3 ms·

While it may not look flattering, it is absolutely a correct usage of the 451 status code. From the standard itself[1]: This status code can be used to pro

by jchw 1y ago

While it may not look flattering, it is absolutely a correct usage of the 451 status code. From the standard itself[1]: This status code can be used to provide transparency in circumstances where issues of law or public policy affect server operations. This transparency may be beneficial both to these operators and to end users. ... This status code indicates that the server is denying access to the resource as a consequence of a legal demand. You could get pedantic over whether or not this counts as a legal demand, but the example makes it relatively clear that "legal demand" here is fairly broad. GDPR law does indeed make it illegal to serve certain web pages to EU visitors. If the operators are not willing to make amendments to comply with the law, then responding with HTTP 451 is the most correct thing to do. It doesn't mean the law is inherently bad, but it does mean that serving the request would be illegal, because that is how the law is written. If this feels "completely inappropriate", then maybe it's because the modern web platform is completely ass-backwards in the first place. One must wonder why we're continuing to tolerate giving effectively static web pages so many privileges on our computers passively. I think browsers should flat-out start removing said privileges from websites that abuse them. [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7725 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7725

subscribed 1y ago
It is illegal only if the website uses pervasive user tracking. Its like with cookie banners - they are not necessary if the site is not deploying the surveillance on the users.
- jchw 1y ago
  Basically what you are saying is it should be illegal to load that page unless they change it. And it is illegal. They have no interest in changing the page. Therefore, they are preventing the page from loading as a result of legal reasons, not because there is any technical issue with loading the page. I don't know how to break this to you, but that is the correct status code. They can be forgiven that they didn't make a second status code for "Page Can't Be Loaded Because It's Illegal But Actually It Should Be In Many People's Opinions". I'm not in favor of pervasive internet tracking, but that doesn't change the reality: it is illegal for them to serve you that page. Putting it that way does make it sound bad, but what do you want to do, invent new words to make it seem better? It's what it is.
- Brian_K_White 1y ago
  It still means the code is correct. It just means that there isn't some technical problem but intentional behavior, and there is some governmental policy at the root of it, rather than say a billing/account issue etc. Saying "they could just not collect data" is like saying "they could just not show porn" or talk about Winnie the Pooh or whatever.

by jchw 1y ago

subscribed 1y ago

It is illegal only if the website uses pervasive user tracking. Its like with cookie banners - they are not necessary if the site is not deploying the surveillance on the users.

jchw 1y ago
Basically what you are saying is it should be illegal to load that page unless they change it. And it is illegal. They have no interest in changing the page. Therefore, they are preventing the page from loading as a result of legal reasons, not because there is any technical issue with loading the page. I don't know how to break this to you, but that is the correct status code. They can be forgiven that they didn't make a second status code for "Page Can't Be Loaded Because It's Illegal But Actually It Should Be In Many People's Opinions". I'm not in favor of pervasive internet tracking, but that doesn't change the reality: it is illegal for them to serve you that page. Putting it that way does make it sound bad, but what do you want to do, invent new words to make it seem better? It's what it is.
Brian_K_White 1y ago
It still means the code is correct. It just means that there isn't some technical problem but intentional behavior, and there is some governmental policy at the root of it, rather than say a billing/account issue etc. Saying "they could just not collect data" is like saying "they could just not show porn" or talk about Winnie the Pooh or whatever.