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

Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status-01.txt

From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:30:12 -0400
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120713103012.GA11984@jay.w3.org>
On 07/12/2012 12:47 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> A HTTP server can always return content with a status code but it will
> only display in the browser if it is HTML or the like.
> Formalizing some means of providing a link would be useful but
> probably something for HTML rather than HTTP?

It's been suggested to me that RFC 5988 link-relation headers might be
useful in this context. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

A standard location and relation (e.g. "legal-demand") for such links
could make it easier for independent reviewers to find and aggregate
takedown information.


> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>> On 07/10/2012 07:25 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>>> Since MNot has put this on the agenda, I thought I should revise one more
>>> time.  There?s one big change and a bunch of little ones.
>>> Big: I went and talked to some subject-matter experts at Google who are
>>> paid to think about this sort of policy stuff, and some others who might
>>> have to implement it.  I got strong advice that the draft should not talk
>>> about ?legal restrictions? because this might carry an implication that the
>>> party emitting the 451 acknowledges that this is in fact a ?restriction?.
>>>  In fact, many parties get legal demands that they think might well be
>>> bogus but choose not to go to court for reasons of policy or cost; so
>>> they?d like to avoid implying that they acknowledge a ?restriction?.  I was
>>> advised that it was perfectly OK to report that legal ?demands? had been
>>> made, and eventually became convinced that this was more accurate. The
>>> Republican Guards call up and demand that you take down some links, and you
>>> think they might be full of crap, but they?re the Guards, so you can
>>> accurately report that the *demand* was made.
>> What about an additional recommendation that, where permitted, servers
>> should include a link to more information?
>> A link could provide information about the specific demand or the
>> general legal context. With Chilling Effects, I'm thinking, from the
>> other direction, about better standardizing the description and posting
>> of these demands, so it could be interesting to encourage pointers.
>> --Wendy
>> --
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.863.0613
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/

Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.863.0613
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 10:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:02 UTC