I suspect that's the biggest reason Google was so interested in "https everywhere". That removed detailed browsing visibility from a lot of entities, but not Google.
On the subject of HTTPS - do you think the interests of ordinary consumers are in any way served by continuing on HTTP? Countless websites, even those accepting login credentials used to think that it was acceptable to not take the trouble to set up HTTPS. The only thing the operators of these websites cared about was being marked "insecure" by the most popular browser. The shift to HTTPS was a definite win for privacy for every person who uses the web.
But no. Apparently, the "biggest reason" for the people working at Google pushing this because it was good for Google. They didn't care about all the benefits for end users, they only cared about themselves.
It's sad that slander like this can become mainstream view in a forum like HN.
Disclaimer - no connection to Google in any way. Don't even own Google stock.
I mean, when I do stuff at my job, I also do things that are good for the company that pays me. That's the job, right?
The problem is that Google has positioned itself in a way where things that are good for Google might be bad for humanity as a whole.
Isn't that the basic assumption that whole our economy rests upon?
It could simply mean the interests aligned. I get my credentials encrypted and Google gets more [insert stuff here]. When the interests don't align the result is a bit different. You could be sending tracking/location data every few minutes, adblockers could be crippled, you could be forced to sign in to sync Chrome data, etc. Usually the very same stuff Google relies on for revenue.
So what I'm saying is that it's not that outlandish to assume Google had more reasons than your benefit.
Companies tend to do things that advance their competitive advantage.
"slander" - really? For "I suspect", followed by a theory that an online ad company might bandwagon something (otherwise good) that helps them for less than altruistic reasons?
So yes, that is the biggest reason - their business objective. It just happened that it also did something good for everyone.
A corporation can set any goal the founders please. Making money need not be the dominant one. Obviously making enough to stay solvent helps with longevity.
Hasn't Amazon been notable for actively avoiding profit through much of its existence?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard...
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
> "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.
> …
> He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholder...
That's why they don't need any ulterior motivation for efforts like HTTPS Everywhere, Google Fiber, or Chrome. The very fact that those technologies make the web safer, faster, or more powerful already benefits Google indirectly.
Not denying that, but this could be reversed and would still make sense: Google has long held the stance that anything that's good for Google is good for the web.
Google is smart enough where they could've enforced the penalty on sites that should use HTTPS, such as those with any kind of form submission or login. But they chose not to without much of a reason, and that's why I can believe it helped some hidden motive of theirs.
I downvoted you because this is wrong. There are at least two good reasons for it:
1. It prevents MitM attacks. For example, some ISPs and free WiFi APs inject arbitrary code into unencrypted pages.
2. It improves privacy by hiding the request headers, including hostname.