You're oversimplifying and being dismissive without cause.
>a web browser has no business dictating that the entire web should be forced in HTTPs.
1. that isn't what is happening as per the article. They are going to begin picking features that shouldn't be allowed over HTTP (like, say, geo location, web camera access, etc).
2. a browser is precisely the actor that should push for these things. If not browser vendors, who?
>What is forcing HTTPS on the entire web actually doing?
Encrypting streams of data that were previously unencrypted.
>Who is it benefiting?
Users.
>The government can still snoop your data in-flight.
So your argument is 'this isn't perfect for all attack vectors, so it isn't useful at all'?
>Do we need TLS to read the latest TMZ post about Miley Cyrus?
>a web browser has no business dictating that the entire web should be forced in HTTPs.
1. that isn't what is happening as per the article. They are going to begin picking features that shouldn't be allowed over HTTP (like, say, geo location, web camera access, etc).
2. a browser is precisely the actor that should push for these things. If not browser vendors, who?
>What is forcing HTTPS on the entire web actually doing?
Encrypting streams of data that were previously unencrypted.
>Who is it benefiting?
Users.
>The government can still snoop your data in-flight.
So your argument is 'this isn't perfect for all attack vectors, so it isn't useful at all'?
>Do we need TLS to read the latest TMZ post about Miley Cyrus?
Yes. See how easy that is?