Unfortunately, if someone wants to censor content, it will be an arms race to try to defeat it. Even if SPDY had a solution, those in favor of censorship would only find new ways to block the content. So in general, I don't think politics is something a protocol should intend to address.
However, we do believe the web should be more secure. Why is it that today, it is still possible to connect to a site (like your bank) and not have it be server-authenticated? Why is is possible to accidentally connect to an impostor? Because of this problem (which will likely only get worse over time), we are considering deploying SPDY exclusively over SSL. This would provide always-encrypted and always-authenticated communication all the time. SSL does incur some overhead; but research is active to reduce it. Mike On Nov 12, 2:32 pm, Tao <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > It is exciting to hear about goole's work on SPDY, the next generation > Internet protocol. As you know, there are hundreds of millions of > Internet users in this world facing Internet censorship. They cannot > access the info as they want. For example, people in China cannot > access google sites, youtube and millions of other sites (most of them > has nothing to do with politics. They are simply blocked for some > mysterious reason. For example, Python's download page is blocked) > thanks to notorious GFW. I am wondering if it is possible to make > Internet censorship theoretically or practically infeasible by the > definition of this new protocol. I know some performance may need to > be sacrificed. However this work is definitely worth thinking about > since it can help so many people to access the info they want, which I > believe is the core spirit of Internet. > > Bests, > Tao -- Chromium Discussion mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-discuss
