4 ms·

If they had kept the requirement simple (such as adding the RTA header) [1] and requiring browser developers to recognize the RTA header, then they would not ha

If they had kept the requirement simple (such as adding the RTA header) [1] and requiring browser developers to recognize the RTA header, then they would not have had the complexity and doubts currently in play. That would have pushed the requirement, liability and decision onto the parents as to whether or not adult content was appropriate. [1] - https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label

schoen 7y ago
It's difficult to force foreign web sites and foreign browser developers to support this, in general but especially if you don't have the threat of blocking them if they fail to comply. Even so, some of them are likely to be indifferent or actively opposed to it.
- LinuxBender 7y ago
  There are already lists that say what domains are adult. This would just be adding one field that says RTA=(0|1|2) 0 being no header, 1 being site wide header, 2 being headers per URL. Governments that wish to go chasing after domain owners for non compliance could do so, just as they do today for copyright violations. (domain take-downs, etc)
  - schoen 7y ago
    I don't understand the international enforcement part. It's not illegal in the U.S. to have a porn site or sexually explicit site without an RTA header. There's no legal remedy available in the U.S. to the U.K. government against a site that intentionally decides not to use this header, nor against people providing infrastructure to that site. DNS registrars, registries, and ICANN don't require it either.
    - LinuxBender 7y ago
      This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. Certainly this won't solve VPN's and some proxies, but then who are we trying to block? Adults? Children? If we are thinking of the children, then an order to UK ISP's to consume the non-compliance list and block those domains (and even IP's if you want to get heavy handed) should more than suffice. Whether or not you decide to block CDN IP's is entirely up to how heavy handed you want to get. I predict CDN's would move adult sites to their own CIDR blocks if this starts occurring. If we are trying to block adults, that is a whole other discussion as to the intention of the blocking in the first place. I would expect some countries in the middle east already know how to address this problem, by forcing all traffic through a MITM set of proxies. I believe Syria and Iran use Bluecoat proxies. China uses (or used) a heavily modified netfliter implementation. They have the distinct advantage of not having to be performant. Priority always goes to blocking first.
      - schoen 7y ago
        > This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. But isn't that already the structure of what the old proposal was going to do? UK ISPs would be expected to actively cooperate in blocking things indicated to them, most of which would be hosted outside of the country.
        LinuxBender 7y ago
        The primary difference being, end users are not registering with a centralized site and handing over sensitive information. There would be no citizen database. Rather, the inverse would be true. A database of adult sites that lack a header. Don't get me wrong, I think a citizen database of porn passes would be a blast, once it leaks out from some public S3 bucket. I would tease Ricky Gervais about his habits until he turns it into a standup routine. (kidding, but it could happen) I'm just hoping one of his writers visits this site.
        schoen 7y ago
        Oh, sorry, I got confused about which part of the plan you were focusing on. I thought you were focused on the blocking method rather than on the opt-out method, and I didn't see any significant impact on the blocking method. What you've said makes better sense to me now.
buttscicles 7y ago
I imagine this would lead to Google having copies of my passport or other photo ID on top of everything else they've got on me
- LinuxBender 7y ago
  How so? It's just a header that the web server / ssl accelerator / ELB / application would send. That is entirely independent of Google. If you mean Chrome + being logged into google, that is already a risk today without any headers. Google know which sites are adult (mostly).
pjc50 7y ago
This was a Tory policy. It was never about enabling parental choice; there are already tons of products for that. Taking away the option for parents to be "liberal" is part of the point. The main point however was to generate favourable headlines in the Tory press, at the time of passing the law, which is why they lost all interest in actually implementing it.
- LinuxBender 7y ago
  That makes more sense to me. Politics don't have to be logical.

schoen 7y ago

It's difficult to force foreign web sites and foreign browser developers to support this, in general but especially if you don't have the threat of blocking them if they fail to comply. Even so, some of them are likely to be indifferent or actively opposed to it.

LinuxBender 7y ago
There are already lists that say what domains are adult. This would just be adding one field that says RTA=(0|1|2) 0 being no header, 1 being site wide header, 2 being headers per URL. Governments that wish to go chasing after domain owners for non compliance could do so, just as they do today for copyright violations. (domain take-downs, etc)
- schoen 7y ago
  I don't understand the international enforcement part. It's not illegal in the U.S. to have a porn site or sexually explicit site without an RTA header. There's no legal remedy available in the U.S. to the U.K. government against a site that intentionally decides not to use this header, nor against people providing infrastructure to that site. DNS registrars, registries, and ICANN don't require it either.
  - LinuxBender 7y ago
    This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. Certainly this won't solve VPN's and some proxies, but then who are we trying to block? Adults? Children? If we are thinking of the children, then an order to UK ISP's to consume the non-compliance list and block those domains (and even IP's if you want to get heavy handed) should more than suffice. Whether or not you decide to block CDN IP's is entirely up to how heavy handed you want to get. I predict CDN's would move adult sites to their own CIDR blocks if this starts occurring. If we are trying to block adults, that is a whole other discussion as to the intention of the blocking in the first place. I would expect some countries in the middle east already know how to address this problem, by forcing all traffic through a MITM set of proxies. I believe Syria and Iran use Bluecoat proxies. China uses (or used) a heavily modified netfliter implementation. They have the distinct advantage of not having to be performant. Priority always goes to blocking first.
    - schoen 7y ago
      > This solution addresses people in the UK visiting UK sites. If you want to prevent your citizens from going to a site hosted elsewhere, then you would have to consume the RTA auditing results and enforce them at your internet border. But isn't that already the structure of what the old proposal was going to do? UK ISPs would be expected to actively cooperate in blocking things indicated to them, most of which would be hosted outside of the country.
      - LinuxBender 7y ago
        The primary difference being, end users are not registering with a centralized site and handing over sensitive information. There would be no citizen database. Rather, the inverse would be true. A database of adult sites that lack a header. Don't get me wrong, I think a citizen database of porn passes would be a blast, once it leaks out from some public S3 bucket. I would tease Ricky Gervais about his habits until he turns it into a standup routine. (kidding, but it could happen) I'm just hoping one of his writers visits this site.
        schoen 7y ago
        Oh, sorry, I got confused about which part of the plan you were focusing on. I thought you were focused on the blocking method rather than on the opt-out method, and I didn't see any significant impact on the blocking method. What you've said makes better sense to me now.

buttscicles 7y ago

I imagine this would lead to Google having copies of my passport or other photo ID on top of everything else they've got on me

LinuxBender 7y ago
How so? It's just a header that the web server / ssl accelerator / ELB / application would send. That is entirely independent of Google. If you mean Chrome + being logged into google, that is already a risk today without any headers. Google know which sites are adult (mostly).

pjc50 7y ago

This was a Tory policy. It was never about enabling parental choice; there are already tons of products for that. Taking away the option for parents to be "liberal" is part of the point. The main point however was to generate favourable headlines in the Tory press, at the time of passing the law, which is why they lost all interest in actually implementing it.

LinuxBender 7y ago
That makes more sense to me. Politics don't have to be logical.