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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Lloyd

That is one possible outcome: all decent people have “safe” set.

Another, IMO more likely possible outcome is that servers serve content that is so bland with “safe” set, that nobody sets it, but some people feel like they’ve done something good by setting it for their children.

Imagine Wikipedia with nothing controversial: nothing about abortions, religions, genetics, evolution…

Yoav

> On Nov 15, 2014, at 1:56 AM, Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Safe becomes a default setting because if you don't set it, you will be investigated for terrorist thoughts. You're advertising thoughtcrimes by not setting safe.
> 
> this safe proposal really hasn't been thought through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo7 Mail for iPhone <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS>
> 
> At 15 Nov 2014 20:26:04, Eliot Lear<'[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>'> 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.
> 
> Eliot
>