Reviving discussion on error code 451

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

I would like to revive the discussion around error code 451 [0].

There have been objections raised that this error code would not be
suitable because it would solely be an error code for a
user-understandable condition.

Transparency is crucial when it comes to blocking, since it would
allow the user to understand why the site blocked , and it would
encourage courts (or other relevant entities) to publish the blocking
orders.

Furthermore error code 451 could also trigger a client to establish a
connection to the website via a VPN or Tor so that the website could
still be accessed. This would provide for automated processing in
response to this error code (even though I think we should not mention
this is in the draft since it might hamper adoption).

Article19 (and others such as the Open Rights Group) would also be
interested to push for the adoption of this error code once it would
become a standard.

Looking forward to discuss.

Best,

Niels


[0]
http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-05.html

- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUkC4CAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpqjEIAJ7UeFKGzFHbVe68Hb7VPN0P
+h19/Ke91zs+Yj0gKzMONR2MY6809VK4h3ywv1lziCXFhyQKQ0/Bdxaw0llkZijX
WPj2ff1IGPv+8nS4tPmEOn46MeLtaG1LUwnlLjSShmBz77n0afYlDYTA0DtxnpQK
fTCl6JqxSnX/eLafTYKbcWGvH9z1Qm1NHDR85oBh2p9fldvnxBXxpjZHju1hiOXN
qbLv1ukvk1dNt3oLSTDuvWWTDvjWjre8KMZ7x6uUjylFJpiia5MzxMhZ722bokn8
ec7mwsz+NjvoAvPlJoN1rX9xIX/ctwfWhY+NxzhbYfRyJd8oN7FBD9fbKYpoJUY=
=4SCH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 13:05:41 UTC