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

51–60 of 93 posts

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

#51

Post by ToastyMallows »

nathan_long wrote: post #8
venus wrote: post #3

Well, the cool thing about HTTP error codes is that you don't need a campaign or get permission from the W3C, you can just start using them if you want.

Yes, but that's true of other standards. Eg, I can start putting tags in my HTML if I want. The issue is whether anyone else will expect this tag or code and do anything meaningful with it.

I get what you mean but I don't think this is the same thing. HTML has a DTD, something that people conform to when writing, so your tag would not follow that guideline, whereas companies like Twitter can implement their own error codes as they see fit. See error code 420, Enhance Your Calm.[0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes

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

#52

Post by mike_esspe »

hnha wrote: post #47
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…

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

Requirement to install them is called SORM-2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2

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

#53

Post by drdaeman »

hnha wrote: post #47
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…

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

Authorative: http://minsvyaz.ru/common/upload/prikaz_16-01-2008_N6.pdf (sorry, the document's in Russian and I can't find any translation, nor skilled enough to do that myself) - I'm not a lawyer, but in my understanding (as I was explained) this decree contains requirements to networks that ISPs must conform to (otherwise they can't get the license and provide services), and it states (in thick legalese) that all subscriber-generated traffic must be mirrored to operational search activities control ("пункт управления ОРМ"), which is usually (but maybe not universally) a black box sitting in a rack.

Non-authorative reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2

From what I've heard, SORM-2 hardware is a secured 1U *nix-based server (peer was not sure whenever it was BSD or GNU/Linux variant), running some kind of sniffer (probably pcap-based) software with some FSB's in-house tools. They are supposed to be dormant for the most of time, but nobody except FSB knows what they're actually doing (and they don't have to report when they're doing a lawful intercetion).

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

#55

Post by alan_cx »

p_papageorgiou wrote: post #45
nextw33k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

In case you didn't know, MP Clair Perry is a British Member of Parliament, sadly. She is one of those people who know better, than us "plebs".

IMHO, she is ignorant(1) and irrational(1), and there for scared witless of the internet, so she seeks to control it. I don't think she knows how wrong she is, there for I don't see her as evil, as such. However, it does seem our vote whore of a Prime Minister listens to her every word, hence the attempts to block porn and make people opt in to avoid the blocks, since her position ties in to an awful lot of right wing voters, who are equally, if not more, ignorant and irrational. They are the kind of people who genuinely believed Rock and Roll was the work of the devil, and that black people are a different species.

(1)I use these words for their real meaning and not the insult, judgement, or political value. I honestly think many people literally do not understand the technical issues, and act illogically as a result. I believe this is a lot to do with the traditional media, who politicians rely on, issuing scare stories about the internet because their business were and still are threatened by it. My "evil" in this is those who spread the lies, ie, the media. I hate to admit this, but in many ways I see the likes of Clair Perry as well intentioned victims and mules of the media.

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

#56

Post by ra »

drdaeman wrote: post #53
hnha wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Authorative: http://minsvyaz.ru/common/upload/prikaz_16-01-2008_N6.pdf (sorry, the document's in Russian and I can't find any translation, nor skilled enough to do that myself) - I'm not a lawyer, but in my understanding (as I was explained) this decree contains requirements to networks that ISPs must conform to (otherwise they can't get the license and provide services), and it states (in thick legalese) that all su…

You can think of this as a blueprint for snoopworthy governments around the world including all US or Russian allies.

Think about that! (and submit a patch to support 451 in your favourite web server / framework).

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

#57

Post by kijeda »

ToastyMallows wrote: post #51
nathan_long wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's true of other standards. Eg, I can start putting tags in my HTML if I want. The issue is whether anyone else will expect this tag or code and do anything meaningful with it.

I get what you mean but I don't think this is the same thing. HTML has a DTD, something that people conform to when writing, so your tag would not follow that guideline, whereas companies like Twitter can implement their own error codes as they see fit. See error code 420, Enhance Your Calm.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes

Well, sure, just like I can create my invented domain name like hacker.news and use my own IP addresse 1.2.3.4 without being allocated them. The Internet interoperates by everyone agreeing to follow the same agreed conventions, but there is no rule that says you have to. The registry for HTTP status codes has no 420 code and could be assigned for a different purpose in the future: http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes

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

#58

Post by saraid216 »

venus wrote: post #3

Well, the cool thing about HTTP error codes is that you don't need a campaign or get permission from the W3C, you can just start using them if you want.

Honestly, people who believe in this strongly enough should just start using them and provide themselves as examples of good use cases. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be campaigned for to get more people to use it.

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

#59

Post by mpyne »

Terretta wrote: post #46
corobo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

What if the client is not from a nation that is causing the server to refuse to serve the content? It's very much a server error.
Post reply on HN