it mainly means control these days.
ive made SSL then later TLS requirements for web browsers and we had fights on this sort of stuff.
yeah encryption is needed. but then you need authentication. and then, if authentication is controlled by corporations you're f'd.
instead youd want identities to be distributed and owned by everyone. many trust models have been developed and other than raw UI problems (hi gpg/pgp) its really not a terrible UX.
Google has backtracked from requiring HTTPS in Chrome. I repeat: HTTPS is not required. Where did you get that from?
If you're talking about Android, it doesn't require you to use WebPKI CAs. You can go self-signed.
If it's about the search engine, well, that's gone to shit and you'll only be visible if Google likes you in a completely arbitrary way - no point trying to add HTTPS to show up in search results now unless you already do.
Isn't this problem already inherent to domain names, even without encryption? There's always a central authority that can take away your stuff, and always has been. (In theory you can solve this with a blockchain, but, well, gestures)
The domain system needs at least some central control at the top, or it literally won't work. Do you remember the various "alternate root" projects in the 90's? I've stopped following them.
The cert situation has vastly improved over the past 30 years. I remember paying $100's of dollars for certificates in the 90's, faxing in forms, etc.
Just wait until SSL is used to prevent us from publishing anything.
Your ID will have to be on file and be compliant.
We've gone from really simple tools to tools that could easily be used to ensnare us and rid us of our rights.
Encryption doesn't necessarily mean privacy. It can also mean control.