One way you are trying to make people safer while they’re online is by encouraging websites to use HTTPS. What makes this a complicated process?
Think about a site like the Washington Post. When you go to the Washington Post’s home page, there’s going to be 100 different [assets from various websites] that are loaded. All of those have to support HTTPS before the Washington Post itself can do it. Sites need to make sure there’s no revenue hit, they need to make sure there’s no [search] ranking hit, they need to make sure there’s no performance hit. And then they can switch. All these things can be done. Sites are transitioning very successfully at scale now. But it is work.
Now that many of the biggest websites have made the switch from HTTP to HTTPS, what are you focusing on?
The long tail is a big problem. There are lots and lots of sites that are out there. Some that are barely maintained, some that are run by your dentist, your hairdresser, a teacher at a local elementary school, and I don’t see them rushing to add support for HTTPS. The question is now, “Okay, we’ve hit all the really popular sites, we’re starting to get to the medium sites—what do we do for the rest of the Internet?” I don’t want to get in a state where oh, great, you’re secure if you go to a big company but not if you go to a small, independent site. Because I still want people to feel like they can go everywhere on the Web.
—Rachel Metz