Maybe a little bit of a sensationalist title, websites switching to HTTPS only isn't that much of a threat, yes the bill is bad and yes he should be opposing it but Ars seem to frame it as though it's drastic or has a negative effect on anyone. While I disagree with the bill and the concept of monitoring peoples internet, I don't think they're doing it so they can find out what you're reading on Wikipedia or who you're messaging on Facebook.
> I don't think they're doing it so they can find out what you're reading on Wikipedia or who you're messaging on Facebook.
What makes you think that sort of information isn't exactly what they're interested in?
Even if they don't care about it right now, once it starts being collected, if any future government decides they do care about it, it'd be very easy for them to get their hands on it.
This is actually one of the more interesting things about how data is being collected these days... because we (or rather, our machines) now have the capacity to scavenge and parse so much more data than we could've dreamed of before, people, corporations, governments, etc. have already caught on to the idea that you don't actually need to know your angle before you execute. Gathering tons and tons of data may seem completely worthless or missing the point, but the reality is that "the point" no longer exists. It's all just floating data that, when the time comes, either passes through the filter or throws a flag.
Basically, the government may not care who you're messaging on facebook now, but if someone discovers a correlation to some other problem in the future they'll be damn pleased that they have that data.
