The owner is a domain parker and is upset that he has to update hundreds of sites in order to be marked as insecure, is what I can gather
In the last few weeks he's also wrote:
- http://scripting.com/2018/02/21.html
He then makes the argument that HTTPS will make it such that only "super nerds" will be able to create websites. But right now I can host my own blog on services like Netlify and get an HTTPS certificate for multiple domains with one click. If I want my own server it literally takes two seconds for me to set up certbot and get certificates for free. Then he makes a odd and somewhat rambling comparison to the Grand Canyon.
He then argues that Google labeling HTTP as not secure is the first step down a path which leads to "blocking the pages outright", which is a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy.
In another blog post he argues that by applying Occam's razor, it's clear that Google just wants to protect their ad revenue (because HTTPS would allow ISPs to replace Google's ads with their own). Which honestly sounds insane.
I'm really surprised that this person is a software developer. I'm even more surprised that he still believes this stuff after working for 24 years.
I'm really surprised that you think everyone has/should have(?) the same beliefs about such things.
He then argues that Google labeling HTTP as not secure is the first step down a path which leads to "blocking the pages outright", which is a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy.
20 years ago people thought buying computers on which you can't install software some central authority didn't approve of was preposterous, and yet here we are today with walled gardens and the like. This is a rise of authoritarianism, all in the name of "security". The frog boils slowly.
I can install whatever operating system and software I like on almost every single consumer-available computer today. The only prominent "walled garden" is the iPhone, which has < 15% market share. And frankly, I don't mind Apple's iOS. I certainly don't mind the fact that I know that any kernel space software that runs on my phone is cryptographically signed by a trusted party in a chain from the bootloader.
If you think it's weird and very bad, explain why you think so. I for one can sympathize with his point of view.