Like the TSA at the airport.

Security that we never needed before, but now suddenly we do.

Now we’re dependent on a third party gatekeeper for permission to have a web site.

Free, for now.

It’s a move by the weasels-that-be to turn the Internet into yet another tool for profit and control.

  • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yes, security. We love security now. The argument is well known.

    But now you need permission from an official to have a web site. That’s bad, right?

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      You should probably be more concerned about DNS than HTTPS. DNS is a point where government censors actually do go after web sites they don’t like.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      What? I’ve got all sorts of self hosted websites. Encrypted by HTTPS. No permission needed. If Let’s Encrypt vanished, I’d just switch to self-signing my certificates and using a pinning service.

      • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        Doesn’t chrome flag self-signed certificates?

        Ok, I didn’t know that was a thing. Thanks

    • toasteecup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t need permission to have a website. I need to prove I have control over a domain so that I can get a certificate for it. That way I can’t get a certificate for lemmy.org when I don’t own or control lemmy.org.

      I don’t know what drug You’re smoking friend but please stop. It’s giving you brainrot.

    • Nyfure@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yes, you need an organization which signs your certificate, so it is trusted by default. This is our trust-anchor so we know the certificate presented was validated and it was given only to the website owner.
      There are numerous around the world for that.
      And if that is no longer offered, you can just not have your certificate signed, which means browsers will complain about it.
      But you can trust your own certificate yourself. Or create your own certificate authority which can then sign other certificates for the community as their new trust anchor.
      I think we would very quickly build the web-of-trust, but for certificates.

      You can even not have certificates, but keep an weak form of TLS (no idea if browsers support TLS_DH_anon_*), but its still encrypted and can only be broken by an active Man-in-the-Middle-attack. (which is theoretically detectable later on)
      Diffie-Hellman is an awesome key-exchange.