71–80 of 93 posts
How does this interact with the effort to encourage the use of HTTPS everywhere?
Seems like a good idea, but the wrong way to achieve it. The right way, as I understand it, would be to write it up as an RFC and submit it to the IETF; and to contribute code for it to some of the popular web servers (apache, nginx, etc). The site doesn't make any mention of either of those things. Edit: oops, I was wrong. There is an RFC and it's linked from http://www.451unavailable.org/what-is-error-451/
Since the sites blocked on ISP level code contribution to apache/nginx or other web servers is irrelevant.
My blog post which helped inspire it http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2012/06/there-is-no-http-code-for-ce...
Simultaneously glad and disgusted that there is a campaign around this.
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…
Given that Russia appears to be engaged in even broader surveillance and monitoring than the U.S., I find it odd that Snowden would be granted temporary asylum there for speaking out about a similar program in the U.S. It makes the whole situation look more like a political game.
Is this saying: "As a web user I want our ISPs/governments to give us a nice error page so we understand what is going on when they DNS block or seize websites" Or is it saying: "As a web-master, when have to take down content due to legal proceedings I want a nice HTTP code to return" They give example of the first (Virgin Media), but that takes down an entire domain, so it's kind of irrelevant if the correct HTTP c…
> but then wouldn't you just want to show your users a 404 with a nice reason why the content has gone.
A 451 with a nice reason why the content was gone is better.
If you're going to say that it raises censorship awareness - Internet protocols are intended as useful technical standards for programs to communicate, not vehicles for political goals.
What is the technical benefit of failing with a different error code? Is there need for client software to react differently to a 451 and a 403? The status code is not intended for the human user. If we want to raise awareness, than we already have means to do that - a 403 with a descriptive page citing the reasons. Many websites already do that when complying to DMCA takedowns.
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…
Given that Russia appears to be engaged in even broader surveillance and monitoring than the U.S., I find it odd that Snowden would be granted temporary asylum there for speaking out about a similar program in the U.S. It makes the whole situation look more like a political game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
OR, he's not allowed to, and he's doing it anyway.
The sad thing is, practically nobody cared about that, for years. The dissatisfaction became visible only when government granted themselves an ability not only sniff on others communications (which is obviously invisible to end user) but also actively censor them.
We should absolutely not be standardizing censorship.
Not sure placeing the onus of censorship into the hands of the host and not the goverment with there IP/DNS blocks or however they impose such blocks (China has a nice firewall for outside China sites and I dare to think of how they block a website inside China though can bet it is just as effective).
That all said the posiblility to volantarly do the blocking in a way that the powers that be will accept and with that allow there country's owners to see parts of yoru site that are legal and not the illegal parts for them. Well that would possibily have uses and opens your site up still instead of a blanket ban.
Piratebay has legal torrents, yet they are blocked as some form of descrimnation blanket ban. So it does have it's possibilities, albiet a dangerous path that should not be tread lightly.