> On 2015–01–08, at 5:33 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>> wrote: > > I think "Forbidden" is the very word that Tim is objecting to, and introducing intermediaries into this seems to be missing the point. It's NOT that intermediaries are forbidding anything but that someone somewhere has told the site owner that material should not be made available. The difference between the filter residing on the same server as the origin, or in a government facility, is minor. If information is not allowed to get from the origin to a particular user, that can be generally modeled as the behavior of an intermediary. > Let's also disentangle this just a bit. There are two different issues: > Some legal demand, as Tim points out (like a DMCA takedown notice, or a government ordering a site to take down content); or These scenarios are more likely to result in 404 than 403. > an intermediary network refusing to serve content, perhaps because the network owner has a policy against certain content, but this would have nothing to do with anything regarding legality. Whether a filtering policy is codified in actual law is besides the point. (But they often are.) I think the distinction of intermediary vs. origin is spot-on. User agents can use this to display different interfaces. Users deserve to know that they’re not dealing with the origin. Whether everyone will comply by opting-in to 451 is another story, but at least it’ll be there.
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2015 13:36:48 UTC