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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 14, 2014, at 11:07 AM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 11/14/14 11:00 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>> 
>> On 11/13/14, 7:19 AM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi, mnot has already heard the following concerns from us at CDT about
>>> this spec, but we want to make sure that these are part of the IETF
>>> last call comment record.
>>> 
>>> * The "Safe" preference is not only a preference but a signal.  It
>>>  signals user vulnerability; when activated, the header would signal
>>>  a user's potentially vulnerable status not only to site operators
>>>  who intend to reply in good faith, but to those that will operate in
>>>  bad faith and also to every intermediary on-path that could read the
>>>  preference request.
>> 
>> While it could be the case that a user is vulnerable (a term that is a
>> bit vague), it is also the case that many other users might choose to
>> not want to receive content that is considered in some way "unsafe". 
>> One could even imagine "Safe" becoming a default setting.
> 
> Hi, I'm a browser, and I'd like to receive only harmonious content.

Hi, browser, server here. Here’s some pictures of nudes. I guess this is OK with you because they are works of art created by 15th century ninja turtles.