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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 24 October 2014 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 9D7821AD417 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.481
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 9M6fiXbM-0gJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA411AD3F6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.134.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9O09K28002916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1414109371; x=1414195771; bh=1/mdyYr7CQAL3z6SX7fwY3QavYaE8ykmRMY5qlzRKYg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=HKsckmkcV7sxPhLJczJf6yOqFePEbeEZtcne4DqjN9pfC+7NHGmBVCU3IefUsRqKA HEo5KdoQTLCRufaGphESwN4w/7IgnmcBZEmQUXIqdnC6UkeSJkxvhMAfRfGc5LmS/A EkLk6KGUvyVcEEEmlWLpFVuSqaoJ/Ch0iRdablJo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1414109371; x=1414195771; i=@elandsys.com; bh=1/mdyYr7CQAL3z6SX7fwY3QavYaE8ykmRMY5qlzRKYg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=JSLTuWmBCNt33mlvpNNYZjlYBQ9Tt1ixZsGNBC6R7UrMWIMKQ14c7Mnw7qHX0xTan q1mCtuHeE3QCoNGVhcFNVqmce111PR7859tkwofvzzluPN95zl3G3Yugpym5K/Waey +5Hc8RrakYXusB8zRQh1p4hIcvbnjG7cc5aJr+uA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20141023121332.0c49d448@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:35:36 -0700
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <20141021213356.16262.50640.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20141021213356.16262.50640.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t2UQM4VAvsGuo_qipWH3FAD0Hhk
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: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 00:09:34 -0000

Hello,
At 14:33 21-10-2014, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'The "safe" HTTP Preference'
>   <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-11-18. Exceptionally, comments may be

Having the IETF publish this safe hints proposal as a Proposed 
Standard is not a good idea.  However, I do not oppose that as it 
will not have a negative impact on my interests.  I am in two minds 
about whether to suggest to a regulator to set a requirement for this 
(intended) standard or not.

 From Section 1:

   'That said, the intent of "safe" is to allow end users (or those
    acting on their behalf) to express a desire to avoid content that is
    considered "objectionable" within the cultural context of that site;
    usually (but not always) content that is unsuitable for minors.'

I did not understand the meaning of "cultural context of that site" 
in the above.  Does it mean that content unsuitable for minors in one 
country may be deemed suitable in another country?

Does cultural context mean that a site that is considered as 
appropriate in, for example, Canada would not be considered as 
appropriate in the Norway?

 From Section 2:

   "Origin servers that utilize the "safe" preference SHOULD document
    that they do so, along with the criteria that they use to denote
    objectionable content."

 From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/174084?hl=en

   "While it's not 100 percent accurate, we use community flagging,
    age-restrictions, and other signals to identify and filter out
    inappropriate content."

The criteria mentioned above might have to be clarified.

 From https://help.pinterest.com/en/articles/safe-mode

   "Safe mode prevents any changes to your account until you reset
    your password."

"Safe mode" means something else on that site.

The site at https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/minors could be 
encouraged to implement this proposal.

Minors are ingenious.  It is simply a matter of time for them to 
figure out how to bypass the mechanism proposed by this draft [1][2][3][4].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25759345
2. https://twitter.com/dalerapp/status/511897259882340352
3. https://twitter.com/25Taters/status/329596015005011969
4. https://twitter.com/coolstarorg/status/497960379444510720