4 ms·
Seems like a good idea, but the wrong way to achieve it. The right way, as I understand it, would be to write it up as an RFC and submit it to the IETF; and to
by vilya 13y ago
Seems like a good idea, but the wrong way to achieve it. The right way, as I understand it, would be to write it up as an RFC and submit it to the IETF; and to contribute code for it to some of the popular web servers (apache, nginx, etc). The site doesn't make any mention of either of those things.
Edit: oops, I was wrong. There is an RFC and it's linked from http://www.451unavailable.org/what-is-error-451/ http://www.451unavailable.org/what-is-error-451/
- diminish 13y agoThen to make things easier, some people need an http verb called patch_legal, to take down pages for dmca and other legal reasons.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- orenbarzilai 13y agoSince the sites blocked on ISP level code contribution to apache/nginx or other web servers is irrelevant.
- drdaeman 13y agoDisclaimer: I work for an ISP and every ISP in Russia is legally required to do the censorship (and mirror all traffic to FSB black boxes, but that's another story). I'm not partucilarly happy with the situation, but can't do anything about that. Nginx is totally relevant as many ISPs including our use GNU/Linux boxes running Nginx as a highly performant transparent proxy (there are TPROXY patches for Nginx) to dive into HTTP traffic and do URL filtering (obviously, after initial crude IP-based filtering). Costs less than those fancy Cisco solutions, and it's not like we're willing to spend additional money on something that downgrades the service. Also, there are cases where actual sites are legally forced to remove resources. Well, not really forced, but it's just a sort request too many sites can't really decline. You either comply and remove a single page (blocking for Russian visitors only seems sufficient), or get blocked on ISP level and since many ISPs (including several giant ones) just blacklist a whole IP address, that means your site becomes completely unavailable.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago> I work for an ISP and every ISP in Russia is legally required to do the censorship (and mirror all traffic to FSB black boxes, but that's another story). I hate the censorship but I like the fact you're not gagged and can talk about the fact traffic is being mirrored.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gngeal 13y agoOR, he's not allowed to, and he's doing it anyway.
- drdaeman 13y agoNope, it's codified in the law, in a legalese, but right in the open. The sad thing is, practically nobody cared about that, for years. The dissatisfaction became visible only when government granted themselves an ability not only sniff on others communications (which is obviously invisible to end user) but also actively censor them.
- hnha 13y agocould you post some authoritative proof/references for the black boxes?
- mike_esspe 13y agoRequirement to install them is called SORM-2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hnha 13y agocheers!
- masklinn 13y agoDMCA requests could be served as 451 as well, it's not just ISP-based blocking.