Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Tue, 13 October 2015 20:52 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E61A1A8B84 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.289
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DjACADZ0gFBX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83841A8AFB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Zm6Ux-0006kd-Ga for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Zm6Ux-0006kd-Ga@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1Zm6Us-0006jM-QO for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:34 +0000
Received: from mail-qg0-f47.google.com ([209.85.192.47]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1Zm6Um-0007rh-Sy for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:48:33 +0000
Received: by qgt47 with SMTP id 47so26090211qgt.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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 10.140.148.204 with SMTP id 195mr44797131qhu.6.1444769282726; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.55.203.141 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <561D22C8.9030000@measurement-factory.com>
References: <0E5383DD-927C-493F-90C4-4A9C7CB93308@mnot.net> <560C8035.5010209@measurement-factory.com> <B7347414-BC49-4D61-844B-6056F9155345@mnot.net> <560CB7A3.6080201@measurement-factory.com> <805EFF40-ECA6-4A67-AE3E-F165079F388C@mnot.net> <560D78A4.7070605@measurement-factory.com> <C2ABFB3A-DDD2-4D09-B8BC-5B9DA21D2561@mnot.net> <561C86A8.8090800@measurement-factory.com> <CACweHNDmWH-iKEWgx5rJf0ssNRvHGROgFQymEpxvb_es0Ubr0A@mail.gmail.com> <561D22C8.9030000@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 06:48:02 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uwonQLlSXbi3KWfOvrrnyp50pbs
Message-ID: <CACweHNAYSDUkruUgfuD5gJJX8DhsfmyRJpe0sGNeW2HEe+9eAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11376f46e121f30522028f3c"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.192.47; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-qg0-f47.google.com
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: lisa.w3.org 1Zm6Um-0007rh-Sy 456123ff61763109719ed656c9015327
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHNAYSDUkruUgfuD5gJJX8DhsfmyRJpe0sGNeW2HEe+9eAA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30362
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
On 14/10/2015 1:27 AM, "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote: > > 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 restriction they 're likely to encounter in their lives . People who live in other regions would likely encounter others, and thus use 451 for other (legitimate , as currently written ) reasons.
- Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbis-le… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Amos Jeffries
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Tim Bray
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Ted Hardie
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Alex Rousskov
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Alex Rousskov
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Alex Rousskov
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Julian Reschke
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Alex Rousskov
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Amos Jeffries
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Alex Rousskov
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Alex Rousskov
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Krzysztof Jurewicz
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-httpbi… Tim Bray