Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status

Matthew Kerwin <> Tue, 13 October 2015 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E61A1A8B84 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.289
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DjACADZ0gFBX for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83841A8AFB for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1Zm6Ux-0006kd-Ga for; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1Zm6Us-0006jM-QO for; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:34 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1Zm6Um-0007rh-Sy for; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:33 +0000
Received: by qgt47 with SMTP id 47so26090211qgt.2 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GpEjTjebvDXlhnEDokJJ5kk5YQzIWSyZlqH19/qaaTQ=; b=VvJ7cT5fDCp+Oe2io7KD7s1ryLPyfnrqTWnlhekDl1Q74WhDy+n5rsljm+cXbsPRwx 76/5W3L0op68++C9e+84qs9r0prDNkuOmxwo+wlgOT9YnWHjpc7FwdBU7I4X6YrFKa76 bsuPlqO4pHzVDAubOhb9l9o3ri4E3jL0x5/DLzJ/adB/bR5R65jrZDVh8Av+9GtB59jO XkXF6RKoGoy8ggZaIJqUl6YNKTETX+B5cBYAddsHHyoqTGWHmhvfs8agxcv2OTK23RR1 sFDkxxJR/9KUOAOQ3AvmVmPZj34eWNKBb+c5yzgGO2b5cTqgmLpOvnPFhJXfU8+I9qHb ECjA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 195mr44797131qhu.6.1444769282726; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 06:48:02 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uwonQLlSXbi3KWfOvrrnyp50pbs
Message-ID: <>
From: Matthew Kerwin <>
To: Alex Rousskov <>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11376f46e121f30522028f3c"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.781, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1Zm6Um-0007rh-Sy 456123ff61763109719ed656c9015327
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/30362
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 14/10/2015 1:27 AM, "Alex Rousskov" <>
> On 10/12/2015 11:58 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> > while people clearly care about the
> > Ministry of Truth interfering with access to resources, at least in the
> > present climate, I don't know how much people care about other "outside
> > forces" blocking access. Is there much value in what you propose?
> If you assume that the "Ministry of Truth" is a well defined concept
> that "people clearly care about" while "other outside forces" is not,
> then my proposal adds no value, of course.

No, ​I'd say ​it's well *understood*, not necessarily well defined. Every
person, society, and culture has its own legal authority. It's the one with
the power to force things (like censorship) on people (and websites.)

> My assumption is that most people (in a non-US sense of the word, i.e.,
> excluding corporations) can actually define "outside forces" and care
> about them in general, rather than being interested in whether the
> blocking company received a written DMCA takedown notice, was visited by
> a friendly group of armed enforcers, or read an anonymous article in the
> "official news paper".

So it's an external force that has the power to coerce you to restrict
access to a resource in such a way that you feel compelled to respond to
future requests with "I would send you this thing but they made me not."
What can that force be other than a legal one? That's not a rhetorical
question, I really would like to see an example. Because...

> > I'm struggling to envision a
> > case of externally-pressured censorship that doesn't count as "legal."
> Great, you should not object to removing the word "legal" from the draft
> then. Saying "external censorship" should be sufficient. Why muddy the
> waters by introducing precise-sounding but still undefined and very
> context-dependent terms?

​​Some would argue that DMCA takedowns aren't censorship (protecting
rightful property, etc. etc.), so by making this change you're proposing to
potentially exclude or discourage what was probably the motivating -- and
likely to be the most common -- use case. "Legal" is the less restrictive
term, as I see it, especially using Ted's suggested text.

On the definition of 'legal', a
 very quick Google
​ g​
ives me
: "the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes
as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the
imposition of penalties." Pretty much matches my definition, and the one I
assumed the draft uses.

I'd have guessed only a small subset of people would think 'legal'
​only ​
means 'issued by government or ruled by a court', and only a smaller subset
further limit it to 'DMCA.' Fortunately for those people, that's probably
the only
​'re likely to​
​ in their lives​
. People who live in other
 would likely
​encounter others, and thus ​
use 451 for other (legitimate
​, as currently written​
) reasons.