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 > >