You can not separate those concepts. If you don't have proof of identity, your connection is not secure.
>Despite the scary red screens browsers like to show it's never the case that you're less secure using https to talk to a given server, even if the certificate the server presents is expired, mislabeled, or even entirely forged.
But I completely agree with that, there should be warnings for plain HTTP, with the same severity used for self-signed sites. (And current browsers are too severe with self-signed certs, to the point that they reduce the security of people accessing those sites.)
The ux [especially] places priority of identity ahead of protected, private conversation and then too broadly encapsulates that information. Secondly, verification is too static, too binary (all or nothing), and too optimistic.
1. To what degree is the line leaky and observable? 2. To what degree are we confirming the conversation participants' identity claims? 3. To what degree is the conversion following normal conversation protocol?