An HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

New submitter Tryfen writes "UK ISPs are being forced to block The Pirate Bay. One is using 'HTTP 403 Forbidden' to tell users that they cannot access the site. From the article: 'However, chief among my concerns is the technical way this censorship is implemented. At the moment, my ISP serves up an HTTP 403 error.' ... As far as I am concerned, this response is factually incorrect. According to the W3C Specifications: "The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred."' So, should there be a specific HTTP status code to tell a user they are being censored?"

Comments

No problem

[Wonko the Sane]

Just convince the censors to set the Evil bit on all packets returning the HTTP error code for a blocked site.

Re:No problem

[MightyMartian]

Screw status codes. There should be a rifle pointed at the head of every legislator who votes on one of these sorts of measures.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw status codes. There should be a rifle pointed at the head of every legislator who votes on one of these sorts of measures.

George Washington didn't get rid of big British government by voting, holding protests (don't forget your permit!), or writing his elected officials. George Washington got rid of big British government by orchestrating the execution of hundreds of British government officials...

Re:No problem

[John Hasler]

And here we have a real advocate of democracy...

Re:No problem

[msauve]

...opposed to an advocate for tyranny of the majority.

Re:No problem

[Yvan256]

Highly unlikely. George Washington has been dead for a long time.

Re:No problem

[bky1701]

Democracy is by definition tyranny of the majority. That's why most countries have constitutions that cannot be violated and why there is no pure democracy.

Re:No problem

[camperdave]

Highly unlikely. George Washington has been dead for a long time.

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of George Washingtons who are alive and well right this very moment.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is by definition tyranny of the majority. That's why most countries have constitutions that are not supposed to be violated and why there is no pure democracy.

Fixed that for you...

Re:No problem

[Pseudonym]

Disclaimer: I oppose the violent solution, especially given that institutional recourse has not yet been exhausted.

Having said that, there's a reason why Washington was nicknamed "Cincinnatus". Strong leaders who would voluntarily give up power when it's no longer needed have always been hard to find. These days, they're nonexistent.

Re:No problem

[bky1701]

When the people rule, they enforce tyranny. Since the majority wins, that tyranny is of the majority. Glad I could educate you.

Re:No problem

[Archangel Michael]

Which is why we live in a democratic republic, supposedly bound by a constitution that limits what government can and cannot do. The problem is, the slippery slope is indeed a slow ride to tyranny. Today, we have people advocating all sorts of intrusive legislation that demands all sorts of things upon people who just want to live without a bunch of rules. You know, like how much soda one can drink and whether you want to take your kids to Mc'D's to get a happy meal with a toy.

That's right, the bedroom is sacred, but the kitchen is not. The many of the very same people who complain about a woman's right to kill their unborn child, are the same ones that support all sorts of other intrusive government restrictions upon the lives of the populace.

Liberty is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, and the sheep is armed with two guns (one for each wolf). There is a reason for the second amendment, and it has nothing to do with "hunting".

Re:No problem

[Archangel Michael]

I'm always curious as to how people like you would answer the question. At what point do you stop opposing the violent solution.

Is it when the government starts executing its citizens without a trial? Because that has already happened. And Obama has signed an order saying that they can do it anytime they want, without court review.

And the liberals think GWB was bad. Where are they now that BHO has topped everything Bush did in eight years in only three short years? Oh right, BHO is THIEIR kind of tyrant. :-/

Re:No problem

[kdemetter]

You either have a majority which dictates what will happen ( democracy ) , or a minority who dictates what will happen ( tyranny , oligarchy , etc... ) .

Democracy may not always work well, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

Everyone is a majority and a minority, depending on your view of legislation ( there will be things you agree with the majority, and other things where you don't, making you a minority ).

You just have to trust that people are diverse enough to make a collective decision which benefits everyone.

Re:No problem

[pthisis]

Having said that, there's a reason why Washington was nicknamed "Cincinnatus". Strong leaders who would voluntarily give up power when it's no longer needed have always been hard to find.

It's a terrible nickname, in general, though. Cincinnatus stepped down from an essentially military position at the end of the war, but he didn't similarly give up his truly governmental position as Senator. And he spent his entire career opposing the sort of Constitution that Washington fought for, and opposing equality for the people.

In fact, he served as one of the most widely hated politicians in Roman history well into his 80s--he was beloved by the patrician noble class who wrote numerous hagiographies, but as a Senator and politician he was a horribly classist ruler who spent his entire career opposing the right of the lower and middle classes to involve themselves in governance. Even where the lower classes had the legal right to form tribunes with governmental power, he'd send his son Caeso Quinctius with troops to break them up and prevent them from reaching quorum (thereby preventing any general legal reform that might benefit the majority).

Indeed, he was so despised as a ruler that the Law of the Twelve Tables and the Roman Constitution were largely written as a backlash to his unmitigated pro-aristocratic draconianism. Plebian leader Terentilius opposed him for decades and advocated the passage of codified laws protecting all Romans and allowing plebs to run for Consul; eventually he managed to organize a secessio plebis (essentially a general strike) while the army was away and unable to put it down, thereby outmaneuvering Cincinatus' pro-patrician bloc and forcing the passage of the Law of Twelve Tables.

It's also worth noting that the dictatorship that he's so famous for giving up was a six-month term as Magister Populi ("Master of the People"), which was created for the express purpose of putting down the Aequi and other tribes in revolt. It's not like he was absolute ruler for life and gave it up.

Re:No problem

[Arancaytar]

Would that be HTTP .410?

Re:No problem

[Truedat]

Screw status codes. There should be a rifle pointed at the head of every legislator who votes on one of these sorts of measures.

Comments such as this help me to take the temperature of the slashdot community from time to time. It used to be that I'd see a lot of sneering comments against gun culture in the US, but maybe the American forefathers we're right that the citizens should have the right to arm themselves in the face of tyranny.

It's just odd that it took DRM to bring about this change in attitude in American slashdotters, if I've observed the trend correctly.

Re:No problem

[sirlark]

No no, it's an HTTP 9.11

Re:No problem

[KingBenny]

Overhere you get a nice kind o page saying like : sorry but we have to block this , even if they didnt really have to since the court order turned out to be full of holes they just comply with it, no one cares about it ofcourse and everyone just proxies all the way to venus so the whole thing was a dud but it seems to have helped to soothe the bark of the hyena's just a little bit. No one with half a mind could take it seriously it just shows the generation gap in all its contrast and i fear there's way more problems to come if ever they understand the pirate bay is just one site ? I think that's more a headbutting contest where the HAVE to get it down to save face by now since they Always get back on their feet no matter what. It's somewhat the largest middle finger on the internet and they can't pry it from their arse so far. If you're the position of power that must be pretty nasty. Reason or 'protection' has nothing to do with it

Re:No problem

[drinkypoo]

And he spent his entire career opposing the sort of Constitution that Washington fought for, and opposing equality for the people.

You are, I hope, aware that when this nation was founded, you basically had to be a white male to own land (this is what the witch trials were about -- land grabs) and you had to be a landowner to vote. And it was encoded in law that you had to be a man to vote, beyond that. And they had poll taxes etc etc. Washington supported the entrenched power structure.

Re:No problem

[ultranova]

Liberty is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, and the sheep is armed with two guns (one for each wolf). There is a reason for the second amendment, and it has nothing to do with "hunting".

So... liberty is the majority starving to death for the sake of the army-controlling minority?

Maybe you should think up a better analogy. Assuming the implication "liberty kills" was not the point, of course.

Re:No problem

[drinkypoo]

I hope you realize the "he" being referred to was an ancient Roman?

Sigh. It's cute when people who can't read try to correct my interpretation. See, we're talking about how Washington compares to an ancient Roman; I'm talking about Washington, which is what this branch of this thread is about. Easy enough to tell from context, if you're not a total maroon, or disingenously attempting to discredit me.

Re:No problem

[Pseudonym]

I'm always curious as to how people like you would answer the question. At what point do you stop opposing the violent solution.

My country, as we Australians are fond of saying, was not created by a war. The number of attempted uprisings can be counted on one hand. Needless to say, we don't have the same fixation with the violent solution.

But to answer your question: I'd consider it if I wasn't allowed to emigrate.

Re:No problem

[Midnight Thunder]

Actually you are still a British colony :)

Have you actually read those treaties?

I haven't read any of the treaties, but the fact the imperial system is still in place, is a worrying reminder. Move to the metric system and be finally rid the every day reminder of the Britsh empire.

Re:No problem

[doccus]

You either have a majority which dictates what will happen ( democracy ) , or a minority who dictates what will happen ( tyranny , oligarchy , etc... ) .

Democracy may not always work well, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

Everyone is a majority and a minority, depending on your view of legislation ( there will be things you agree with the majority, and other things where you don't, making you a minority ).

You just have to trust that people are diverse enough to make a collective decision which benefits everyone.

OK.. *show* me any election, anywhere, that genuinely elected their government by a majority ... Meaning.. 51% or more of the populace.. All democracies consist of leaders supported by a minority of the population, and in a multiparty situation the government can win with only 12% of the vote .. even if they appear incapable of *forming* one, as in Greece

Re:No problem

[bkcallahan]

You mean, reminders like the English language?

Re:No problem

[Archangel Michael]

Liberty is avoiding the tyranny of the majority. If you like majority rule so much, then you should be happy about things like California voting to define marriage as between one man, and one woman. That is what the majority wants, and is defining something legally. Liberty is the state not caring what two adults do, as long as it harms nobody else. Not favoring, not punishing people for their choices in life, and letting the people enjoy the blessings or suffer the curses of their choices. Government's role should not be to rescue the idiots from their idiocy.

If gay people want to get married, why should I care. Let them suffer the consequences of divorce and property laws like the rest of us ;)

Re:No problem

[lister king of smeg]

Besides we are not a democracy. We are a democraticly appointed republic. In a democracy we all would vote on everything insted we elect representatives who then democraticly vote on the issues.

Re:No problem

[ultranova]

You seem to be forgetting that the wolves are going to kill and eat the sheep. The sheep has every right to defend itself, even if that inconveniences the wolves (skipping a meal won't kill them).

Skipping enough meals will kill the wolves That's why the analogy sucks. It describes a situation where neither liberty nor freedom can possibly exist: the sheep can't trust the wolves, so it has little choice but to keep them helpless and unarmed. The sheep is privileged over the wolves and must keep itself that way in order to survive. It's not good enough for the sheep to just defend itself against, because if the two wolves are allowed to become equal (armed), they can overpower it through numbers. Consequently, the sheep must actively suppress the wolves.

So while the analogy pretends to describe liberty, it actually paints a dystopia where a minority elite oppresses the majority through threats of violence and justifies this with the fact that they'll be killed if they ever lose their grip on power. They are also entirely correct: the majority doesn't have any choice in the matter due to convoluted circumstances. Consequently, no negotiation or program of democratization is possible. The sheep either rule the wolves with an iron hoof or die.

That's why I oppose this particular analogy: not because of some bullshit notion that people should not be allowed to defend themselves, but because it's a very bad analogy.

Re:No problem

[shiftless]

Really? Every single one of them?

Re:No problem

[GNious]

So, it describes Syria pretty well...

Re:No problem

[Frnknstn]

The 'imperial system' isn't in place. You use 'United States customary units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

Re:No problem

[dgatwood]

Actually, it describes the end state of every empire that lasts long enough. This is invariably followed (eventually) by the commoners eating the aristocracy (figuratively speaking, usually). Eventually, the resulting new government gets corrupted by those who look for ways to bend the law to their benefit. In time, these become the new sheep, who in turn eventually get eaten, and the cycle continues.

Re:No problem

[Eskarel]

Democracy isn't perfect, but what the hell is the alternative? Every time something you don't like gets passed you pull out the guns and start an rebellion?

The guns are for when your ability to change things by speech and voting have been curtailed. You think blocking the pirate bay is censorship? You think that this is a terrible threat to humanity? Go out and convince people, hold a protest, grab a stump somewhere. Sure there have been some limits put on free speech lately(within range on the president or for prolonged periods of time), and I don't necessarily agree with those limits either, but it hasn't been entirely abolished.

The solution to the tyranny of the majority is to convince the majority you're right, any other alternative is both doomed to fail and could only succeed through some sort of brutal dictatorship.

If you want to change things, get engaged. Go door knocking, run for office or find someone else to run for you, third party candidates don't really have a lot of luck with the presidency, but they can take positions in local and state government and once you've got enough of those you can go further.

Heck for all that the tea party are a bunch of loons their political ideology was fringe 3 years ago and now they 68 seats in congress.

FFS I'm so god damned tired of this attitude that the answer to all our problems is to start shooting people. There are times when that becomes necessary, but for all its problems the US isn't anywhere near that point yet. If you live in Syria maybe it's time to pull out the ammo box, but stop crying that people don't agree with you and try to convince them instead of threatening to shoot them and then going back to your mom's basement.

Re:No problem

[Eskarel]

The answer to your question is entrenched in the most favorite quote of your ideology. Soap Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box.

When you can't speak to convince the majority of your beliefs, and when you can't vote or your vote doesn't count, then maybe it's time to consider the violent solution.

Free speech has been somewhat curtailed in recent years(sometimes reasonably others not so reasonably), but it's far from gone. You are exercising your right to free speech right now, you're doing it on Slashdot where it doesn't matter instead of in the street where you might convince someone, but that's neither here nor there. You can still run for office(though until someone overturns Citizens United that might be difficult), local and state government positions are eminently achievable by third party candidates, and once you can get enough of those you've got a real shot at federal seats and then the presidency.

The ballot box again has its issues, redistricting is certainly problematic, but you still have the right to vote and while district lines may minimize it's overall value(there are some arguments for proportional voting for federal seats in various places so you don't get to vote for your local member but if 10% of the population voted for a third party, said party gets 10% of the representation regardless of where the votes came from).

There is nothing at the moment stopping you from using the political process to get your views across and make a difference. Barriers exist to make it difficult, but violence is only justifiable if those barriers make it impossible. We may be getting to that point, but we aren't there yet.

Re:No problem

[Pseudonym]

As far as I know, there is nowhere left in the world that is as free as the United States [...]

I think I'm far more free in Australia than you are in the United States, and Norway has us both beaten. But perhaps we both have an unrealistic idea of what "free" means.

Re:No problem

[jonadab]

> *show* me any election, anywhere, that genuinely elected their
> government by a majority ... Meaning.. 51% or more of the populace

I believe Reagan had something like 58% of the popular vote in '84. Granted, that was several elections ago, and it shows up on every single list of political landslides that you'll ever see. Still, it does happen. Occasionally.

Re:No problem

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Where are they now that BHO has topped everything Bush did in eight years? Oh right, BHO is THIEIR kind of tyrant. :-/

Your assumption reveals your ignorance, but I'll respond anyways.

As a moderate liberal that voted for Obama, I honestly don't know what to do. I'm very disappointed in Obama, but have no good alternatives:

• A. Vote Obama anyways. Maybe once he got clearance, he learned that all of this nonsense is really necessary. I think that's self serving justification nonsense, but it's what I got.
• B. Vote Romney. There's 0 chance he'll retract the federal control mechanisms, and very probably will make them worse. Maybe at least he'll balance the budget, but probably do so while increasing fed intrusion into social issues as well.
• C Vote Paul. He's a whacko, not least because of his advocating isolationism which I think is a dangerously reductionist view of the world. Quite simply, if we pull back, China and probably Russia will greatly expand their control of the world.
• D...?

I frankly think this centralization of control and partisanship ends in bloodshed, when a disenfranchised minority figures that they've had enough of the Other Guy telling them what to do, and can no longer effect their will at the ballot box or are actually suppressed as a radical element that just happens to be on the wrong side of the central control. Maybe we should prepare for it. But it's probably at least 20 years off, if ever, and running around preparing for it now seems whacko.

Re:No problem

[thebjorn]

As far as I know, there is nowhere left in the world that is as free as the United States [...]

I think I'm far more free in Australia than you are in the United States, and Norway has us both beaten. But perhaps we both have an unrealistic idea of what "free" means.

Norway is great in many (most?) ways, but I do believe the US has us beat when it comes to real and/or legislative freedoms... I've lived in the US for 15+ years but only visited Australia, so perhaps you had something specific in mind? .. or perhaps I have an unrealistic idea of what "free" means ?-)

Re:No problem

[tehcyder]

Screw status codes. There should be a rifle pointed at the head of every legislator who votes on one of these sorts of measures.

Yes, because the freedom to download anything you like is far more important than human life.

Re:No problem

[tehcyder]

Democracy isn't perfect, but what the hell is the alternative? Every time something you don't like gets passed you pull out the guns and start an rebellion?

The insane extreme right wingers here, sorry "libertarians", would argue exactly that. Fascism is the opposite of democracy.

Re:No problem

[tehcyder]

Screw status codes. There should be a rifle pointed at the head of every legislator who votes on one of these sorts of measures.

Comments such as this help me to take the temperature of the slashdot community from time to time. It used to be that I'd see a lot of sneering comments against gun culture in the US, but maybe the American forefathers we're right that the citizens should have the right to arm themselves in the face of tyranny.

It's just odd that it took DRM to bring about this change in attitude in American slashdotters, if I've observed the trend correctly.

Only a rich autistic teenager stuffed full of self-entitlement would think that trying to prevent access to free downloads of shitty commercial music and movies was cause for armed rebellion.

The whining fucktards on slashdot aren't representative of normal people's reactions.

Re:No problem

[andphi]

I puzzle this out as well, from the other side. At what point is it right and just to take up arms? More importantly, what bridge must we Americans cross as a nation before those on the right (such as Tea Party Americans and the NRA) embrace in their hearts the Spirit of 76 they invoked during the Tea Party rallies of 2009 and 2010? For my money, it's time to sling arms and muster on the green if either one of two things happens: the government begins confiscating weapons or if the government suspends elections. The first is prima facie evidence of the intent to oppress. The second is a literal, un-mistakeable repudiation of the consent of the governed from which all governments derive their just powers. A government might stand on shaky, unconstitutional ground long before these twin bridges are crossed. It might, in fact, be so far beyond the bounds of its constitutional authority that it is in effect no government at all, while still maintaining the appearance of representative governance. Under these lesser tyrannies, the citizens are entitled to less drastic forms of resistance and redress. However, many on the right seem unwilling to follow these ideas to their logical conclusions.

I appreciate all the folks who have committed to non-violence and who are striving for a political solution. Civil Wars are by definition terrible events. They should be avoided if at all possible. In order for the violent response to be to valid and righteous, it must be the very last option, after every possible warning to the the would-be tyrant to cease and desist and after every possible attempt at redress by the those in the shadow of the tyrant's boot. For every Committee of Safety, there must be a Committee of Correspondence.

I agree with you that the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and that other guy who was him was illegal. It sets a very dangerous precedent. The indefinite detention langauge in the NDAA worries me to no end. Both majority parties (with the endorsement of their supporters, including me before I woke up and smelled the cow-pies) have played fast and loose with the Constitution for a long time, with the result that the Federal Government is tap-dancing on thin ice.

Re:No problem

[bobkoure]

Cincinatus?
I thought he was called "Town Burner". ...at least by the Iroquois...

Re:No problem

[the_arrow]

the government suspends elections

Remember that in the Soviet Union they still had voting, and many other "non-democracies" still have voting. Often there is only one party to vote for, but at least the voter turnout is almost 100%.

Re:No problem

[andphi]

I had neglected that fact. I need to add some cases to my logic, I think, to include a one party state in which elections continue but in which all other parties are outlawed. This, however, leaves out the People's Republic of China, which has a few minor parties that are related to or clients of the Communist Party of China. It also leaves out the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has moderate political parties, but also engages in the violent suppression of political protest.

Re:No problem

[Truedat]

I am NOT saying I agree with an armed response, just making an observation about what I see here spouted by the slashdotterati. But whilst I would fall short of advocating civil rebellion, I think the gradual erosion of freedom is more serious than you make out.

Re:No problem

[Maritz]

Yeah, but he was 12 storeys high and made of radiation.

666

[leromarinvit]

The proper status code would be "666 - Go To Hell". Served to the court, not the customer.

Re:666

[__aaltlg1547]

Only for religiously proscribes IPs. If it's proscribed for political reason the code is "1984 - Thoughtcrime found on site".

Re:666

[FriendlyStatistician]

In keeping with the 3-digit status codes we already have and the use of the 4xx series to indicate that the client has apparently made an error, I think status code 451 might be more appropriate.

RIP, Ray Bradbury.

Re:666

[gman003]

Bad idea for internationalization.

While 666 is considered "evil" and "bad" in most Western (read: Christian) cultures, that does not apply elsewhere. Notably in Arabic-speaking countries: 6 is considered lucky, especially in combinations (one particularly wealthy Qatari spent millions on the phone number 666-6666). I have heard this is because, in Arabic, 6 is "ellah", which has obvious similarities to "Allah".

Same with the Chinese - 6 is considered lucky, and 666 has no particular meaning. And in Jewish numerology, six is associated with God - exactly the opposite of what you intend.

Unless you're suggesting that neither the Arabs, nor the Chinese, engage in censorship...

Re:666

[Anonymous Coward]

451 is indeed ideal from a social point of view, as 1984 isn't in the expected range. Technically, 503 "Big Brother doesn't want you to see this" might be better. But 403 is indeed misleading, as it implies an unaccepted response to a 401 "Authentication Required."

Re:666

[leromarinvit]

Thanks, I didn't know that, besides the obvious thing that 666, coming from Christian mythology, wouldn't be recognized (at least with the same meaning) by people with different cultural backgrounds.

Maybe the ideal status code for China would be 6489. Then they'd have to censor the censorship, preferably by serving the original content instead...

Re:666

[CastrTroy]

For all who are wondering 6489, or more obviously 6/4/89 (June 4, 1989) is the date of the Tianamen Square massacre.

Re:666

[Attila Dimedici]

In Judaism the number six is associated with imperfection, which is where the number 666 originally comes from. The number seven is associated with God. The author of Revelation was a Jewish Christian who used the number 666 to indicate the failings of this number. The perfect number would have been 777, which would have been the number for God three times (with three being the number for holiness). However, the number of the beast was 666, which is imperfection claiming holiness...or another way of looking at it the Beast is completely (3 times) incomplete (the number 6).

Re:666

[Tjp($)pjT]

Or the Unicode emoticons #1F494 #1F46E #1F434...

Re:666

[SuricouRaven]

An interesting theory, but with a slight flaw: The earliest manuscripts don't say 666, but 616. It's very possible that 666 was a corruption that displaced the earlier number.

Re:666

[Xtifr]

So, in other words, a way of encoding the date that only Americans would recognize.

Re:666

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem with that is that the oldest manuscript reference we have to the number is a reference in writings by Iranaeus in the 2nd century AD where he says that the number is 666. The oldest manuscript copies of Revelation 13 which have the number as 616 are from the 3rd century AD. Iranaeus was a student of a student of the author of revelation. While it is possible Iranaeus was wrong about what the author of Revelation originally wrote, it is reasonable to assume that he was correct, especially since he refers to scribal errors in the number in some manuscripts.

Re:666

[Splab]

Also note that just like with the 2012 Mayan "prediction", the numbers are based on misconceptions and general ignorance.

666 is a bad translation (although quite old), original text afair says 616.

Re:666

[Anonymous Coward]

"Six" in Arabic is "sittah". I don't know in what dialect it might be "ellah".

Re:666

[hobarrera]

4xx indicates "Client Error", 5xx indicates "Server Error" (according to rfc2616).
In case of censorship, neither ocurrs really, so 6xx does actually make sense. It's "No error, but can't continue anyway". Or maybe "Legislation error".

Though I don't see the IETF extending a communication protocol to support censorship.

Re:666

[hobarrera]

403 is indeed, wrong: "The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it.".

In cases like this, where the ISP is blocking the request, 403 is wrong; the server did not understand the request. It didn't even receive it.

Re:666

[hobarrera]

Americans don't know what Tianamen Square is. And that's because it's outside of USA.

Re:666

[symes]

It would be most amusing to find conclusive evidence that the beast's number was 616. As there is some evidence for both can I suggest a compromise and we just take the average? This would make 641 the number of the beast. Fitting, as I believe this is also the area code for Iowa.

Re:666

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard this is because, in Arabic, 6 is "ellah", which has obvious similarities to "Allah".

Wrong.

In Arabic the number 6 is pronounced "sitteh". If fact, there is no number pronounced anywhere close to "ellah" or "allah". The only two numbers from 1 to 10 that even start with a vowel are 4 (arba'a) and 10 ('ashrah). And because Arabic numbers follow a pattern, just like most languages, this rule holds (ie: 40 starts with a vowel, 400 starts with a vowel, etc).

Perhaps you're recalling this ( http://www.beholdthebeast.com/islam__quran_and_666.htm ) Christian propaganda?

Re:666

[detritus.]

The oldest non canonical texts to date actually list it as 616.
Funny, because that's the area code from Slashdot's birthplace :)

Re:666

[Rhaban]

An interesting theory, but with a slight flaw: The earliest manuscripts don't say 666, but 616. It's very possible that 666 was a corruption that displaced the earlier number.

616 is from Marvel!

Re:666

[icebraining]

Adding a status code doesn't support censorship; on the contrary, censorship works better when it's invisible, while adding a specific code tells everyone "this is being censored". Bonus points if the response includes a link to a news article or post about the issue from an internet freedom organization.

Re:666

[wvmarle]

That way is also widely used in mainland.

Which is why the Shanghai Stock Exchange web site got censored by the mainland censors for being 64.89 points down. It opening at 2346.98 points (date reversed; and it was the 23rd year since the massacre) was interesting as well.

Re:666

[PRMan]

No. A couple early manuscripts copied it as 616. But even in the second century, about 50 years after the writing of Revelation, church father Iraneus was already arguing that 616 was wrong:

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decades they will have it that there is but one.

Re:666

[WillDraven]

E-gads, this far into the thread and nobody has mentioned that 666 and 616 are the numbers you get when you take the two most popular spellings of Nero (the roman emperor in charge at the time of writing) and use the then popular Jewish numerological practice of deriving a number from a persons name. 666 (616) wasn't the number of the devil, it was the number of the beast, and the beast was Nero.

All religion is old politics.

Re:666

[arisvega]

The proper status code would be "666 - Go To Hell". Served to the court, not the customer.

Perhaps, but the state will be better served if it is "911 - We are calling them on you for some whooping"

Re:666

[maxwell demon]

That way is also widely used in mainland.

Which is why the Shanghai Stock Exchange web site got censored by the mainland censors for being 64.89 points down. It opening at 2346.98 points (date reversed; and it was the 23rd year since the massacre) was interesting as well.

I guess selling a Commodore 64 from 1989 is quite hard in China, then.

Re:666

[gl4ss]

when the censorship is inserted in to the communications between the server and the client, then a http code isn't the right way to do it in the first place. the client isn't getting a connection so it shouldn't be displaying anything..

and well, 451 error = Client trying to access forbidden material. it's in the same vein as 404 trying to access material that doesn't exist.

Re:666

[gman003]

Like I said, that's only what I've heard. I don't speak Arabic, and was in no place to confirm the information. And since I can't even remember the source, I did not even present it as "factual", only "what I have heard".

Re:666

[Midnight Thunder]

No problems, the plane is leaving 45:06:00 AM ;) - just could resist normalizing the time to follow the US date logic. And while we are at it, how about making coordinates minutes,, degrees and seconds :p

Re:666

[Xtifr]

MM-DD may be common in China, but I doubt that MM-DD-YY is. And I especially doubt that MDYY is. Americans (who do use MM-DD-YY) would probably have trouble parsing 6489 as a date--I seriously doubt anyone in China would leap to that parsing.

Re:666

[Attila Dimedici]

The argument is about what the writer wrote and what he meant by it. If you find that ridiculous, I feel sorry for you.

Re:666

[rioki]

except the censoring proxy server...

Re:666

[YodasEvilTwin]

What's with all the copyright-obsessed comments? Censorship is the issue here, not filesharing.

Re:666

[YodasEvilTwin]

Please. 11% don't even know where the USA is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

Re:666

[Xtifr]

Americans also say (write) "4 June 1989", but don't make the next step that you imply is so obvious and write "4 6 89" to represent the same date, so your "logic" fails.

So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Gothmolly]

Why would you tell people you're censoring them, when you can just as easily NOT tell them and keep them in the dark... you know, to CENSOR them.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Nimey]

Pretty much. This is a stupid question because what repressive government is going to admit that they're censoring something, and on top of that not make it some kind of crime for the service provider to let you know?

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[SuricouRaven]

Quite a lot, actually. Censorship isn't always entirely secret. Sometimes it can actually achieve great popular support, when the population believes that it is enforcing morality. I'd guess the biggest reason for faking an error rather than admitting censorship is actually accountability - it reduces the chance of detection should one of the list-editors screw up and block something innocent. Take the Virgin Killer incident - most ISPs served up a fake 404 error for that. If it'd been just a minor site, rather than wikipedia, it might never have been noticed.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Daetrin]

Because the people who are implementing the censorship are not the ones who mandated the censorship, and the goals of the two bodies may not be aligned.

In theory an ISP might want to return a "this has been censored" code in the case of anything where some outside entity forced them to censor the content so they can pass the blame on to someone else. I don't know if any ISP would actually care enough to bother implementing it, but it's certainly a possibility.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite right. When goatse and two-girls-one-cup remain uncensored - one can only imagine the horrors that are censored to save our innocent eyes from harm. God bless the censor and all who sail in her!

Edit: captcha == decked!

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Sir_Sri]

Censorship need not be to hide the existence of information from the public, only restrict their access to it. The Chinese government is actively trying to hide the existence of the Tienanmen square massacre, and that's certain the form of censorship we think of most, but it's not all of it. The British government isn't hiding that the pirate bay exists, they are simply saying you aren't allowed to access it from within the UK. Pixelating porn or graphic violence isn't telling you that people don't have penises or their heads blown off it is done because seeing it could (according to the censor) be damaging to you.

For the british government a 'censorship' code makes a lot of sense. "You are attempting to access material forbidden to persons within the UK, for information on why this information is blocked click here'. The same could be said for much of the 'morality' police in the middle east. "This site contains blasphemous material and to protect you from its content we are preventing your access, this helpful message brought to you by the police of vice and virtue'. In fact in those cases a censorship status code would be an indication that the bureaucracy is doing the job it is tasked with doing, and something they can point to as places they have blocked.

In the same way your anti phishing filter might be censoring you from some malicious website, they're quite happy to tell you that you've been blocked from that site, because you've actually asked them to censor it for you. The government in the UK especially, was asked by the public who voted them into office to make decisions, including censoring material (as that is a government power) in their best interests.

The UK government through the film classification board censors films and games, or it used to until some of that power was transfered to the EU. What criteria they used for censorship wasn't a secret, and they even had processes for appeals and re-evaluations if you felt like the censorship was unfair. Everyone knew what they were doing, because that was their mandate, rate films, restrict access to them, and prevent harmful material from getting into the UK. Website censorship isn't fundamentally any different, by 'importing' a banned film from the US or france or whatever you were doing the mail order equivalent of changing your DNS provider. The fact that the legal situation in the UK hasn't caught up to DNS providers yet doesn't mean it won't.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Anonymous Coward]

In practice, an ISP has complete control over what they return in this situation.

The Used could be redirected to the EFF.org or to the official legislation that forbade access, or one might be redirected to the homepage of a list of proxy services. If it were me in charge and I wanted to provide a public service befitting the mythical status of the benign ISP, I'd set up a simple HTML page including all of the above with a disclaimer stating that my company took a neutral position on the question of support for the newly minted Ministry of Information, and I'd include a link to Terry Gilliam's, Brazil, as well as Marshall McCluhan's official website.

 

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably easy enough to tell; you'd never get a 403 without a previous 401 - one could write a plugin to monitor that and detect censorship.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[thetoadwarrior]

If they're not supposed to know then a standard 404 would do. But everyone in the UK knows PB is censored.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[R3d M3rcury]

While I'm a supporter of big tinfoil, I think the fact that the people in question chose 403 -- Forbidden -- implies that they were trying to come up with something that would sort of make sense. Otherwise, they probably would have chosen a 404 or something to imply that, "Gosh, the URL must be wrong somehow."

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[SuricouRaven]

I was thinking of somewhere like, for example, Pakistan - where the public for the most part honestly believes that blasphemous or pornographic material is not just a crime but a crime against Allah and a crime against mankind, and it is the duty of the government to protect society from such corruption. They know their internet access is censored, and are to an extent proud that their country is able to maintain such a high standard of purity free of dangerous influences. There's no need to be secret about censorship there: When people see a 'blocked by the morality police' page they are just reassured that those morality police are doing their job and protecting society from the threat of dangerous writings.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[hobarrera]

You don't ??
At least bother to read the relevant section in the rfc.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[hobarrera]

But it doesn't make sense, to quote the definition of the HTTP 403 status code:
"The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it.".

The server didn't understand the request in case of censorship because it was intercepted.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Ash-Fox]

Makes perfect sense to me. Connection is intercepted, passed to an different server, the different server understands the request but refuses to fulfill it.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[X0563511]

Edit: captcha == decked!

What the hell is the point of this nonsense?

1: Why do you bother to tell the rest of us?
2: What proof do you have that it actually said anything appropriate to the post?

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[X0563511]

I think a link to Demand Progress would be in order.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[X0563511]

Hilarious, that subdomain is no longer working. Main page works fine.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[cowboy76Spain]

Almost all of the governments that have exerted censorship have been open about it.

First, they tell the public it is for the public good (opinions in the contrary are usually censored) so it is a show of the protection their Government offers them.

Second, many of them have laws (yes, even dictatorships have laws *1). It is easier to tell the periodist "before publishing anything, send him to the censor and get it approved" than to sneak in his desk at dark every night and check what he might be working in.

*1: Of course, opposite to democracies, oten if you outsmarted the law then you would get "unofficial" punishment.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[shiftless]

Piss off

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[R3d M3rcury]

I wasn't saying so much that it was "correct," more that it was the closest answer that says, "You're not allowed to go here."

The original poster was basically saying that the "censors" wouldn't use whatever codes were implemented and, instead, return something somewhat innocuous--a "Page Not Found" or some such. I'm stating that the people who implemented this actually took a moment to try to come up with the best answer possible and not just put up an innocuous error. I think 403 is probably the best response that is currently available--though I'm a big fan of the 451 error.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Smauler]

Well... it's not. At least not from where I'm sitting. Using BT broadband, not exactly some stick it to the man indie ISP.

That being said, I've already stumbled across 3 mirrors of TPB, so even if this is actually implemented, it won't make the smallest bit of difference.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[hobarrera]

The HTTP specification refers to the destination server, on "any server that feels like grabbing the request on the way".

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[Ash-Fox]

The HTTP 1.1 specification doesn't even contain the word 'destination'. The closest definition for what is happening here is a 'Gateway':

gateway
        A server which acts as an intermediary for some other server. Unlike a proxy, a gateway receives requests as if it were the origin server for the requested resource; the requesting client may not be aware that it is communicating with a gateway.

Do note that a gateway is also defined to be a server too.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it

[thetoadwarrior]

Yes because they haven't done it but they will. It's only been in the news for quite awhile. I do agree it's a pointless exercise but my point is it's censorship that everyone was fully aware was coming up.

"666 Evil Censorship"

[gweihir]

Ovious, I would think.....

It's all in the point of view!

[__aaltlg1547]

In a normal person's point of view, the user has not erred. The government has erred, and HTTP has no provision for that.

From the government's point of view, the user has erred because no right-thinking user would want to access a proscribed IP.

So what it comes down to is, should HTTP represent the user's POV or the Government's?

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[Luke727]

So what it comes down to is, should HTTP represent the user's POV or the Government's?

Neither. HTTP deals with clients and servers, not users and governments. Political issues are rightfully outside of its scope.

As for the error code, 403 (Forbidden) is described as "The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it". Is this not technically accurate?

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[next_ghost]

As for the error code, 403 (Forbidden) is described as "The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it". Is this not technically accurate?

It's not accurate because the server didn't even recieve the request. The request was intercepted in transit and blocked by third party.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is not, because the server *is* willing to fulfil it, but never gets the request. I think there shouldn't be any status code whatsoever for this, both on the principle that censorship is wrong and shouldn't be enshrined in RFCs and on the principle that the ISP should under no circumstance be meddling with the data stream; if they can't give you the page they should just drop the connection.
But if we have to have a status code for this, 1984 would be the obvious choice. The fact that it's four digits rather than three is a bonus: it emphasises its wrongness.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[flonker]

HTTP error codes are supplied by the server to indicate the status of the request from the server's point of view. Every response is supplying information to the client that the server knows. It's information from the server's point of view. In this case, a proxy is acting on behalf of the server, and from the proxy's point of view, the request was denied because it was forbidden. (This brings up the issue of proxies that modify content without the end-users permission, but that's a different kettle of fish.)

Let's look at some other response codes.

If you're attempting to access a resource with an ACL, you'll get a "401 Unauthorized". This indicates that, as far as the server knows, you're not authorized to access the resource. You are then given the chance to prove that you are authorized. From the client's point of view, you know you're authorized to access the resource.

If you're rapidly re-requesting a URL, you may get a "429 Too Many Requests " The client may disagree, but from the server's point of view, the client is sending too many requests.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[Luke727]

I don't disagree, but if you're going to make that argument then no status code can be accurate and thus the question is rendered moot. Ideally this kind of filtering would not be put in place (DNS and IP blocks should be enough), but we don't live in an ideal world. If this type of filtering is going to be put in place then, given the available options, 403 seems to be a reasonable status code to return.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[nabsltd]

It's not accurate because the server didn't even recieve the request. The request was intercepted in transit and blocked by third party.

The "502 Bad Gateway" seems to be the correct code for the behavior. The definition may not be 100% accurate in that it implies the proxy (which is what this censorship is) actually received a reply from the target server.

It would be quite funny if an ISP set the following response:
305 Use Proxy
Location: https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[mcavic]

It's probably the most accurate, because the request is denied due to someone's policy, not due to an error.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[jklovanc]

502 dies not fit either because the description is "This server received an invalid response from an upstream server it accessed to fulfil the request.". The server was never hit so invalid response was received.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[Carewolf]

It's not accurate because the server didn't even recieve the request. The request was intercepted in transit and blocked by third party.

That is not a requirement of 403

10.4.4 403 Forbidden
The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated. If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the request has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead.

I still think 403 is the best answer.

502 bad gateway is also good, though the idea that the bad gateway is the current one is a reinterpretation of the message, or since internal error are 500, you could also use "500 Internal Server Error", and justify it with that a legal complications is an unexpected condition for the HTTP protocol.

But seriously 403 is the correct answer.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[Ash-Fox]

Regardless of interception, a server did handle the request and respond.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[Ash-Fox]

It's accurate because a server did receive the request. There is nothing in the HTTP RFCs saying intercepting HTTP servers should handle a request differently.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[Arancaytar]

The protocol doesn't have a provision for "not receiving the request" because by definition, if a connection is negotiated successfully, then the server is the computer the client is talking to. If that's a government firewall instead of the computer meant to serve the website, tough; it's still the server and it understood the request and is refusing to fulfill it.

This would not be a problem if both name resolution and HTTP traffic were universally properly encrypted and signed, as the client could then simply discard the connection as invalid without relying on any evil bit sent by the censors.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[AK Marc]

The 3rd party server, the one serving the 403, understood the request and is refusing to fulfill it.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[icebraining]

You're incorrect, those are the semantics of 401 Unauthorized. From the HTTP 1.1 spec:

10.4.4 403 Forbidden

      The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it.
      Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[mcavic]

It should return an error code and a block page. The error code tells you that it's not a real web page, and the block page tells you why. This mitigates the hijacking as much as possible. If it timed out, it wouldn't really be a hijack, but then you'd have to wait for it to time out and wonder what the problem was.

4xx error codes mean the user has requested a page that's somehow unavailable, which is the truth. It's unavailable because the ISP is blocking it. 5xx codes are server errors, which is not correct.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[__aaltlg1547]

Technically accurate, but uninformative.

Re:It's all in the point of view!

[__aaltlg1547]

So what it comes down to is, should HTTP represent the user's POV or the Government's?

Neither. HTTP deals with clients and servers, not users and governments.

When the government controls the server and forces censorship on everyone, that's a distinction without a difference.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Error 1984 - This site has been blocked due to government censorship

Re:Easy

[tobiah]

this

Re:Easy

[Narnie]

Agree, but the status should be " 1984 - SITE DBL PLUS BAD -GOVMNT OVRSITE"

Re:Easy

[KTheorem]

I think that should be "1984—Site Doubleplus Ungood - Minitrue"

Re:Easy

[marcello_dl]

newspeak nazi says:
1984 - Site doubleplusungood - Love - MINTRUE

Re:Easy

[DMUTPeregrine]

Your use of "bad" has been noted, and is doubleplus ungood.

Re:Easy

[jd2112]

"This domain has been seized by ICE due to copyright infringement."

Re:Easy

[Artifakt]

... and you should feel doubleplus ungood.

Re:Easy

[AHuxley]

Something from comedy Little Britain:
597: The Computer Says No

Re:Easy

[maxwell demon]

2001: Sorry Dave.

HTTP 451

[IonOtter]

I nominate HTTP 451 - Site is not permitted in your country.

Re:HTTP 451

[Pool_Noodle]

Does that come with a page that has a picture of flames too ?

Re:HTTP 451

[lightknight]

I nominate '703 - Your government is being a twat.'

Some others:
701 - Your ISP is being a twat.
702 - Your organization is being a twat.
704 - Your ISP is being a twat, and has messed with your DNS request, sending you to a spamvertizement for the domain requested.
705 - Your ISP is throttling / packet shaping the living hell out of your connection.
706 - Variant HTML requested (mobile, Flash-free....lots of flags in here).
707 - The current server time (in ticks since the epoch) & the server's time zone.

Re:HTTP 451

[stephanruby]

I nominate

HTTP 233 - because not everyone lives in "your country"

Re:HTTP 451

[dosius]

451. Allusions to a fairly well known novel about censorship. I like.

-uso.

Re:HTTP 451

[Idbar]

There are many options!

402: Payment required: Someone paid to a regulator more than you did. If you want to re-establish this service, you should brive^H^H^H^H^H pay for the service.
406: Non acceptable: Completely unacceptable what your ISP or your country is doing.
409: Conflict (of interests): The MPAA, RIAA, local government or ISP is blocking you. Then probably redirect to 402.
417: Expectation failed: Your expectations on your local government or your ISP have failed to you. Change your provider... or your country.
428: Precondition required: Change your ISP.

There's plenty of options! ;-)

Re:HTTP 451

[xeno]

Mod parent up. This is brilliant, probably the best thing I've seen on /. in years. Following Bradbury's theme, how about.....

HTTP 451: An error in your society has prevented your client from receiving the specified content.

(And I love the fact that HTTP 450 paves the way for this.)

Re:HTTP 451

[jamesh]

I nominate HTTP 451 - Site is not permitted in your country.

Now that would truly be awesome. The best I could come up with was 5318008.

Re:HTTP 451

[shutdown -p now]

Now all we need is for someone to write an RFC and submit it to IETF.

Re:HTTP 451

[Arancaytar]

And HTTP 451 is in fact the next free status code not used by any standard or proprietary extension: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#4xx_Client_Error That coincidence is too good to be true...

Re:HTTP 451

[Arancaytar]

The 7xx block could be "third party error" to go with 4xx "client error" and 5xx "server error". The 706 and 707 doen't really fit in, though; and why wouldn't they assign 6xx first?

Re:HTTP 451

[maxwell demon]

Given that there is no integer without a preceding integer (remember: there are negative integers), there does not exist a 451th integer. Unless you specify an explicit counting method, but then, every integer you like can be the 451th.

Re:HTTP 451

[Briareos]

That was fast - "A New HTTP Status Code for Legally-restricted Resources" by Tim Bray of Google...

I vote for a 6xx range...

[St.Creed]

Then we could use statuscode 666 Evil Government - so cool :)

But on a slightly more serious note, the following codes would be perhaps slightly better?

303 See Other - with a list of bittorrent sites you might want to check out :)
305 Use Proxy - with a list of proxy servers in other countries that would enable you to get around the block :)
or
503 Service Unavailable - if you think the situation is temporary :)

Re:I vote for a 6xx range...

[mdenham]

Technically, 501 and/or 403 are somewhat correct response codes for censorship, though - the server lacks the ability to fulfill the request (for legal reasons) in the first case, and in the second case it's just refusing to respond to the request. It depends on how the censorship is being done.

To be honest, though, I'd say 35x (or 8xx/15xx) would be an appropriate range for this - indicating a combination of "redirect" and "server can't fulfill this request".

Re:I vote for a 6xx range...

[Fastolfe]

Based on this interpretation, when would a 403, 404 or a 410 response ever be a valid response? It's not the client's fault the URL doesn't exist, or that they no longer have permission to read the resource.

If the client requests something that the server decides it should not be allowed to receive, 403 is the proper response code. If you accept that this is valid, why is a 403 no longer valid just because the entity doing the authorization changes from the server to a third party censor?

What about intermediate proxies? If I'm not allowed to access a resource via a proxy, what result code should I get? I believe 403 is used here as well. It seems perfectly consistent in light of that to continue using it for state censorship.

Stop.

[mikkelm]

None. If a site absolutely must be blocked, then blackhole its IP addresses and fail resolution on the ISP's DNS servers. Middleboxes that inspect layer 4 and above are never OK, and never part of a trustworthy ISP network unless explicitly requested by the end-user.

Re:Stop.

[SuricouRaven]

Not so easy. One IP may host many, many websites. Usually the budget ones, that don't justify dedicating an entire server. So they all get to share one address, just different vhosts. Simple IP blocking would often block additional sites, not just the one targetted.

Re:Stop.

[tepples]

One IP may host many, many websites. Usually the budget ones, that don't justify dedicating an entire server.

The ones that also don't justify secure transmission of users' passwords. Blocking Firesheep requires HTTPS, but HTTPS is incompatible with name-based virtual hosting because IE on XP and Android Browser on Android 2.x do not support SNI. These browsers see only the certificate for the first hostname of each IP address (unless the user types in a port number other than 443, which is unlikely).

Yes

[CloneRanger]

Yes, there should be a code so that no one reports a problem or winds up doing any troubleshooting of a non-existent technical problem. This would let people aim their frustration at the right source.

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

450 is "Blocked by Windows Parental Controls (Microsoft)" so the 45x range should server this purposes. 452 could be site not permitted by employer, 453 could be site not permitted by ISP, etc.

Re:Exactly

[Samantha Wright]

Here's the rest of the list for those looking to be similarly innovative. Personally, I vote for 418.9: Government is a tinpot.

Re:Exactly

[jc42]

It might be especially useful if the error reply were of the form "450 Blocked by $Censor", where $Censor is the name of the entity (governmental or corporate or whatever) that has imposed the blocking. It should give enough information that the client can identify the agency or person(s) responsible for the blocking.

Re:Exactly

[SQLGuru]

449 - Retry With....

449 - Retry with a proxy in another country.

Re:Exactly

[Arancaytar]

450: Blocked by parents
451: Blocked by government
452: Blocked by employer
453: Blocked by ISP
454: Blocked by school
455: Blocked by RIAA
456: Blocked by MPAA ...

Re:Exactly

[allo]

451 and 453 ... where is the difference?

Re:Exactly

[maxwell demon]

451: The government has decided that this is bad for you, and therefore you are not allowed to access it. Switching ISPs won't help.
453: The ISP has decided that this is bad for its business, and therefore you are not allowed to access it. You might be able to access it using another ISP.

Re:Exactly

[allo]

yeah, but your government blocks via your isp. so to make a difference there would only be useful for the isp to blame the government "we have to, because of the government ..."

Thailand

[FRiC]

Thailand used to have a huge graphical image on a special server for censored websites. Any access on a censored URL would be forwarrded to that image. Apparently the load was so high the server would constantly crash, and eventually they deleted the image, so you get a 404 error. Now they got smarter and just display a text message telling you the website is censored by the government.

China Does It

[tobiah]

Many of the services/messages blocked in China come with explicit warnings that they have attempted something illegal. And some don't.

Re:China Does It

[desertfool]

Wow, the UK is becoming China, but for different reasons. I hate censorship in any form, and especially from a country I respect.

Re:China Does It

[AHuxley]

Same exCGHQ contractors for both projects?

This is what they should show

[jslarve]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfiQYRn7fBg#t=15s

Re:Censorship?

[tobiah]

Like my right to sing "Happy Birthday" to my daughter?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/posts.html?pg=7

Fahrenheit 451

[warewolfsmith]

HTTP 451, This site has been burnt.

Re:Fahrenheit 451

[devforhire]

I was going to suggest this also as it would be a great tribute to the late Ray Bradbury. I think censorship falls under the 4xx HTTP response codes given 410 Gone is for situations when the server's owner wants to remove a url "... The 410 response is primarily intended to assist the task of web maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed ..." If you take the definition of what a 410 error is and replace "server owners" with "government" it would be appropriate for censorship.

Re:Fahrenheit 451

[AK Marc]

403 is the "correct" response. The server serving the page refused to serve the page because the user is no authorized to view it. All the comments on "it was intercepted" or "there was no authentication to fail" are irrelevant to the basics of the response.

That said, 451 or 1984 would be better responses for "the government intercepted and blocked your request."

Re:They should learn from the greater evil

[amirishere]

The above comment is mine, I shudder when I think some of the s**t heads implementing these are my university classmates.

How about using HTTP 101?

[Cornwallis]

In honor of Room 101.

Re:How about using HTTP 101?

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately 101 is already in use. 410 (gone, no forwarding address) is probably the smartest to use.

Re:How about using HTTP 101?

[FriendlyStatistician]

101 already exists, and means switching protocols. The 1xx series in general is inappropriate.

Microsoft already used 450 as a censorship status code (for censored by Microsoft Parental Controls), so I think 451--with a nod to Ray Bradbury--would be appropriate.

Re:How about using HTTP 101?

[Fastolfe]

410 implies the URL was removed by the content owner, and will never be restored. But censorship could be fleeting (the browser could be moved to a network unaffected by the censorship, the content owner could "fix" the content, or the censorship rules could change).

Redirect to a page...

[John Hasler]

..that explains the situation and encourages the user to click on a clicky that automatically files a complaint with the approporiate government agency and/or sends an email to the relevant minister. Should be maintained by a third party such as the EFF.

Re:Redirect to a page...

[mrsmiggs]

In the UK this makes sense the isps put up a legal fight against this and we have at least notional principles of free speech the isps should show their opposition with a simple informational page. But in other situations we might find a status code or codes that could be inserted into headers or other data stteams, it might be better if this was unofficial so it could be inserted subversively so technocrats don't cotton on to this.

It's the way you did it.

[michaelmalak]

This reminds me of the common quarrel, "It's not that you cheated on me, it's the way you did it, that you lied about it."

Re:Censorship?

[cheekyjohnson]

Sorry, but you can't do that. If it was allowed, it would destroy the 'conomy!

Re:Fahrenheit 451 - YES!

[bussdriver]

Mod parent up

402 Payment Required

[kwark]

You simply have the legislature more than the lobbiest are paying to get the content blocked.

How are you blocking?

[falstaff]

I am trying to understand how you are blocking access to a web site?
Do your users all go thru a http proxy? What if they don't? I have three internet access points, none use a web proxy (That I know of :-)
Do you block DNS? I can point my dns anywhere I want.
Do you block an IP address?
Falling back to the Internet sees censorship as a malfunction and routes around it. How do you stop people from routing around you? (WIthout begin China and having controll of all the network links in and out of the country)
Just trying to understand this. thanks.

Use a 5xx code

[russotto]

Perhaps 560 as suggested in the article, and 561 for censorship implemented by the final server (e.g. a server in the US forbidden to deliver certain content to Iranian IPs)

560 Censorship
    The server, while acting as a gateway or proxy, received a request it is not legally permitted to gateway or proxy.

561 Censorship
    The server received a request it is not legally permitted to fulfill.

Status codes?

[nurb432]

How about we just dont allow them to censor.

If you know you are censored, it wont work

[giorgist]

If we have an easy way of knowing that a site is censored,. very simply ... we can automatically run a proxy request every time you hit a censored site and it can be done transparently such that the user no longer has to worry. I am sure the next version of all the browsers will have that as a feature. They would interprets censorship as damage and route around it .. gee that is a novel idea !!

Re:If you know you are censored, it wont work

[nurb432]

Depends, it may also demonstrate that you are doing something 'wrong' ( perhaps illegal ) and if you are good citizen you will cease and desist on your own

Re:Does HTTP allow 3 character numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE ARE FIVE CHARACTERS!

Poor RIAA & MPAA etc executives!

[barvennon]

I can almost sympathize! The money spent getting all these treaties and legislation enacted would have bought a Porsche in SF or maybe Riviera house, or maybe even an apartment for when they are next in Paris, France.

Buying all those pollies must be costing them a shitload of money. And I am not sure (on a technical level) whether they are blocking it at dns level or tcp/ip level. And even if they get them both, stopping the Onion (Tor) would be a much harder problem.

I suspect that they will develop such negative Karma that customer preferences will go to "liscence free" product.

Re:Censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

I'm all for trying to strike a balance between fostering innovation and protecting intellectual property with copyright but to suggest you have a "right" to sing "Happy Birthday to you" to your daughter is going too far. Such works are protected by copyright for a reason and, while your particular instance of infringement will not break the bank, it starts a descent down a long and steep slippery slope. If enough people take this point of view we'll soon lose our precious media companies and then, of course, there will be no more music.

Can you imagine a world without music? I know I can't and I wouldn't dare risking this scenario supporting such radical change.

Say NO to piracy. It's illegal for a reason.

Re:Does HTTP allow 3 character numbers?

[Tastecicles]

I got the Picard reference. Clever.

Why return a HTTP response at all?

[loufoque]

It would probably be simpler and more robust to simply not reply anything at all. Just tell the router not to forward any packet to blacklisted IP addresses.

It's a scam

[Tastecicles]

All this is, is paving the way for EUSOPA and criminalising everyone who tries to use the Internet for anything more than clicking on iPlayer and G+. Since there will suddenly be so many crims wandering our libraries and cyber cafés, to try them all by jury would be prohibitively expensive, so what we'll end up with is TV Licensing-type day sessions in courts up and down the country, fifteen minute hearings in front of a single magistrate, and automatic defaults in favour of the copyright cartels followed by fixed penalty judgements.

Most people who end up in front of a magistrate over TV Licensing, even if like me they don't have a TV, don't realise that they CAN and SHOULD DEMAND a trial by Jury. Over the past several years I've been in front of magistrates and walked out after informing them in no uncertain terms that I am not playing their game, that the burden is on TVLA to PROVE their case, even the point of PROVING that they have SEEN TV equipment in my home, working and tuned. What can they do? Jail me for asserting my RIGHTS under the Law of the Land? Bring it.

Re:It's a scam

[Tastecicles]

You, sir, are an idiot.

Re:It's a scam

[Tastecicles]

commodo tendo quispiam aliquantulus minor cliche

Non issue

[Cigarra]

403 is exactly right:

"The request was a legal request, but the server is refusing to respond to it"

Next question please.

Re:Non issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously if it's censored it's not a legal request but rather an illegal one.

Re:Non issue

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the server refuse to respond when it hasn't received any request?

As far as I'm concerned, the entire 4xx series of codes is incorrect. This should be 3xx or 5xx. Or even better, define 6xx as a new series specifically for stuff that is specifically allocated to "man in the middle" style errors.

Re:Non issue

[nosferatu1001]

The server never received the request, dolt.

Re:Non issue

[sydneyfong]

I would have modded you up, but seeing the number of idiot sibling posts here, perhaps I should reply instead.

Definition of "server" from the RFC:

server
            An application program that accepts connections in order to
            service requests by sending back responses. Any given program may
            be capable of being both a client and a server; our use of these
            terms refers only to the role being performed by the program for a
            particular connection, rather than to the program's capabilities
            in general. Likewise, any server may act as an origin server,
            proxy, gateway, or tunnel, switching behavior based on the nature
            of each request.

Emphasis mine. The "censorship proxy" is defined as a server. The 403 is not necessarily given by the origin server.

This whole discussion is stupid anyways. Have fun with the moot discussions guys. Tell me when you've written the new RFC and complain it's taken as seriously as the evil bit.

Re:Non issue

[sabri]

If you don't understand the legalities, don't make an assumption: In some countries, downloading copyrighted material is legal. It is the uploading part which is prohibited.This makes the request perfectly legal, it is the reply which would be illegal.

Besides the above, there is another thing to consider: not all the court issued warrants to block TPB come from the government in criminal proceedings. For example, in The Netherlands it was the local copyrights-lobby that asked the courts to issue the legal paperwork and this was not even based on criminal law.

In short: nothing illegal about those requests.

Re:Non issue

[xenobyte]

403 is exactly right:
  "The request was a legal request, but the server is refusing to respond to it"

No, because you're not talking to the server your requested. A gateway before the server is refusing to let you access the real server. This is why a code in the 45x series is better as several parental control systems already use 450 to signal gateway censorship.

There already is an HTTP code

[Mozai]

The proper one would be in the 5xx range, since the client's request is correct but the server is unable to comply.

503 - Service Unavailable is the obvious choice.

If we want to be cheeky about it, we could respond 305 - Use Proxy to hint that the client making the request can't come through here and must use some other path.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[jklovanc]

5xx are error codes returned by the server servicing the request. Since there was no server hit, the request was blocked before getting there, no 5xx codes fit.

The real issue is that there are no valid HTTP codes for the net intermediaries to return. Both 4xx and 5xx codes are returned by the server but, since the server was never hit, neither are exactly valid.

Any choice of existing error codes would have brought up exactly the same debate. There may need to be a new grouping for network errors.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[Snowbat]

504 Gateway Timeout
The server was acting as a gateway or proxy and did not receive a timely response from the upstream server.

This what Squid returns when it cannot contact the upstream server and is what I would use it in this situation if I *had* to use HTTP codes. However, a 302 redirect to a local page explaining why it was necessary to hijack your http connection (and how it was done) is a much better idea.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[jklovanc]

504 is not accurate because the request was never sent to the upstream server therefore no "timely response" was expected.
Squid is software running on a proxy server. The 504 is an error sent by the Squid server when it tried to get data from an upstream server.. The issue is that the error the censored request is getting is more of a router error and not a server error..

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[maxwell demon]

5xx are error codes returned by the server servicing the request. Since there was no server hit, the request was blocked before getting there, no 5xx codes fit.

It is not true that no server was hit. It's just that the server which was hit is not the server the user intended to hit.

If there had not been a server, there would not be a HTTP status code. Rather there would be a TCP error, "Host unreachable"

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[jklovanc]

If there had not been a server, there would not be a HTTP status code. Rather there would be a TCP error, "Host unreachable"

You seem to think that if it is a server error a server must have sent it. That is the whole point of the discussion. This censorship is being implemented in routers that are sending back server errors. I agree that it should be a "host unreachable" error with code 13 "Communication administratively prohibited (administrative filtering prevents packet from being forwarded).". That is the most accurate error available.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[maxwell demon]

Are you sure the router does it? I always thought they put up modified DNS entries pointing to their own server instead of the correct one, with that server then returning the error message. And even if doing it at the network level, it probably would be much easier to change the routing table to direct all port 80 traffic to that IP to your own server instead, and have that either give the error if you try to access the blocked site, or act as transparent proxy if you happen to access another site which happens to be on the same address. I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[jklovanc]

Cleanfeed

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[maxwell demon]

That page describes a setup exactly how I described it. In particular, it's not the router doing the actual filtering, but a proxy server.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[jklovanc]

The first step is the router comparing the request with a "suspect" ip list. If it finds a match it redirects to the proxy server. This is very different than a modified dns entry where all traffic to a domain would be routed to the proxy. For example www.company.com/childporn.html may be in the "suspect" list and routed to the proxy but www.company.com/art.html may not be in that list so will not be re-routed.

I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.

That is exactly what happens as the router compares the request with the "suspect" list.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[maxwell demon]

The first step is the router comparing the request with a "suspect" ip list. If it finds a match it redirects to the proxy server.

From my previous posting:
And even if doing it at the network level, it probably would be much easier to change the routing table to direct all port 80 traffic to that IP to your own server instead,

Note: "all port 80 traffic to that IP".

I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.

That is exactly what happens as the router compares the request with the "suspect" list.

Given that the IP and port is part of the packet header, I still am not convinced that the router inspects the HTTP request.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[jklovanc]

Here is a quote from the cleanfeed wiki article;

The other popular way of blocking content is DNS manipulation. Compared to this, Cleanfeed has the following properties:
Slightly harder to circumvent, although users can use open proxies, or the Tor network, and servers can use another port than 80, or HTTPS.
Less collateral damage. DNS-based blocking is criticized for blocking all content on a site with the same domain name. Cleanfeed only blocks what is explicitly blacklisted. For example, it would be possible to block only one image in an article.

Considering that it compares Cleanfeed with DNS manipulation, Cleanfeed is not DNS manipulation.

The router compares the IP with a list of suspect ips. The second step is the important one where a proxy evaluates the entire URL to see if it has been blocked. The main difference is that Cleanfeed can block a specific IP while DNS manipulation blocks an entire server.

I still am not convinced that the router inspects the HTTP request.

The router inspects the IP and the proxy inspects the URL. It is not DNS manipulation in that the conversion from domain to IP has already taken place before the requests gets to the router. Also, if it was DNS manipulation it could be circumvented by entering the IP instead of the domain.

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[maxwell demon]

Cleanfeed is not DNS manipulation.

I didn't claim that it is.

If you reread my original post, you'll find that I described two different mechanisms. One, DNS manipulation (which I thought at that point that it was the only one in use), and another one (starting at "and even if") saying how it could be done on the network level, without the router instepcting the HTTP request. As it turned out, that's exactly what Cleanfeed does, according to the Wikipedia article.

The router inspects the IP and the proxy inspects the URL.

Exactly. The router inspects the IP. The router does not look at the HTTP request. Only at the TCP/IP packet.
The proxy, which is a server (it implements HTTP), looks at the URL. And it generates the HTTP error message (which therefore comes from the proxy server, not from the router).

Re:There already is an HTTP code

[jklovanc]

Cleanfeed is not DNS manipulation.

I didn't claim that it is.

The following is a quote from one of your posts a few levels up;

I always thought they put up modified DNS entries pointing to their own server instead of the correct one,

another one (starting at "and even if") saying how it could be done on the network level, without the router instepcting the HTTP request.

If you are referring to the following statement;

And even if doing it at the network level, it probably would be much easier to change the routing table to direct all port 80 traffic to that IP to your own server instead, and have that either give the error if you try to access the blocked site, or act as transparent proxy if you happen to access another site which happens to be on the same address.

It is close but not completely correct. A routing table would have routes for every possible IP address. In this case the "suspect" list contains only the IPs of the servers that have URLs that need further checking. Thise IPs are then routed to the proxy which inspects the URL to see if ir can go through.

And it generates the HTTP error message (which therefore comes from the proxy server, not from the router).

It is a server but does not actually create the content of the request. The proxy server does one of two things; is transparent for non filtered URLs or returns errors for censored URLs. A HTTP server does much more than that.

Re:501 Not Implemented

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your lack of [content] disturbing.

Brilliant!

[lahm]

Sounds like a plan. http://antarctica.coldhorizon.com/451.html

Re:Censorship?

[feaster]

Can you imagine a world without music?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you claiming that music will cease to exist if copyright ends?

Status code 451

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the parent post is already modded +5 Insightful but can we force the display of the post and display it in neon green too?

That's not only appropriate, the timing is perfect too.

RIP, Ray Bradbury.

Excessively literal: 499 censored, change country

[davecb]

In ARPA-speak,that would be
4 -- temporary error
9 -- OS problem, not application
9 -- a unique number
followed by a blank and a human-readable message in ascii,

This is from memory, you understand, but it expresses the basic idea: your country doesn't let you connect, so it's a tempoirary failure until such time as you fix the political problem or move.

--dave

284 - Successful Censorship Applied

[Tim12s]

This should be a success code, 2xx, and it should be 1984 - monitored and censored.

Um... 4xx is correct...

[TheCarp]

I disagree with the idea that its wrong. You see, the client did err.... they made their error by trying to load something that they are forbidden from loading. That was their error.

403 is forbidden, you are forbidden. Forbidden by the proxy, rather than the server, but forbidden is forbidden.

Now my ISP doesn't block shit, if they did, I would find another ISP.

Re:Um... 4xx is correct...

[Fastolfe]

I agree. Most of the arguments against using 403 for this case could easily apply to using 403 in any case. 400-series errors don't mean it's the client's fault, just that the objection is with the client's request. The client requested a URL it is not authorized to see. If the authorizing entity is the origin server, 403 is correct by definition. If it's an intermediate HTTP proxy, 403 is still used and considered correct. But when you shift the authorizing entity to a third party, suddenly it's not?

Nitpick

[Torodung]

I'm going to nitpick here. Shouldn't an HTTP error be coming from the web server (a la 404, not found)? Therefore if you can't reach the server, because it is blocked, then you can't get an HTTP error, right? Unless they're redirecting to their own web server, it just doesn't make sense (and I suppose it could confuse people into contacting the webmaster, too, but really who does that?).

For the ISP, it's probably more appropriate to redirect the user to a free DNS service page for any DNS errors (even legit typo errors). That's probably the best way to give the powers that be the finger.

Re:Nitpick

[allo]

More like interrupting the connection after the "Host: piratebay.se" Header.

302 redirect

[jaymemaurice]

I vote 302 redirect to a landing page that describes the reson the page is blocked.

Seems that is the way it is done in many countries that filter porn and politically sensitive material.

Ohhhhhh we weren't looking for serious answers here, I get it.

Re:302 redirect

[Where's my towel]

This is exactly how it is done on many commercial services (including the one I work for). It works pretty well apart from a few gotchas:

- Blocking of elements within a page (such as images hosted on 3rd party servers, Javascript, AJAX calls). In this case, the end user doesn't get to see a block page because it's incredibly difficult to get the browser to display anything sensible. This is particularly true in the example of AJAX calls for 3rd party websites. For example, if the censor blocked a post on Facebook by altering the returned javascript they could put up a message, but then they're in a constant race to keep up with every subsequent change that Facebook make to how those messages are sent.

- Blocking HTTPS requests. Some browsers follow the redirect, some don't. This also seems to change from version to version.

- Blocking HTTP calls when the end client isn't a real Web browser.

- Blocking of files where the censor has already started to send the content. This is typically done for large files and streaming media. For example, if an ISO image is blocked for containing malware, the scan can't be done until well into the download. However, if a pure store-and-forward model is applied, the browser will have given up and timed out long before the censor has finished downloading and scanning.

A censorship code might help the first three cases in that the browsers could display (sort-of) sensible messages. I don't think anyone has a good answer for the last case.

Re:302 redirect

[jaymemaurice]

I get the usability issues with XML, mid-stream downloads, SSL and AJAX - with intelligent products you could just look at the mime type and tcp reset the flow. If the customer investigates, they will know what's up - shouldn't that be acceptable?
With SSL(facebook) unless the carrier has valid SSL private keys (I'm pretty sure some do) there is not much that can be done (besides blocking or resetting the TCP flow) without completely hyjacking the session which would inspire a browser warning.

Self-referential error codes

[tal_mud]

I worked for a company with a web based solution. Whenever there was an internal error in their code, instead of admitting there was an error they tried to blame it on the network and sent out a generic message: "Communication error". Actually 100% accurate in a self-referential sense.

Great idea!

[bdwoolman]

In keeping with the 3-digit status codes we already have and the use of the 4xx series to indicate that the client has apparently made an error, I think status code 451 might be more appropriate.

RIP, Ray Bradbury.

Whoa. What an exceptional post. It deserves a +6. And as far as I am concerned it is the hands-down best idea for a real censorship code. w00t!

Re:**A** HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

[YttriumOxide]

Why? The H isn't silent, is it?

Getting wildly offtopic, but I often have this conversation at work (speaking English in a country of mostly non-native English speakers) when I talk about "An MFP". They often ask me why I don't say "A MFP" instead.

The reasoning is that the "a" vs "an" is applied on pronunciation, not on spelling. When the next SOUND starts with a vowel, you use "an", otherwise you use "a".
So, "An em-eff-pee" and "An aitch-tee-tee-pee" are correct.

Confusion can arise when in some cases some people pronounce an acronym as a word, but others pronounce only the letters. I can't imagine this being an issue with HTTP (or MFP), but SQL does immediately spring to mind. The written phrase "A SQL Server" should be read as "A sequel server"; whereas the written phrase "An SQL server" should be read as "An ess-kyoo-el server"

Outside of acronyms, your own dialect of English can also make a difference. In some dialects, the initial "H" on many words is dropped. Some dialects also drop it or pronounce it on specific words while all others follow a general rule. This leads to the "a hotel"/"an hotel" ("an 'otel") and "a herb"/"an herb" ("an 'erb") discussions that pop up from time to time.

401

[sjames]

More specifically, 401: Your leaders believe that you are shit beneath their feet, you should rise up and kill them.

Some problems I see...

[Hymer]

The server denying the request id not th server that should have provided the data
and when you are censoring you do not want people to know that the data is censored.
The most appropriate http response is then "2xx The request has been processed by other server than intended due to illegal content on intended server"

Re:**A** HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

[vux984]

Confusion can arise when in some cases some people pronounce an acronym as a word, but others pronounce only the letters

A 3rd case is that some people also expand the acronym as they read them. For your SQL example you've got:

The "sequel" people
The "ess-cue-ell" people
and
The "structured query language" people

(Although I doubt there are any of the latter for "SQL".) However, for many acronmyns, many people do just expand them when reading them... I, for example, usually subvocalize "IMHO" as "in my humble opinion", occasionally as "imm-hoe" and almost never as "i-em-aitch-oh"

Re:**A** HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

[YttriumOxide]

A 3rd case is that some people also expand the acronym as they read them. For your SQL example you've got:

The "sequel" people
The "ess-cue-ell" people
and
The "structured query language" people

Very true... of course, the point I was making is that these would be:

"A sequel server"
"An ess-cue-ell server"
and
"A structured language query server"

(Although I doubt there are any of the latter for "SQL".) However, for many acronmyns, many people do just expand them when reading them... I, for example, usually subvocalize "IMHO" as "in my humble opinion", occasionally as "imm-hoe" and almost never as "i-em-aitch-oh"

I read it almost always as "in my humble opinion", but occasionally as "i-em-aitch-oh" and never as "imm-hoe". IANAL on the other hand, I often read as "I anal" just because it's more humorous that way.

ICMP

[jklovanc]

Perhaps a better method would be to use ICMP Type=3, code=13: "Communication administratively prohibited (administrative filtering prevents packet from being forwarded)." It is a routing error that is independent of request and server.

http 402

[allo]

you need to bribe your government to get access again.

So - pretty much like Washington?

[Kupfernigk]

Deprived of the hagiographics surrounding the first American rulers, the early American state was indeed basically an oligarchy. What's more, it has largely stayed one ever since. You could argue that the President combines the role of a Consul and the Public Tribune, while the business of government as a whole is conducted by influential oligarchs whose rule is carried out by a compliant Civil Service. Pretty much like "Republican" Roman Government, in fact.The Constitution is interpreted to suit the rich, and until the 1850s in much of the USA was considered compatible with slavery. From then on it was merely interpreted as compatible with denial of civil rights in part of the USA. My nephew's public school in Virginia wasn't desegregated till, almost unbelievably for a European, 1974.

Was the early USA an improvement on the UK? On the whole I'd say yes. But it is worth remembering that people like Paul Revere were, by the standards of the time, rich and important men.

Re:So - pretty much like Washington?

[Jaytan]

Tell me more about the status of the Roma in your racially equal utopia. Here let me help:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/world/europe/17roma.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/forced-evictions-of-Roma-in-Italy

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/18/dale-farm-travellers-lifestyle?cat=uk&type=article

Re:So - pretty much like Washington?

[cowboy76Spain]

I would do, but that needs that you understand the difference between racist laws and institutions and racist people (including some of the elected officials).

Just 4

[Fuzzums]

being 00100; use fingers; do maths.

Re:Excessively literal: 499 censored, change count

[allo]

4 does not mean temporary, but client. as 404 will often be permanent, because its you, who mistyped that url.

Re:**A** HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

[allo]

its just strange to apply this convention to written english. write "a" and read "an" where its appropriate (may depend on the readers dialect)

666

[cheros]

I'd prefer

666 - The Devil/MPAA/RIAA/Government/Censorship is in play.

999 for the Australians..

Re:Does HTTP allow 3 character numbers?

[maxwell demon]

Picard reference? I thought this was a 1984 reference (four fingers vs. five fingers).

Re:**A** HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

[YttriumOxide]

its just strange to apply this convention to written english. write "a" and read "an" where its appropriate (may depend on the readers dialect)

Why on earth would that make sense?! I don't write "a apple" but pronounce it "an apple" so why would I write "a MP3 file" when I say "an MP3 file"?

With the cases like "hotel" and "herb", I accept it being written either way with the explicit concept that that is how the writer pronounces it.

Re:Excessively literal: 499 censored, change count

[davecb]

The canonical ones (ftp, smtp, etc) are
1yz Positive Preliminary reply
2yz Positive Completion reply
3yz Positive Intermediate reply
4yz Transient Negative Completion reply
5yz Permanent Negative Completion reply

HTTP bent it, but a 400 might still imply one should change countries (;-))

--dave

Re:Excessively literal: 499 censored, change count

[allo]

client error: was born in the wrong country.

Re:**A** HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

[allo]

it makes sense, because you only say "an", because its easier to speak that way ... "a apple" has a double-vovel, which is a tongue twister. But this does not apply to written language.

4xx might be for client error

[davydagger]

"The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred."' might be so, but I think http 457 might be approriate.

Re:Does HTTP allow 3 character numbers?

[Tastecicles]

that too. Amazing how cliché finds itself repeating through niche culture...

Its a step towards legitimizing censorship

[senseq]

The Internet is a platform of openness. Some governments are already censoring parts of the internet, while others (such as India) are toying with the idea. By tweaking the technology to include censorship in the standard, a government's demand for censorship can be better met by the Internet- and that doesn't align with the long term interests of the web. I'd suggest: keep the Internet open and don't include censorship in the standard.

Get a better ISP

[coofercat]

I'm on Plusnet, and (so far) am not blocked from TPB (well, at least, I just tried it via shell terminal, which looks fine). FWIW, the mobile network Three doesn't have the invasive porn blockers that Vodaphone and O2 have either.

Don't fret about a new error code (although it would be nice to have one - although I like the suggestion above to host a page saying to check out the EFF). For now, just vote with your feet and pick a better ISP. When they're all doing it, then let's talk. For now, commercial pressure should be plenty.

When users don't want an ISP

[tepples]

That's what happens when you require an ISP (who deals with IP, not TCP and certainly not HTTP)

Then perhaps the majority of home users don't necessarily want an ISP. They want low-latency access to popular web sites, and in some cases, the only affordable way to do this is to implement a transparent caching proxy.