- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: 2012年6月11日 09:12:29 -0700
- To: "Musatov, Martin - CW" <Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHBU6iuAKjKa9Se5i8PsQxyBfakQTqZkPB2=52kA9kMjiU5qaw@mail.gmail.com>
None. But when some ISP or search engine gets a court order saying 添ou 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痴 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年06月11日 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 16:13:02 UTC