W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Status code for censorship?

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:12:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuAKjKa9Se5i8PsQxyBfakQTqZkPB2=52kA9kMjiU5qaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Musatov, Martin - CW" <Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
None. But when some ISP or search engine gets a court order saying “You are
forbidden to link to {The Pirate Bay|Anonymous|whatever}, they have a
strong incentive to be transparent about it. Now in some countries, the
censors will also pass a law saying it’s forbidden to disclose the
censorship; but thankfully, not all. -T

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Musatov, Martin - CW <
Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: James M Snell
> Cc: Tim Bray; Mark Nottingham; Karl Dubost; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Status code for censorship?
>
> On 2012-06-11 17:54, James M Snell wrote:
> > I can definitely live with that.. anything that increases the
> > visibility of censorship is not a bad thing.
>
> Yes, but what incentives are there for censors to comply with its use?
> Martin
>
> Looks like status code
> > 427 is open currently.
> > ...
>
> So is 418. In any case, if we go there it should be 451.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> PS: and I do agree with Mark that it's unlikely that it'll be tricky to
> get something standardized that might give the impression that censorship
> is ok.
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 16:13:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 16:13:08 GMT