Re: Draft finding - "Transitioning the Web to HTTPS"

Mark Watson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.org.w3c.tag
Message-ID <CAEnTvdARkneBWULHy+3w3v8255RsyrCt_fX1ZE6Q_bx3U4KM-Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Eric J. Bowman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> Assuming those missing participants have any clue where "here" is, or
> if they do, that their participation is actually welcomed vs. dismissed
> as giggle-worthy or whatever else. ISPs and Web Developers who *do*
> know where here is, tend to be discouraged by an ivory-tower attitude
> which derides what they do to make a living as misguided, technically
> the same as theft-of-services, outmoded, etc.
>
>
​I think it's unfair to characterize my earlier comment as derisive.

I pointed out that outright ad-replacement was considered by some as
theft-of-revenue. I hope we can agree on that.

You claimed that ad-insertion could be a reasonable business practice
between consenting user and ISP and my counterpoint was that there is a
non-consenting party, the site operator, who suffers loss of revenue in a
similar manner as with ad replacement, though to a lesser degree.

I would go further and claim that all non-standards-compliant handling of
traffic can cause loss-of-revenue, because it introduces untestable
scenarios for the site operator. There will be bugs. UX-impacting ones. And
we know from rigorous A/B testing that UX impacts revenue. This is not even
counting the engineering time taken to investigate /
remotely-reverse-engineer the non-compliant intermediary behavior causing
the problem. I speak from extensive recent personal experience when I say
this is significant.

You made a point about the legal status of the practice of ad-insertion​,
but that is not at issue here: in this forum we must decide what are
reasonable practices that should be protected / maintained / alternatives
found in the drive to improve security and privacy on the web. If a
practice were illegal it obviously doesn't factor. This is a question of
balance and my point was only that whilst you point to the consenting
business arrangement between ISP and user there is a third party who does
not consent and suffers loss. That this aspect should be considered is far
from "derisive". The TAG are the people we have elected to make a judgement
on this balance and it seems they've sided with a standards-compliant
network where data travels between user and site unmodified.

…Mark





>
> -Eric
>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.