Https does nothing for security.
Its purpose is to authenticate financial transaction packets, not to be "secure". (Whatever that means.)
Its purpose is to authenticate financial transaction packets, not to be "secure". (Whatever that means.)
What sort of definition are you using for security? It's obviously not the standard one.
Sending passwords in the clear vs not is covered on the first day of security 101.
Which you don't have, because you're not doing security. Just buzzwords.
"I don't want other people to know my passwords".
Perhaps you don't understand what HTTPS does. Which is totally fine! Lots of people don't really get it (or even need to). But yelling "buzzwords" for the things you don't understand doesn't make the usefulness go away.
For someone so wrong about this, you're very opinionated! It's quite a dangerous mix. Thankfully, not dangerous to me, so I can just have a little chuckle and move on.
It is never worth asking "should I even do https?" The only variation worth considering is "is https enough?" And even then, start with https and then build on top.
> The only variation worth considering is "is https enough?"
Enough for what exactly? Since this charade clearly isn't about security, what exactly is the metric for "enough"?
All for the price of about the same amount of work that it took to read this message.
"Https is only for credit cards" is some serious 1990s bullshit.