<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google&#8217;s SSL shift helps schools, China censor search</title>
	<atom:link href="http://infopolitics.net/2010/07/googles-e/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://infopolitics.net/2010/07/googles-e/</link>
	<description>Understanding the Internet and information in politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:15:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham Webster</title>
		<link>http://infopolitics.net/2010/07/googles-e/comment-page-1/#comment-662</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Webster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:22:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://infopolitics.net/?p=124#comment-662</guid>
		<description>@SirSteven I think you&#039;re right about this, though I thought I had checked this and gotten something on the encrypted.google.com.hk site. Now, on one proxy where DNS gets routed through the US, I get an error. On another, I get the same error from China Unicom, despite the fact that the connection goes through the US. I&#039;m going to look back at this and correct as needed.

The punch of the post may be gone, but I stand by the analysis that making &quot;encrypted&quot; part of the domain rather than the protocol is a troublesome step.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@SirSteven I think you&#8217;re right about this, though I thought I had checked this and gotten something on the encrypted.google.com.hk site. Now, on one proxy where DNS gets routed through the US, I get an error. On another, I get the same error from China Unicom, despite the fact that the connection goes through the US. I&#8217;m going to look back at this and correct as needed.</p>
<p>The punch of the post may be gone, but I stand by the analysis that making &#8220;encrypted&#8221; part of the domain rather than the protocol is a troublesome step.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SirSteven</title>
		<link>http://infopolitics.net/2010/07/googles-e/comment-page-1/#comment-661</link>
		<dc:creator>SirSteven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://infopolitics.net/?p=124#comment-661</guid>
		<description>but encrypted.google.com.hk doesn&#039;t even exist (I just tried it with my VPN on, and also with it turned off), so the page that you saw - and presumed to be an error/blocking page - was actually just one of those ISP landing pages. My ISP is China Telecom, so I got their landing page instead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but encrypted.google.com.hk doesn&#8217;t even exist (I just tried it with my VPN on, and also with it turned off), so the page that you saw &#8211; and presumed to be an error/blocking page &#8211; was actually just one of those ISP landing pages. My ISP is China Telecom, so I got their landing page instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://infopolitics.net/2010/07/googles-e/comment-page-1/#comment-660</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:35:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://infopolitics.net/?p=124#comment-660</guid>
		<description>Lots of websites are blocked in China and the list keeps changing from day to day. To keep updated with which they are, check out http://www.greatfirewall.biz</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lots of websites are blocked in China and the list keeps changing from day to day. To keep updated with which they are, check out <a href="http://www.greatfirewall.biz" rel="nofollow">http://www.greatfirewall.biz</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

