Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkMOAR | Hacker News Reader

In my humble opinion, i find the label 'not encrypted' better fitting than 'not secure'.

[ edit after replies ]

Agreed, perhaps i unrightfully assumed people now what 'encrypted' means. Growing up with computers i don't know any better and sometimes forget or can't properly imagine what layman know and don't know.

View on HN

HTTPS is more than just "encrypted", it's also "authenticated". That is, plain-text HTTP and FTP is not only "Not Encrypted", but also "Not Authenticated"; saying "Not Secure" captures both properties at the same time.

"Authenticated" is debatable. Someone has spent a few minutes on a third-party website to enable the green checkbox. Whether that means they are who you think they are is another matter.

Yeah, it's authenticated but only to the degree that you know that they own the domain name, and there are no other guarantees that they are who they say they are. Secure is way too strong a word.

They're certainly authenticated as the domain.

They're not authenticated as anything else.

IMO, "Not Secure" means a lot more to the layperson than "Not Encrypted". They're trying to push HTTPS adoption by punishing websites that don't use it.

Sure "Not Encrypted" is more accurate, but not everybody is going to know what that means.

But "secure" is what the "s" in "https" actually stands for.

To the users they’re trying to target here, Not Secure makes a lot more sense than Not Encrypted I think.

Not Secure: <reason0>, <reason1>, <reasonN>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com