IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF0C1A19FB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.862
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 MwB4AfUSimtE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA3A31A03D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27531 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2014 00:49:42 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Oct 2014 00:49:42 -0000
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:49:20 -0000
Message-ID: <20141028004920.51745.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <544ED90B.5020505@gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-njsber5ubZ8N6UWu3si6XEVsw0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:49:45 -0000

>No. I mean that a badly motivated web site can pretend to offer safe material
>using this but actually offer objectionable material (for whatever definition
>of safe or objectionable you care to adopt). For example a site being used
>to "groom" innocent victims could pretend that all its content was safe.
>This would actually make the site much more dangerous than before, because
>of the illusion of safety.

How does this differ from the current situtation?  Any site can show
logos that say "100% family friendly", and have a safe mode flag you
can toggle in your browser.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email