Hacker News Reader

Getting the internet as a whole away from plaintext is more important than dealing with MITMs - you may or may not be subject to a MITM attack at any given time, you absolutely are subject to passive surveillance at all times.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the better.

View on HN

Depends on your threat model. Which do you consider more of a threat to you, the NSA or a corporate competitor who hired a black hat for some espionage? Whichever answer you give, there will be people to whom the answer is the opposite. It's not that they're being obtuse - that really is the answer for their situation.

> Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the better.

Think both/and, not either/or.

This isn't a zero sum game. Removing the ability for people to passively spy on you doesn't mean you can't add MITM protection later.

Having everything be encrypted by default is strictly more secure. There's no reason to avoid taking the first step in fear of the second one.

It actually can be zero sum.

Solve the problem with a poor 50% solution which most people can't understand, and you may be stuck with it for another 20 years.

I would encourage anyone to use TLS. However, I take issue with using it as an indicator of the trustworthiness of the sender or its host.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com