11 ms·
HTTP Status Code for Legally-restricted Resources
- unwind 14y agoInteresting to see Tim Bray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bray http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bray) still being active at this level of the web's development. Not sure I see the applications of this, but I guess more high-level error messaging is something that is in general a good thing so I guess that should hold for the web, too.
- popee 14y agoApplication will be www.google.com, www.youtube.com, etc. They'll get censorship instruction from gov bodies. There are two things that are obvious now, fight google vs facebook is like who will be big brothers right hand and other is that RMS was right. Sad thing is that it is first time in human history that evil oligarchy can be beaten by engineers (google, facebook, ...). Too bad they don't get it :-(
- solox3 14y ago> The use of the 451 status code implies neither the existence nor non-existence of the resource named in the request. If something didn't exist at all, why would I send a 451? > The 451 status code is optional; clients cannot rely upon its use So... everybody can ignore 451?
- phoboslab 14y ago> If something didn't exist at all, why would I send a 451? You just don't acknowledge the existence. > So... everybody can ignore 451? The status code is optional in the sense that you don't have to use it if a resource is unavailable for legal reasons. You can use it if you want to inform the user what exactly is going on.
- schiffern 14y ago>You can use it if you want to inform the user what exactly is going on. That's exactly the purpose. >The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred. Except when responding to a HEAD request, the server SHOULD include an entity containing an explanation of the error situation, and whether it is a temporary or permanent condition. These status codes are applicable to any request method. User agents SHOULD display any included entity to the user. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html
- delinka 14y agoIf you're trying to "hide" something on the web, there's 401 Unauthorized and 404 Not found. If you cannot acknowledge the existence of a resource, either of these status codes would be fine. If, however, you feel the need to correctly communicate that a resource is legally unavailable (whether or not it exists), then 451 is an alternative. But, no one ever said status codes had to tell the truth.
- sequoia 14y agorequesting info on a real, existing user on illegal-in-USA.ru -> GET /users/real-user-name HTTP/1.1 Host: illegal-in-USA.ru <- HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons requesting info on a fake, nonexistent user on illegal-in-USA.ru -> GET /users/no-such-user HTTP/1.1 Host: illegal-in-USA.ru <- HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons If the .ru site sent 404s for nonexistent users and 451s for real ones, you'd be able to gather potentially useful information. It's like if I go to bad-porn.com and type your email into "forgot my password", it should neither confirm nor deny the existence of your account, simply tell me the request was received. In any event if delivery of the requested resource is legally prohibited, why would I go to the trouble to determine whether the resource exists? A final analogy: 10 year old enters US gas station: "Have you Marlboro 100s, menthol?" gas station attendant (without checking whether or not he has this particular brand/style of cigarette): "get out of here, kid. [HTTP/1.1 451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons]."
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- junto 14y agoCan we rename this to the "MPAA/RIAA HTTP Status Code"
- wmf 14y agoNo, because the MPAA/RIAA don't run the Great Firewall or other government censorship systems.
- JaimeDiamond 14y agoThey don't run it... they just dictate how it should run and hire believers to run it.
- bashzor 14y agoIs this a troll or something?
- sgift 14y agoMaybe, but if I have to guess differently than you think: They probably want to use this to "troll" governments and heavy users of DMCA take-down notices. These people usually don't like it if users notice that they were responsible, so this is against their interests. Reminds me of this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4048828 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4048828
- jaachan 14y agoThere are situations where a resource is blocked, but transparently. For example, the pirate bay is blocked in some countries. However, it's done publicly, and that the site exists isn't denied. The ISPs that effect the blocking could use this status code to inform people who try to visit it that the site does exist, but they can't access it because the government says so. This could, in theory, divert activity towards the ISP (which has nothing to gain from implementing such blocks) to the government. That is, instead of spamming the ISP's helpdesk, they could petition their representatives. Of course, in some situations the block is supposed to be also denying the existence of the site, and in such cases this status code wouldn't apply. That's mentioned in the RFC (section 4.1).
- sanxiyn 14y agoI love the example. FYI, 755 AUC is 2 AD, so the example is referring to the time of Jesus.
- zedr 14y agoIt's a joke reference to Monty Python's "Life of Brian".
- rmc 14y agoIn 2 AD Jesus wasn't really doing much. Given the references to "Judean Liberation Front", it's almost certainly a reference to Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" film.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoWhich was the Judean People's Front, or their arch enemy the People's Front of Judea.
- Intermernet 14y agoOr the Popular People's Front... Splitters!
- rmc 14y agoMaybe I'm thinking of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea. Those splitters!!
- cagenut 14y agoThis can't be a coincidence right? Its a way of saying that DMCA/lawsuit takedowns are digital book burning.
- pavel_lishin 14y agoExcept there are plenty of legitimate DMCA takedowns.
- ktizo 14y agoDestruction of 'counterfeit' media. Because after all, just because you have a vast zero-scale network on which to distributively backup the collected artistic works of society in real time, doesn't mean you should, obviously. I mean, that would amount to the most complete open library of knowledge ever created in history, which would make so many existing business models obsolete that we just can't justify doing it, for the sake of the economy, cos y'know, money works, right?
- mfer 14y agoIt seems some inspiration behind this is in the blog post at http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2012/06/there-is-no-http-code-for-censorship-but-perhaps-there-should-be/ http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2012/06/there-is-no-http-c...
- rickard 14y agoAnd specifically the referenced slashdot discussion and comment: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2906113&cid=40270621 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2906113&cid=4027... Indeed, very amusing and to the point.
- marquis 14y agoFahrenheit 451, drafted in the last couple of days in honour of Mr. Bradbury? I do find it fitting that if this passes, we have a cultural reference to remind of its significance. I look forward to seeing some interesting error pages in the future.
- ktizo 14y agoWas only the other day that my mate pointed out to me that 451 is DEA if you transcribe it. And after all, there are all kinds of paper and they don't all catch fire at one given temperature, do they?
- fennecfoxen 14y agoIf I recall correctly, Mr. Bradbury called a firehouse and asked the guy there "what temperature does paper ignite at?" and they thought about it for a moment and looked up some value in a reference manual. So don't go reading too much into the number. Also, note that the (US) DEA was founded in 1973, while _451_ was published in 1953. Also, casual Internet browsing suggests values closer to 450 celsius for the autoignition point of typical paper, so don't go relying too much on any one number you get from the title of a book (or from a hacker news post, for that matter)
- ktizo 14y agoAlso, note that the (US) DEA was founded in 1973, while _451_ was published in 1953. Ahh, so the DEA named themselves after the book then, that sounds about right.. ;)
- noduerme 14y agoThis is great, and terrible at the same time. Terrible because it fits right in with Google's new M.O. of paying lip service to freedom of information, while helping governments censor, and citizens self-censor. If you notice how they rolled out their new red highlighting of Chinese characters that might cause "network problems", the strategy was completely built around not using the word "censorship" or mentioning exactly why there might be network problems if a user typed in certain search words. This can only be read as trying to help the Chinese government "save face". And now they want to tailor new HTTP codes just for that purpose? But it's also great. Because I run a website which isn't available in a number of countries, and right now I just redirect to an error page. Because one of those countries is the United States, I have constant problems with search engines (especially Bing) de-listing the site worldwide. It seems to depend on which country they crawled from, and usually it's the US. If I could return a status code that was respected as meaning "try crawling this from another country", then I wouldn't be penalized by search engines for following the law. Ultimately, it's not really Google's fault that some things are banned in some places, and nowhere is it written that it's their job to fight bad laws in crooked dictatorships. In the end, isn't a status code better than a sudden broken connection with no explanation? At least it clarifies to the user what's really going on, and from there they can take the steps necessary to get around it, or protest it and try to change their government's policies (or not).
- drivingmenuts 14y agoThe 400 series implies that there was an error on the client side, when there clearly isn't one. The client has made a valid request that a middleman refuses to honor. This better fits into the 300 series as a permanent addition.
- rada 14y ago300s indicate that client must take a follow-up action to fulfill the request. This would be misleading as the request is denied permanently. Further, the closest match among the currently implemented statuses is a 403. As per the "Acknowledgements" section: Thanks to Terence Eden, whose blog observed that the existing status code 403 was not really suitable for this situation, and suggested the creation of a new status code.
- strictfp 14y agoFill out a petition? :)
- rickard 14y agoIsn't it quite close to both 403 Forbidden, "request was a legal request, but the server is refusing to respond to it" and 401 Unauthorized? And now it's on the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_status_codes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_status_codes , and that equates with being approved, right?
- kijin 14y agoTIL Microsoft uses 450 for parental control. And now 451 for legal censorship. Perhaps we could use the 450-459 range to signify various censorship scenarios. The 450s is also a nice middle ground between 400s and 500s.
- xorbyte 14y agoThe argument against 403 is that the server might not get to the resource at all, so it doesn't get a chance to refuse the response. A router with filtering capabilities might also terminate the connection and return 451 if the target server is censored and won't be reached. (wether that's practically likely to happen—e.g., at the Great Firewall, or for ICE seizures—is a different matter entirely)
- gouranga 14y agoThe fact that this even has to exist saddens me. However, I'm glad there is a distinction between not available and not there.
- inlined 14y agoI'd believe the Bradbury conspiracy theories since this should otherwise be a 5xx error code for server errors. The client certainly didn't do anything wrong (4xx)
- recursive 14y agoIsn't this analagous to a 403?
- jsprinkles 14y agoTechnically, the client did err, as it performed a request that is not legally permitted in its jurisdiction. For example, this response could be used for geographically-limited resources (such as BBC iPlayer), which means your client erred by not being in Britain. If it's a takedown of some kind, your client erred by being subject to a government that ordered you unable to see the resource that you requested. The 4xx code fits, in this case, as 5xx implies the server made a mistake (it didn't).
- scotty79 14y agoThere should be optional(?) "Location" header pointing to url where you can download the restricted document from. Might be magnet link.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]