Re: [451] #80: Distinguishing intermediaries from origins

--------
In message <89B2159D-8005-4782-A29D-DCC098AEA86A@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>Yeah, that question has come up before, and it's a good one. 
>
>I suspect there will be some jurisdictions where ISPs and other network 
>providers would use such a status code, because prohibiting them from 
>doing so would be seen as overreaching.

But that only answers "will they be allowed to?", it doesn't answer
"would they be willing to?" which I think is the much more important
question.

>A good part of the motivation here AIUI is to keep the 451 signal 
>"clean" so that ISP censorship doesn't get confused with origin 
>censorship.

For the ISP there would be considerable benefits to making it look
like origin censorship:  It would reduce help-desk workload, it
would deflect blame for a controversial practice away from the ISP
etc.  etc.

Of course, we can have perverse incentives too:  If we add 452 and
give 451 a strong smell of origin censorship, we will probably
see more 451 responses, than we would without 452 :-)

But I still don't think adding 452 will be an improvement.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 07:25:32 UTC