- From: Virgil Griffith <i@virgil.gr>
- Date: 2014年12月17日 03:21:27 -0800
- To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
- Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Niels ten Oever <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADop2NHhE4eaYyOff7iE9D4YCShgBFJOtyG_mucNs6cz2ORdjw@mail.gmail.com>
> What this doesn’t cover is a workplace filtering out Facebook because it’s a time-waster. What it also doesn’t cover is opt-in filtering services, such as parents might get so their kids don’t see inappropriate content. You could cover this case of "non-legally-compelled blocking" with error code 511. It's a non-standard use, but it's the closest thing I can think of. On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2014, at 9:02 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tbray@textuality.com');>> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ynir.ietf@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> Whether the status code in the draft will be useful for us depends, in >> part, on the meaning as defined in the document. If it’s phrased so that it >> only applies to government-mandated censorship as opposed to other kinds of >> filtering (think net-nanny), then it won’t be useful for us. Otherwise, it >> might be useful. >> > > So, please comment on the meaning as defined in the draft document. I > agree, if it suggests that the only legal obstacles are > government-mandated, that would be a bug. Does it? > > > Last time I checked the judiciary was part of government as was the > legislature. As the draft currently stands, it covers the case where the > Glorious Leader or one of his people called the ISP demanding that the > content be filtered, a quash order by a court of law, or the ISP filtering > based on guidelines in either laws or government regulation. > > What this doesn’t cover is a workplace filtering out Facebook because it’s > a time-waster. What it also doesn’t cover is opt-in filtering services, > such as parents might get so their kids don’t see inappropriate content. As > the draft is currently, the following would be a mis-use: > > HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons > Content-Type: text/html > > <html> > <head><title>Inappropriate Content</title></head> > <body> > <h1>Content Flagged As Blasphemy</h1> > <p>This request was blocked by the IntegrityOnline content > filtering service. You are signed up to the Christian > package, which filters out Sex, Atheism, Blasphemy, > Humanism and LGBT.</p> > > <p>If you believe this resource was mis-categorized, please > > contact us at <a href="mailto:errors@integrity.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','errors@integrity.com');>"> > > errors@integrity.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','errors@integrity.com');></a>.</p> > </body> > </html> > > > > Yoav > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 11:21:54 UTC