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

Re: Status code for censorship?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:11:29 +1000
Cc: "Musatov, Martin - CW" <Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C7C50692-5F1A-4AF8-90A6-A4EB9751964C@mnot.net>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Sure, but as discussed, how does some appropriate HTML not fit the job?


On 12/06/2012, at 2:12 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 20:12:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 20:12:05 GMT