The questions is, should you upgrade to 1.7? Sure, why not? Before you do though you should check your existing code and if you’re using any of the following features you probably shouldn’t upgrade because they’ve been removed in 1.7.

• event.layerX or event.layerY
• jQuery.isNaN() (undocumented utility function)
• jQuery.event.proxy() (undocumented method)

More information on what’s new and what’s been removed visit their blog. You should know that jQuery has recently been very open about slimming down jQuery. This means that we’ll certainly see more features being deprecated in version 1.8. I was shocked when I heard this but reading their reasons why on their blog it makes sense.

Although the jQuery team has worked hard to ensure compatibility issues were ironed out it is still very likely that there would be minor bugs to address even after its release so for that reason alone (as with anything) I would recommend waiting up to a few weeks while these bugs are identified and fixed.

You can download jQuery 1.7 here docs.jquery.com/Downloading_jQuery

However safe HTTPS is I couldn’t help but have mixed thoughts about this. On one hand this is good if the user wishes to have more privacy (and who doesn’t) while conducting searches. Google already encrypts their connection whenever you login to your Google account and prior to today whenever you conducted a search while logged into Google that search information, known as referrer data, was passed via HTTP, an uncrypted connection. Although, not necessarily a bad thing referrer data is useful by webmasters and site owners to understand how their sites are found through Google.

On the other hand, this is somewhat of bad thing for site owners because starting today they will lose valuable data that they depend on to understand how they’re found through Google. I say somewhat because Google stresses that those conducting Google Encrypted Searches is in the single digit percentile. I say that with Google Plus (Google+) picking up momentum we’ll actually see this single digit percent increase to double digits quickly as more and more users login and remain logged into Google but we’ll just have to see.

So how will this affect site owners? It will affect you if you rely on conversion analysis down to the search term level. If you use Google Encrypted Search and click on a result for a website that doesn’t use encryption, the referrer data will not be passed along. But if you click on a result for a website that does use encryption then the referrer data is passed along.

So, is this a good time to encrypt your websites? Yes and No.

Yes, if you want to continue obtaining referrer data. For a moment, lets forget about referrer data and note that if you plan to allow your visitors some kind of registration/login to your website it is recommended to obtain an SSL (Secure Socket Layer) for your site to safeguard sensitive information such as login passwords. Especially, if you’re processing credit cards on your website for goods sold you need to have an SSL certificate installed for your domain. In fact, gateway and credit card processors require it.

And no, if your website doesn’t have some type of registration/login page that you want to encrypt and/or you’re not processing credit cards on your site, and you don’t care or pay attention to referrer data then you don’t need encryption.

However, for those that do want encryption you’ll need both of the following:

1. Dedicated IP – You will have to obtain this from you existing web hosting company. Prices range. If you’re a Synx3 customer you can purchase on here.
2. SSL Certificate – You can obtain this directly through your web hosting company or from a 3rd-Party vendor like Comodo. Comodo too much? No worries, you can obtain a 256bit encrypted SSL by Comodo for $50/yr here.

This is interesting and although I am a bit divided on Google’s decision for encrypted search I understand why they are doing it as more and more data is moved online, referrers have the ability to expose the locations to where sensitive and private information you may store online is located.

The Protect IP Act set for a hearing in front of a Senate Committee and if we don’t speak out we could soon find ourselves being blocked like the Chinese and Iranians from accessing certain parts of the internet.

Here’s an excerpt by David Segal of the Huffington Post with further explanation about PIPA.

PIPA would create two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to  PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites “dedicated to infringing activity,” but that’s defined very broadly — any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are “central to the activity of the Internet site” could be blocked.

One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders  like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law,  YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they’re informed about it — which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.

But if PIPA passes, Viacom wouldn’t even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down — as long as they can persuade the courts that enough people are using it for copyright infringement,  the whole site could be censored.

Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn’t get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a  similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn’t formally require them to do so.)

PIPA’s passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet — and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship.

This is something I’d expect to see in China, not here in the US. We can all fight back by signing the following petition to Congress http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/sho.