Truth In Erroring: IETF Proposal Includes New 451 Censorship Error Code
from the it'll-probably-be-nixed-by-the-Bradbury-estate dept
As nations around the world work to chip away at the liberated internet for such compelling reasons as "um, children!", or "um, cyberwar!", or even "um, piracy!", all while lambasting other countries for censorship mind you, the general population may still be shrugging their shoulders in confusion. One reason for that may be a lack of an in-your-face approach to educating people as to what all this proposed policy may mean in their lives, which have only become more reliant on a functioning internet.That's where internet developer advocate Tim Bray comes in. Business Week has the story of Bray's proposal to the Internet Engineering Task Force to add a new error code for websites: the 451 Censorship Code. You can read Bray's formal proposal here, but the short version is that any site that is unreachable due to legal reasons (normally because of ISP blocking, but not always), would return a 451 error along with a short explanation as to why the connection was blocked. So, for instance, if an ISP decided to block The Pirate Bay, you would get the 451 error along with an explanation that copyright fights were preventing the traffic (or something like that). The 451 code, of course, is an homage to Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451," a book that most people think is about censorship, but Bradbury insists is just about how everything you love sucks, including the internet.
Many of you may have seen this circulated in June, but Bray is now saying that it will go before the IETF beginning this weekend:
"I've been told by the chair of the IETF HTTP Working Group that he'll give the proposal some agenda time at the next IETF meeting," Bray told CNNMoney by email. "It's not a big proposal; shouldn't take long."When asked why he felt compelled to put this proposal together, Bray pointed to Terrance Eden (a UK blogger) who had put a call out for a censorship code after having a connection to The Pirate Bay blocked and receiving a common 403 error:
"Eden's Internet provider had been ordered to block out the site, but Eden wasn't happy with the 403 error response it generated.That's because a 403 error is what you get when the server you're connecting to won't let you in. But that isn't what's happening in Eden's case. Eden's ISP is blocking the connection. That's a distinction that should matter to the consumer, who ought to be properly informed of who is keeping them from going where they want on the internet.
'As far as I am concerned, this response is factually incorrect,' Eden wrote on his blog."
And that's Bray's point. It's not that traffic should never be blocked, but the user should know what's actually going on. As he says himself:
"I think most people agree that censorship is sometimes justified, but it's just common sense that when it happens, it should happen out in the open."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 451, censorship, error codes, free speech, ray bradbury, tim bray
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No body?
If the ISP blocking content couldn't be bothered to display a useful message, then what makes anyone think they'd be bothered to return a 451 error code?
I hope this is more a homage to Ray Bradbury and not more nonsense IETF posturing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No body?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No body?
My understanding is the text explaining why the site was blocked would be the message body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship is *never* the answer. (imho).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a decent one. It would be especially interesting, if it had a link to the ongoing case reference (barring exceptional circumstances, of course).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
also: in times of war, it can be quite significant (and that's where the office actually comes from.)
note this: there are a number of commonwealth countries where this office exists. most of them have substantially less censorship than the USA :P
(that said, it's VERY much one of those jobs where anyone who actually WANTS it should not get it, and probably should be arrested on sight... One of my mother's relatives(from memory. certainly someone she knows.) actually had the job for a while. retired when he simply could not stomach the material which had to be checked any more. this is the stuff deemed so bad that it couldn't even be given an R18 label.)
this post was funded by the World Society for Parenthetical Statement Awareness.
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IETF-sanctioned censorship?
Internet 3.0, now with built-in censorship capabilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes. I'd have about 1-2 seconds of pun-level amusement at the IETF's wiseassery first, rather than just going straight to calling the ones man-in-the-middle-ing me cockbiting fucktards.
It's like having to eat a shit sandwich and being told you can have it with or without bacon. Might as well take the bacon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For all the good it will do. Said cockbiting fucktards generally don't read Techdirt or your personal blog.
If you said it to their face, on the other hand...
More seriously, I very much want to know the difference between error codes 403 and 451. In the former case, I'm not allowed in your house because you didn't want to let me in and you wanted to tell me not to try again. In the latter case, it's because you fear that Cato the Elder will take away your horse if you allow me in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How are they going to determine specifically that it's censorship?
It's a bullshit political ploy by a group that should be neutral and STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you're sure the website you're going to is blocked accidentally (say, by having some keywards), you can write a complaint to ISP and request them unblock it.
That's the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, it works both ways. It's either the "censorship code", or the "fuck you internet code".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Life of ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will they form a committee and review each page before assigning it the code? Is there a way to detect censorship in code that will allow the to be returned automatically?
I doubt it.
Bullshit political stand from a non-political group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-tbray-http-legally-restricted-status.html
It's just to differentiate when an ISP is legally required to block stuff. So, sure, if some moron refuses to license something to certain countries, 451 provides a more precise error message.
Hulu, AFAIK, does not return any error _code_. Because the actual code is irrelevant in most cases. Instead they give you a nice 200 OK and pop up a little message. Really, the error code is totally unnecessary, and is more of a "cute" thing than anything serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
None of this "License for the U.S.", "License for Australia", and "License for South Africa" bullplop. That is just an attempt at copyright owners trying to make their stuff appear more 'valuable' by making companies/people pay multiple times for content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Requested URL
2. Origin IP
3. Blocking IP
4. Something to indicate if it is government ordered, ISP ordered, or a 3rd party requested block like DMCA.
This could be useful as site owners would then also have access to log data that could possibly be used in challenges to the blocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That would be a nice to have, but it is doubtful, given the current climate, that that would possibly occur. ISPs are told to block a site, which they do. There is nothing in the protocols that allow part of the connection to go through and then deny the rest, unless they do some flag blocking (like allow the SYN to go through and then kill everything else.) However, that would damage the internet as it would put some serious resources on the server in question (who is queuing up the connections based on SYN packets, and must time-out those connections when the final ACK is not received,) and anything the ISP does to modify the SYN packet adding error information will be lost because the software doesn't record anything (or expect anything) in the SYN packet. This would only be something they could really accomplish via email, or some other protocol, and I don't see them building an infrastructure just to alert a 3rd party to their blocking.
Besides, it would be much easier to offload that on their customer, who can contact the site through other means and let them know they are being blocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think transparency is a great goal, and agree that there should be something technical that can be done to add transparency. I agree though, most ISPs will ignore any RFC, but I hope some would follow it, and they would get my money (if they offered service in my area.) We have so few choices though. I'd happily move to KC, Mo right now though, since they are soon to have a kick-ass ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They tried it with interracial marriages, they tried it with homosexuality, hell.... they even tried it with heterosexuality outside of 'marriage' (a purely human invention).
Bottom line is that we should not allow any censorship and tell people "You don't like X? Fine, you don't have to do it, but leave the people alone who want to do it unless they are physically forcing someone else into something against their will!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another good error code is 1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another good error code is 1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
499: Paypal processing removed, site closed.
File lockers are falling like flies..and Mike is nowhere to be seen on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it'll get ignored, just like the 410 error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it'll get ignored, just like the 410 error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Malware Warnings
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=168328
[ link to this | view in chronology ]