Well, HTTP has zero security, and HTTPS has this big complicated security mechanism (TLS) that tries to ensure no one can snoop on your connection, alter the content, or pretend to be a server they aren't.
There's no subjectivity at stake, here: One is designed without security, the other is designed with security.
It's like saying the Atacama Desert is widely considered to be drier than a thunderstorm.
The journalist could have simply put "is more secure"—this is objectively true!—but then they got nervous, perhaps because they didn't understand the subject well enough, and decided to fall back to hedge phrases.
The statement is not as good as it can be, because it introduces uncertainty where in reality there is none.
"We've seen cases outside the UK, with some of our World Service sites where foreign governments have tried to [track which articles and videos you're looking at or selectively suppress individual pieces of content]."
Is there any more information about such instances or is that insider knowledge?
Why is that so surprising ? Moving to https:// makes it harder for the GFW to identify people who read specific articles. I can see how China feels news platforms that are https:// only need to be blocked.
Out of curiosity: how do other news outlets fare ?
Interestingly, the screencap that's the hero image for TFA includes a comparison between a picture of Xi and Obama and a picture of Winnie the Pooh and Tigger.
The Xi => Pooh comparison is (to my understanding) a common one in China, and one the Party tries to suppress.
The latest Winnie The Pooh movie (containing nothing offensive, suitable for children) has of course been banned in China.
I find it amazing how very powerful people can end up with such delicate egos. Here in the West we mock leaders all the time and it rarely undermines their authority.
AFAIK there’s not problem with https in China - today most companies use https for their websites and app servers, see Baidu, Taobao, JD, etc. Maybe BBC didn’t register things correctly with the govt or the govt is just specifically targeting them. But the article’s title is a little misleading by implying that https leads to GFW blocking.
35 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 83.0 ms ] threadDoes the Chinese government refer to it like that as well?
« It has altered all of its addresses from beginning "HTTP" to "HTTPS", which is widely considered to be a more secure connection »
Widely considered, I love it.
Didn't get this. Any technical issues/anecdote to make this more interesting?
There's no subjectivity at stake, here: One is designed without security, the other is designed with security.
It's like saying the Atacama Desert is widely considered to be drier than a thunderstorm.
But if you think about that, the statement is about as good as it can be.
Explaining why may be beyond a particular audience, but that doesn't justify weakening the truth with weasel words.
The statement is not as good as it can be, because it introduces uncertainty where in reality there is none.
Is there any more information about such instances or is that insider knowledge?
Out of curiosity: how do other news outlets fare ?
The Xi => Pooh comparison is (to my understanding) a common one in China, and one the Party tries to suppress.
I find it amazing how very powerful people can end up with such delicate egos. Here in the West we mock leaders all the time and it rarely undermines their authority.