of? Farsi quarter-rands?
Get your own free personal location tracker
They don't call it "auto insurance" for nothing!
I'm going back to Telnet -- no pesky security certificates to worry about.
Thats what they said about IE6
I think comparisons to IE6 count as Godwinning the thread.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Hmm now Microsoft, they're a well-known attack vendor. :-)
you are missing two critical points:
1.- saying that it is a privilege is not the same as saying that the state concedes privileges, as this is actually tautological. Given the state is an organization built by society to ensure some form of regulation that makes it possible to enjoy certain privileges to all, the existence of the state is a material necessity to the existence of those privileges, and saying that the state is the origin of those privileges is the same as saying that some tool is the origin of the product, when it's the other way around: the tool exists only in the extent in which it is useful to getting the product done. The same thing happens with the state: it exists solely to make the availability of privileges to all.
2.- you have to take into account the rather obvious material considerations that render all this libertarian rants senseless. To enjoy driving, you need a lot of social resources that enable you to do all things related to driving, from getting a car, to using roads, etc. to provide for this resources, we the people have decided to give some other authority to accomplish that which we need to "drive" and that we can not accomplish by ourselves, e g the state. Does this materiallity that makes the state necessary for the enjoying of some (you would say natural, i'm sure) privileges make the state the _origin_ of this privileges?
you have three choices here: 1.- no 2.- yes and the correct one: who fucking cares? this disctintion between the genealogical role of the state and the material role of the state is just a pile of idealistic, liberal (in the proper sense, go look it up), primitive and naive crap.
both points are very similar, but they are two distinct points, nevertheless.
(and don't even get me started on the idiocy of 'granting' privileges to the state. that's like saying that corporate personas have rights!)
---
"america: the only place in the world where 'liberal' means statist, and 'libertarian' means letting the poor die in the streets".
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem