Re: Status code for censorship?

FWIW .. a couple years ago I had a customer support issue related to
company censorship. In that case, the country enforcement was to
to provide a replacement page which essentially said 'forbidden' and
return it with 200 status and a long expiration. Essentially poluting
the end user's local caching and reducing the load on their interception
process.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, 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.
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 16:20:19 UTC