Comments on: Error Code 451: an HTTP error for censorship

By: jpgsawyer

jpgsawyer — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:20:00 +0000

Fair point but I wonder how long it will stay as such.

On the other hand doesn’t making the standard handle this kind of behaviour take a stand that this is a legitimate thing to do?

By: austinhamman

austinhamman — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:50:00 +0000

the US government is surprisingly up front about their censorship.
also for the time being they have to issue warrants for the things they want removed, which a site owner or isp can include in the 451 (google already does this with a link in the search results for the takedown notice…which ironically includes the links to be removed)

By: austinhamman

austinhamman — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:45:00 +0000

as it stands today if you attempt to access content ordered removed by the government you get a 404. no indication why the file wasnt found, no mention of the court order just “file not found”. this is a noticeable improvement.

the proposed standard tells people WHY you can’t access the file, and optionally may include the court order that led to its removal (i would hope most ISPs would include that…or site owners if they were the ones contacted)

i see this as kinda like google’s policy of telling people when they get court orders to remove something and linking to the order as well as posting it on chillingeffect.org.

By: austinhamman

austinhamman — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:37:00 +0000

last i heard it was made out of parchment.

By: yoshua

yoshua — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:50:00 +0000

It doesn’t matter what the author’s intent was. Literary analysis can reveal legitimate meanings that never intended.

By: Philbert

Philbert — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:12:00 +0000

Well, what is odd about this is that this particular error would typically not be issued by the infringing web server itself, since the ISP is disallowing access to that server alltogether. Therefore this error is issued sort of on behalf of that remote web server by some network infrastructure of the ISP.
That sets it apart from the other HTTP errors. I’m not sure if that doesn’t violate the HTTP specification.

By: D. Keith Higgs

D. Keith Higgs — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:05:00 +0000

The G. W. Bush administration used distraction as a means of censorship almost as if it were a religious edict from on high. The ultra right wing of the GOP adopted this tactic so now – if you say anything outside the bounds of the Tea Party talking points you are forced from the stage.

By: D. Keith Higgs

D. Keith Higgs — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:00 +0000

The Judean Liberation Front… not to be confused with the Liberation Front of Judea.

By: jpgsawyer

jpgsawyer — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:37:00 +0000

I am surprised that no one has mentioned that this is spectacularly naive. Governments who sensor don’t want you to know that they are censoring so they are hardly going to return the correct error code from their firewalls are they?

Still perhaps its a subtle way that ISP can register their protest at take down notices.

By: Ian Roberts

Ian Roberts — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:17:00 +0000

The excellence of the literary reference manages to outweigh the wrongness of this being in the 4xx error group. I approve.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:36:00 +0000

Ironically, much in the area of the example is in fact censored today, by the occupying power. Woefully apposite

By: vortex

vortex — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:24:00 +0000

While I like the numeric reference to Bradbury’s work. If such a return code is institutionalised by owners of sites, proxies, DPI censor machines, etc – how is this validated? How can you discover which law? In which jurisdiction? How do you *really* validate (with ease) who is making the claim that the request is blocked for apparent ‘legal reasons’? What ‘appeal’ can made made? To who? How?

I might be missing something, but this standard appears to be institutionalising a collective sigh – “oh well, I can’t access this … there are legal reasons”.

By: voiceinthedistance

voiceinthedistance — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:02:00 +0000

The JLF has been known to kick puppies and de-wing butterflies. Check everyone’s rectum and shoes at the airport, pronto!

By: malindrome

malindrome — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:12:00 +0000

Fahrenheit 842: The temperature at which freedom autoignites, if freedom is made out of standard paper.

By: surgicalsnack

surgicalsnack — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:56:00 +0000

SPLITTER!

By: Felton / Moderator

Felton / Moderator — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:54:00 +0000

Or the Popular Front.

By: Stefan Jones

Stefan Jones — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:49:00 +0000

CONNECTION RESET

By: Eric Rucker

Eric Rucker — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:40:00 +0000

IIRC, 403 is forbidden to ALL users, and a censored item may only be censored to certain users. 401 makes more sense there, although it’s explicitly not for this.

I can see arguments for both 4xx and 5xx – 4xx because the server isn’t happy with something about the client (the geographic location of the client in this case), 5xx because the server is getting a valid request that it can’t serve.

The big thing is, if it’s something that takes the server down for everyone, 5xx makes sense, but that would require the government in question to put a 5xx on their server that’s replacing it. 4xx makes sense for if it’s a regional block.

So, have YouTube serve a 451 if you’re accessing a video unavailable in your country, but have the US government serve a 551 if you’re trying to access MegaUpload?

By: dreadpiraterobert

dreadpiraterobert — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:40:00 +0000

The sample takedown notice is wonderful. At least the blame for this hypothetical takedown can be attributed to servers hosted by the Judean Liberation Front, and not the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea.

By: Joseph Francis

Joseph Francis — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:33:00 +0000

Yes, that rings a bell…
http://boingboing.net/2007/06/04/bradbury-denies-free.html

By: Mister44

Mister44 — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:30:00 +0000

Awesome and appropriate.

By: Sarge Misfit

Sarge Misfit — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:24:00 +0000

Awesome idea! I’m passing it along

By: Shashwath T.R.

Shashwath T.R. — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:14:00 +0000

Great! Now, somebody get Google to use it on Youtube (and elsewhere)…

Actually, coming right after Bradbury passed away, does anyone else get the feeling that the community was sort of manipulated into this? I first saw it come up on Slashdot a few days ago (this one), where people were discussing the “right” code for censorship; proposals included 403, because it is forbidden, something in 5xx, because it’s not really a client error, and so on. But slowly, a consensus builds for 451, and now this!

Well, whatever… I know what I’m doing, if I’m ever put in that position!

By: Spezz

Spezz — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:30:00 +0000

And censorship cannot take the form of distraction? How about this, maybe it’s just a happy accident that the book also applies to censorship.

By: hkedi

hkedi — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:29:00 +0000

I can’t think of a better memorial for the man. I hope the idea made it to him before he died. I imagine he would have had a great laugh about it.

By: chellberty

chellberty — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:26:00 +0000

FOOLS IT IS NOT A COOKBOOK

HERE ME I Know for a fact that the book was not about censorship it was about the dumbing down of society. ”His fear in 1953 that television would kill books” http://www.laweekly.com/2007-05-31/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/

By: dolo54

dolo54 — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:26:00 +0000

Fantastic idea. I see someone has already posted it to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes

By: Mantissa128

Mantissa128 — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:24:00 +0000

451: the temperature at which freedom burns.

By: Just_Ok

Just_Ok — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:17:00 +0000

First, trying to give credit to ONE person for the idea is a bit pointless, but I s’pose someone like TimBray has a bit more web cred.
Second, that’s all I got…

By: Vnend

Vnend — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:13:00 +0000

Full of win.