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

RE: Status code for censorship?

From: Musatov, Martin - CW <Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:25:21 +0000
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.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>
Message-ID: <1A861E6970A91447BBC0BD2021F75320029BDFF4@SN2PRD0610MB371.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
So in the below scenario, would it be something like a visitor to some search engine, say Google, searches for a torrent, sees an indexed result, clicks the link and gets a 4xx (meaning censored link)? --MM

From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:12 AM
To: Musatov, Martin - CW
Cc: Julian Reschke; James M Snell; Mark Nottingham; Karl Dubost; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status code for censorship?

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<mailto:Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>> wrote:


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de<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<mailto: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 20:26:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 20:26:33 GMT