I suppose the two main disadvantages are 1. the increase response time (encryption/decryption must take place at both ends of the transaction) and 2. the increased cost of support, although that may be minimal.
Intruders can trap data being transmitted with any protocol - I'm sure you've heard of "packet sniffers" and such. SSL cannot prevent this type of data trapping. What SSL does is encrypt the data so that even if the data is intercepted, it means nothing to the intruder. Without the128 bit key, it would take an impossible amount of time to perform what's known as a "brute force" attack to crack the encryption. Distributed.net has been trying since about 1998 with an amazing amount of computing power to crack a 64 bit key. A 128 bit key is simply beyond our computing capacity to crack in a reasonable amount of time. As computers become more powerful, that will change, but we're OK for now.
I don't know what encryption algorithm is used in SSL, but it's conceivable that anything other than a one-time pad (which SSL definitely does not use) can be compromised through a more elegant attack than a brute force method, but that requires the attacker discovering the solution to some heretofore unsolvable mathematical problem. Not likely - you probably have as good a chance of winning the Powerball.
Basically data intercepted over SSL is about as useful as if you recorded a couple of hours of static on your VCR. There's no discernable data other than white noise.
Good luck.
Jay
www.jayeckles.com