Remix.run Logo
sam_lowry_ a day ago

I think we should have gone the legal route, forbidding JS injection in pasing HTML by carriers by e. g. conditioning their liability to the modification of data.

That is, if they inject JS or modify the data in any way, they are liable for the content, otherwise not.

josephg a day ago | parent [-]

Yeah I think we should have done both. Made this illegal, and stopped it via encrypted channels.

Computers are fast now. We should just encrypt everything that gets sent over the open internet.

The IETF put out a statement about this a few years ago. I agree with their stance.

> The IAB urges protocol designers to design for confidential operation by default. We strongly encourage developers to include encryption in their implementations, and to make them encrypted by default. We similarly encourage network and service operators to deploy encryption where it is not yet deployed, and we urge firewall policy administrators to permit encrypted traffic.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iab-statement-on-...

sam_lowry_ a day ago | parent [-]

Encrypted channels as the solution to people's problems is exactly what Poul-Henning Kemp warned against in his last Bikeshed: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3818307

josephg a day ago | parent [-]

That's a long rant and I don't like homework. Can you summarise his position, or at least the parts you agree with?