I see this attitude a lot on
In this case it turns out that it wasn't actually secure, which raises concern about whether the protocol was subject to adequate public scrutiny before it was decided to employ on such a massive scale. But do you have any reason to say that they aren't actually interested in preventing fraud?
Are there more secure methods that they are refusing to employ? Or are you saying that the problem of secure authentication is inherently unsolvable, and that they should just give up and resign themselves to laughable measures like signatures and card numbers?
Are you sure? The CIA world factbook lists the US as having the 4th largest export in US. dollars in the world - counting the EU.
Visit the test site and look again.
I don't see that Opera has done anything particularly protest-worthy here. Maintaining proxies to circumvent oppressive regimes' firewalls, admirable as it might be, is not in my default expectations of a browser company, and I can't help but notice that neither the Mozilla Project, Microsoft or Apple provide such a service, leaving you with few places to turn if you're going to boycott everyone who isn't in the trenches fighting the CPC.
It's regrettable that the government of China chose to operate this way, but Opera merely chose to follow the local law by restricting access to a service, much as every search engine of note has done, in China, Germany, the US and elsewhere.
If we as a society really don't want to economically aid a state employing political censorship, we should stop pussy-footing around and enact a proper embargo. Yeah, that won't happen.
I differentiate between not actively resisting, and actively aiding, though. If, for instance, Opera released the internet browsing history of individuals on request, that'd be a serious breach of trust in my eyes, and I'd do my part to name and shame.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.