- 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
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. --Wendy > > 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 http://wendy.seltzer.org/
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 10:30:17 UTC