Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

451unavailable.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#41

Post by kintamanimatt »

drdaeman wrote: post #38
orenbarzilai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the sites blocked on ISP level code contribution to apache/nginx or other web servers is irrelevant.

Disclaimer: I work for an ISP and every ISP in Russia is legally required to do the censorship (and mirror all traffic to FSB black boxes, but that's another story). I'm not partucilarly happy with the situation, but can't do anything about that. Nginx is totally relevant as many ISPs including our use GNU/Linux boxes running Nginx as a highly performant transparent proxy (there are TPROXY patches for Nginx) to dive…

> I work for an ISP and every ISP in Russia is legally required to do the censorship (and mirror all traffic to FSB black boxes, but that's another story).

I hate the censorship but I like the fact you're not gagged and can talk about the fact traffic is being mirrored.

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#42

Post by nailer »

corobo wrote: post #28

Surely this should be within the 5xx range of status codes? I get there's a reference to be had using 451 but this is more of a server error than client.

I was about to write a +1, but then I realised:

- 4xx isn't appropriate as it's not a client error. - 5xx isn't appropriate because it's not a server error either.

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#44

Post by corobo »

nailer wrote: post #42
corobo wrote: post #28

Surely this should be within the 5xx range of status codes? I get there's a reference to be had using 451 but this is more of a server error than client.

I was about to write a +1, but then I realised: - 4xx isn't appropriate as it's not a client error. - 5xx isn't appropriate because it's not a server error either.

"The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred"

vs

"Response status codes beginning with the digit '5' indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has encountered an error or is otherwise incapable of performing the request."

There's always that quote people chuck around a lot about censorship being an error so the internet routes around it. By that definition the server knows it has errored so it should be a 5xx response.

[Nerdit: Fixed the quote marks]

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#45

Post by p_papageorgiou »

nextw33k wrote: post #20
p_papageorgiou wrote: post #17

The whole point of this is wrong... The internet is free, content shouldn't be blocked for legal reasons

The whole point of this is right, its highlighting the government breaking the Internet. Content shouldn't be blocked, the Internet should be free and open. However without letting people know what's happening they will not complain. Of course what the browser should display is: 451: The Right Honourable Claire Perry MP has deemed that you shouldn't be able to look at this site.

I have no clue about US politics but this sounds cool!

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#46

Post by Terretta »

corobo wrote: post #44
nailer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to write a +1, but then I realised: - 4xx isn't appropriate as it's not a client error. - 5xx isn't appropriate because it's not a server error either.

"The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred" vs "Response status codes beginning with the digit '5' indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has encountered an error or is otherwise incapable of performing the request." There's always that quote people chuck around a lot about censorship being an error so the internet routes around it. By that definition the…

I'd argue it's a client error. Whoever's hosting the info is happy to host it, while the client needs to go vote out the politician that censored it.

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#47

Post by hnha »

drdaeman wrote: post #38
orenbarzilai wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the sites blocked on ISP level code contribution to apache/nginx or other web servers is irrelevant.

Disclaimer: I work for an ISP and every ISP in Russia is legally required to do the censorship (and mirror all traffic to FSB black boxes, but that's another story). I'm not partucilarly happy with the situation, but can't do anything about that. Nginx is totally relevant as many ISPs including our use GNU/Linux boxes running Nginx as a highly performant transparent proxy (there are TPROXY patches for Nginx) to dive…

could you post some authoritative proof/references for the black boxes?

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#48

Post by drsintoma »

corobo wrote: post #44
nailer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to write a +1, but then I realised: - 4xx isn't appropriate as it's not a client error. - 5xx isn't appropriate because it's not a server error either.

"The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred" vs "Response status codes beginning with the digit '5' indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has encountered an error or is otherwise incapable of performing the request." There's always that quote people chuck around a lot about censorship being an error so the internet routes around it. By that definition the…

I'd consider it as much of an error as a 404 in this context.

1) Link works: 200

2) Take down notice arrives

Now:

3) Link not found: 404

Then:

3) Link not available: 451

Re: Campaign for a new HTTP Error code: 451 - Blocked for legal reasons

#49

Post by [deleted] »

kintamanimatt wrote: post #41
drdaeman wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I work for an ISP and every ISP in Russia is legally required to do the censorship (and mirror all traffic to FSB black boxes, but that's another story). I'm not partucilarly happy with the situation, but can't do anything about that. Nginx is totally relevant as many ISPs including our use GNU/Linux boxes running Nginx as a highly performant transparent proxy (there are TPROXY patches for Nginx) to dive…

> I work for an ISP and every ISP in Russia is legally required to do the censorship (and mirror all traffic to FSB black boxes, but that's another story). I hate the censorship but I like the fact you're not gagged and can talk about the fact traffic is being mirrored.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN