A thread in which I ask folks to lobby for DU to support https.

[boppers]

In short, if anybody between you, and DU, wants to see what you're posting, or reading, they can do so, with nothing more sophisticated than a laptop, and free software, and a point of access.

That's it. Seriously.

If you have an un-encrypted home wireless connection, somebody can sit outside your home and read everything you post. If you have encrypted wireless, but you connect through an ISP, then the ISP can read and see what you post. If your packets transit international boundaries, it's also legal for US authorities to read, and inspect, everything you post.

It's time for DU to support basic, simple, encryption.

[Obamanaut]

1. If anyone wants to see what anyone else is posting on DU, can they not

simply type in the DU URL and read the posts?

[boppers]

2. With encryption:

They cannot just filter for all "Obamanaut" posts, as they happen, in real time.... because it's encrypted.

They can, however, search for such, once a post is made.

Without encryption, however, somebody can legally intercept *every* "Obamanaut" post, no warrant required, even if it is a private message, because it has no measures taken to ensure privacy.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. Why don't you post this in Ask the Administrators?

They're the ones who make the decisions about DU. :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=437

[boppers]

4. Thanks for the link!

Posted, shall see if it's considered.

[Rhiannon12866]

9. You're more than welcome!

Sounds to me that the Admins are the best people to ask about this. Thanks for taking my suggestion... :hi:

[Skidmore]

5. WTF is an "Obamanaut?"

[jberryhill]

10. Wtf is a "skidmore"

[Skidmore]

12. Your point is???

[jberryhill]

13. Okay, let's try it this way

Read the user names in the thread leading up to your question.

"Boppers" posts an OP.

"Obamanaut" replies to OP.

"Boppers" replies to "Obamanaut".

"Skidmore" asks, "WTF is an 'Obamanaut'?"

It would appear that the answer to your question is "a DU user name".

[peace4ever]

6. Only for logging in

Which they already do.

Since the rest is public info, there is no benefit with the expense of more overhead for the servers.

Doesn't make sense.

[checks-n-balances]

8. Maybe so, but https is still better than http just for that reason

It can't hurt to make the change. We should go for it, regardless.

[peace4ever]

11. Https only makes sense for non-public info

Since this info is public there is no benefit and it would add unnecessary overhead to the servers and slow things down.

[boppers]

14. Are they using first generation pentiums? I doubt that.

As far as "benefit" added, the benefit is that finding posts on DU requires DU access, and knowledge of DU account names, and how they relate to IP addies.

[peace4ever]

16. It doesn't matter, it is still added overhead with 0 benefit since the info is public

[jberryhill]

7. Wifi at the FEMA camps doesn't support https

[LAGC]

15. LOL.

You win the Best Post of the Thread award!

[inna]

17. pretty funny, actually

[AlabamaLibrul]

18. If you have an un-encrypted home wireless connection, you're a moron. No https for you

on a simple internet forum.