Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday April 19 2014, @03:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the a-push-in-the-right-direction dept.

Someone at Google has hinted that they are considering giving a boost in search engine results to sites that use encryption.

In a move that experts say could make it harder to spy on Web users, Google is considering giving a boost in its search-engine results to websites that use encryption, the engineer in charge of fighting spam in search results hinted at a recent conference. The executive, Matt Cutts, is well known in the search world as the liaison between Google's search team and website designers who track every tweak to its search algorithms.

Cutts also has spoken in private conversations of Google's interest in making the change, according to a person familiar with the matter. The person says Google's internal discussions about encryption are still at an early stage and any change wouldn't happen soon.

A Google spokesman said the company has nothing to announce at this time.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by black6host on Saturday April 19 2014, @03:27AM

    by black6host (3827) on Saturday April 19 2014, @03:27AM (#33272) Journal

    I applaud the effort to make the internet a safer place for all. However, a search engine's job (Google's) is to return web pages to me that are relevant to what I'm searching for. It's up to me to make sure I follow safe practices. Some sites may be quite relevant to what I'm looking for but don't meet Google's criteria for safety and therefore aren't easy for me to find. That shouldn't be for Google to decide. If they wish to help then they can simply indicate that the site doesn't follow suggested protocols regarding security. I can then decide whether it's worth it to me, or not, to visit that site.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 19 2014, @04:26AM

      by frojack (1554) on Saturday April 19 2014, @04:26AM (#33279) Journal

      +1.

      There are a bazillion very good hobby sites [flyfishohio.com] that simply don't warrant being secure, and forcing them to pay for a certificate simply isn't fair. You know Google won't be honoring any self signed certs (when Google uses self signed certs themselves).

      If the site does no commerce, there really is little reason to to defcon 1.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hankwang on Saturday April 19 2014, @06:22AM

        by hankwang (100) on Saturday April 19 2014, @06:22AM (#33294) Homepage

        "If the site does no commerce, there really is little reason to to defcon 1."

        How about a hobby site running a phpBB forum? Often, they allow members to add personal information to their profiles: DoB, real name, city, social-media account names. Only visible to whomever bothered to sign up for an account and hosted on a cheap shared-hosting plan.

        • (Score: 1) by black6host on Saturday April 19 2014, @06:45AM

          by black6host (3827) on Saturday April 19 2014, @06:45AM (#33298) Journal

          There's no denying there are all kinds of risks awaiting on the net. And yes, Google is an easy way to find them. And with this plan, an easy way to bury those sites that don't propose a risk.

          That plus I don't like the nanny state the US has become and this just reeks of the same kind of thinking. At least IMO.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 19 2014, @10:44PM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday April 19 2014, @10:44PM (#33464) Journal

          If anyone can sign up, and see all of this voluntarily entered data, the's nothing a certificate will do to help.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19 2014, @01:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19 2014, @01:42PM (#33328)

        Even if a site does no real commerce, it can still be a major risk. Think of what would happen if an important web-based email account were compromised. Or one for a social networking site, which many of these dime a dozen phpBB sites arguably are, albeit of a limited scope. Of course, many of those sites that are essentially static information with only a limited degree of interactivity (static pages with perhaps Disqus commentary embedded) probably don't really need TLS.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 19 2014, @10:47PM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday April 19 2014, @10:47PM (#33466) Journal

          How does having a certificate warn off that "Major Risk"?

          Web based email sites are already using secure connections, and don't classify as a hobby site, and are generally not searchable, and therefore not germane.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 1) by pa63 on Saturday April 19 2014, @11:50AM

      by pa63 (596) on Saturday April 19 2014, @11:50AM (#33318)

      Hopefully Google will make it a preference toggle, like Safesearch.

  • (Score: 1) by tomp on Saturday April 19 2014, @04:06PM

    by tomp (996) on Saturday April 19 2014, @04:06PM (#33377)

    Next can Google create a way to return only pages that contain the search query?

    That's cool they can give me pages that seem to be about the type of thing they think I'm looking for. However, they get it wrong a lot. I want only pages that contain what I enter. No combination of quotes and plus signs seems to do that anymore.

    God I miss Altavista. Remember case-sensitive search? That was slick.