Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Monday February 24 2014, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the things-could-get-hairy dept.

mrbluze writes:

"A modified HTTP protocol is being proposed (the proposal is funded by AT&T) which would allow ISP's to decrypt and re-encrypt traffic as part of day to day functioning in order to save money on bandwidth through caching. The draft document states:

To distinguish between an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "https" URIs resources and an HTTP2 connection meant to transport "http" URIs resource, the draft proposes to 'register a new value in the Application Layer Protocol negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry specific to signal the usage of HTTP2 to transport "http" URIs resources: h2clr.

The proposal is being criticized by Lauren Weinstein in that it provides a false sense of security to end users who might believe that their communications are actually secure. Can this provide an ISP with an excuse to block or throttle HTTPS traffic?"

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Monday February 24 2014, @06:47PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Monday February 24 2014, @06:47PM (#6047)

    Now STFU, lay the fiber, build the network, or get out of the way.

    Unfortunately there is no competition in the US broadband market, because local governments have signed exclusive deals with the big ISPs. So there is no incentive for Comcast or Verizon to give a damn what we want. Not too many people are going to cancel their Internet access just because Verizon is throttling Netflix. Pro-industry regulation got us into this mess, and I think only pro-consumer regulation can get us out.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by hash14 on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:12AM

    by hash14 (1102) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:12AM (#6331)

    There is no such thing as pro-consumer anything in the US Congress. Once the Supreme Court legalized bribery, any hope of a government that's not thoroughly sworn to monetary interests became far beyond possibility. And it doesn't help that half of the American voting public thinks Jesus walked with dinosaurs.

    The local governments did totally screw themselves when they signed those exclusive agreements. What needs to happen is for a few high profile cases where the municipality pays for the infrastructure and lends it out to the service providers. A few cities are already doing this in fact. Then hopefully it will catch steam and others will follow in suit. Of course, this doesn't stop Federal government from doing other favors to their members, but at least not all governments will be their slaves, and hopefully the population will drift to those locations which are better served, making it harder for ISPs to control people.