Slashdot Mirror


"451" Error Will Tell Users When Governments Are Blocking Websites

Daniel_Stuckey writes "To fend off the chilling effects of heavy-handed internet restriction, the UK consumer rights organization Open Rights Group wants to create a new version of the '404 Page Not Found' error message, called '451 unavailable,' to specify that a webpage wasn't simply not there, it was ordered to be blocked for legal reasons."

255 comments

  1. This may work........ by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until they block the 451 page and redirect it to a 404.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe we can have a contest for the most creative 451 pages. Who knows, maybe they can display personal information about you derived from your IP address, your cookies and even turn on your computer's camera. Ahhh, good times when you know the government isn;t just blocking the site, it's spying on those who tried to access it.

    2. Re:This may work........ by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems to me that issuing such an error code would already violate the gag order they routinely apply to these court orders.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:This may work........ by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I think you can define error 451 to mean "unknown reason", and then by process of deduction it must be due to government blockage.

    4. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Haha, "court order"!

      You naive believer in due process.

      Here in the UK, an unregulated quango called the Internet Watch Foundation can block anything it pleases with no judicial or even executive oversight whatsoever.

    5. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That requires you to not only not to omit mention of the order, but actively lying to your customer with incorrect error codes.

    6. Re:This may work........ by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Strange, when I disconnect from my VPN I get blocking message from Virgin Media, so it's not like they are hiding anything when the censor a website. Do you have any examples of websites silently blocked by court order?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:This may work........ by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can have a contest for the most creative 451 pages

      How about this?

    8. Re:This may work........ by biek · · Score: 4, Funny

      404a - Page does not exist. This error never happened.

    9. Re:This may work........ by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      nice error 1011

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    10. Re:This may work........ by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Error 14191

      It's a riddle. Good luck.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that 2 books were burned, or that one was burned twice?

    12. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry math brain fart. that would be "902".

      Back to installing that laptop screen.

    13. Re:This may work........ by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      I think that's an "Error 1984: 451 redirected to 404." 2+2=5

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    14. Re:This may work........ by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      ...needs more bacon and cheese.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    15. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or no 'Technical' reason why it didnt work

    16. Re: This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed!

      In this regard, giving no reason speaks volumes!

    17. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.451unavailable.org/donate

      Why would any one want to donate to this shit?!

    18. Re:This may work........ by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Depends on the ISP. Some ISPs return 404 for pages on the IWF blacklist.

      Virgin Media have some issues with their service, but they're doing the right thing in informing their customers about the blocks:

      Virgin Media has received an order from the Courts requiring us to prevent access to this site in order to help protect against copyright infringement.

      -- what I see when I try and access thepiratebay.org

      The Pirate Bay
      Search Torrents...

      -- what I see when I try and access a proxy for that site

    19. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Thailand, where the viewing of porn could affect the go-go bar industry, all attempts to access porn are redirected to http://w3.mict.go.th/ which often falls over due to the excessive demands of horny tourists.

    20. Re:This may work........ by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Close but no cigar, it's 451 as in Fahrenheit 451

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:This may work........ by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Here in the UK, an unregulated quango called the Internet Watch Foundation can block anything it pleases with no judicial or even executive oversight whatsoever.

      Only if your ISP implements it. I don't have a list of which ISPs do and don't, but it won't be hard to find.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    22. Re:This may work........ by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can have a contest for the most creative 451 pages. Who knows, maybe they can display personal information about you derived from your IP address, your cookies and even turn on your computer's camera. Ahhh, good times when you know the government isn;t just blocking the site, it's spying on those who tried to access it.

      The sad thing is that a closed platform (say, an iPad) could actually have some of that functionality secretly baked in. As SW and HW gets even more complicated, it's increasingly easy to put it there without anyone noticing.

    23. Re:This may work........ by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      webserver is rejecting us without a valid referrer.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    24. Re: This may work........ by idontgno · · Score: 1

      In this regard, giving no reason speaks volumes!

      Which is why it won't be permitted as a circumvention of the gag order.

      When the Great Wall of [formerly free nation] blocks a website, the intent will be that the website is memory holed. We've always been at war with EastAsia, don't you know?

      So, no, the agencies responsible for imposing this embargo on knowledge won't be calling attention to it. That website has never existed, don't you know?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    25. Re:This may work........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they block the 451 page and redirect it to a 404.

      Lol...very true!

    26. Re:This may work........ by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Just hit enter on your browser bar to clear the referrer then.

    27. Re: This may work........ by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      This is why we need to stay informed and keep stressing the value of privacy and the 4th A (for those in the USA) when hiring elected officials. (ie voting)

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    28. Re:This may work........ by jpublic · · Score: 1, Informative

      Shall we begin?

    29. Re:This may work........ by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Error 451: This site is unavailable . . . despite the server running perfectly fine, the domain being properly paid for, and all content being legal under standard interpretations of fair use and fair dealing, yet is mysteriously not coming up for reasons we cannot tell people about . . .

      You do the math.

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    30. Re:This may work........ by Meski · · Score: 1

      In most of the world it'll be a 232 error

    31. Re:This may work........ by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The image loaded, but it makes no sense to me. Woman on a catwalk with some kind of vessel hovering nearby? What does that have to do with anything?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    32. Re:This may work........ by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It rejected -no- referrer just the same. It's alright, he replied with a google cache link (but the result makes no sense to me in context so... whatever.). Thanks though.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    33. Re:This may work........ by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Sorry its from Cloud Atlas. That part of the film depicts a future totalitarian South Korea where cloned humans are used as slaves. The female character is called Sonmi 451, a reference to Fahrenheit 451. She is about to be nabbed by one of the Government bad guys.

    34. Re:This may work........ by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.

      I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.

    35. Re:This may work........ by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      but 451 page redirected to a 404. is an error 1984.

      Or should I just woosh? and modded 5??

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  2. Already exists? by mwn3d · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the Wikipedia article on HTTP status codes 451 already exists for exactly this reason. This doesn't seem new.

    1. Re:Already exists? by mwn3d · · Score: 1

      I read a few more words and it says "Internet draft" next to it. In any case someone has already come up with the general idea even if it isn't officially accepted.

    2. Re:Already exists? by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Showed up in Wikipedia around June 2012, references a draft specification from June 11 2012. So yeah its been around for over a year.

    3. Re:Already exists? by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      What's more interesting than the fact that wikipedians are up on this proposal is that Microsoft already uses the same status code in Exchange Active Sync.

    4. Re:Already exists? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 4, Funny

      We should use code 418 then. It's been around forever, and it's probably quite appropriate!

    5. Re:Already exists? by Zinho · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm being dense, but how is an error code (intended for remote coffee pot control) that indicates the status "I'm a teapot" relevant to indicating a government-initiated content block?

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    6. Re:Already exists? by juancnuno · · Score: 1

      I think the Wikipedia article is wrong. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html

    7. Re:Already exists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also says it's a "draft". That means it's not official yet.

    8. Re:Already exists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooosh!

    9. Re:Already exists? by smash · · Score: 5, Funny

      So its breaking news on slashdot.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    10. Re:Already exists? by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      So it's just a question whether it's for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time.

    11. Re:Already exists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm wondering what code 420 might mean...

    12. Re:Already exists? by balbus000 · · Score: 1

      It actually started (as far as I can tell) based on a comment on slashdot from the story An HTTP Status Code For Censorship? This was on June 9th, 2012.

    13. Re:Already exists? by FunPika · · Score: 1

      Even better, it is an over 1 year old dupe.

      --
      After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
    14. Re:Already exists? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Then fix it or drop a note on the talk page.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Already exists? by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      Screaming testament to the fact that the internet is a flaming pile of useless information overload obscuring any usefulness in what freedom promoters are all touting in all of the internet's most important facets, drowned out my more worthless noise on the spectrum.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  3. woosh by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

    They don't get it. The people who block your content in-line can send you back any page they choose, including a 404.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:woosh by Talennor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you don't get it. It's not a solution, it's a protest.

      --

      //TODO: signature
    2. Re:woosh by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because they're legally required to block the content, doesn't mean they agree with the block or want to do it. On the contrary, it would be more in the ISP's interest to show that they're being legally pushed to block the content rather than the content just appearing not to work.

      It's not the government in many of these cases that's doing the actual blocking, it's ISPs where the people that have to install the filters are your typical slashdotter.

    3. Re:woosh by Nanoda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't get it. The people who block your content in-line can send you back any page they choose, including a 404.

      Of course they can. The idea is that those doing the blocking have been forced to do so, and thus can use this alternate error page to distinguish these cases, and show their users how much of the internet they're missing due to government intervention.
      A standard 404 could be legitimate, and isn't going to help garner any group support for open-ness.

    4. Re:woosh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By way of example, Youtube obviously complies with DMCA takedowns; because it would be ruinously risky not to; but they (sometimes to the displeasure of the takedown-demander) always note 'Video X has been removed because of a complaint from FooCorp Media'.

      Unless a company is an enthusiastic partner in the censorship scheme, it isn't in their interest for their customers to think that they've fucked up or are deeply unreliable when they are acting on a legal demand.

    5. Re:woosh by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      And the same government people who demanded this can rewrite the 451 to a 404 on the fly, and your average user would have a hard time noticing anything funny about it.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    6. Re:woosh by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because they're legally required to block the content, doesn't mean they agree with the block or want to do it. On the contrary, it would be more in the ISP's interest to show that they're being legally pushed to block the content rather than the content just appearing not to work.

      It's not the government in many of these cases that's doing the actual blocking, it's ISPs where the people that have to install the filters are your typical slashdotter.

      Except when they receive a National Security Letter they are not allowed to tell and doing so can result in your life being ruined by the government.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    7. Re:woosh by suutar · · Score: 1

      Those are usually for "tell me about this person", not so often for "block this website", so far as I've heard...

    8. Re:woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe you don't get it. It's not a solution, it's a protest.

      Ah, so it's a pointless token action by people either too lazy and content to get off their asses and do some real protesting or too simple-minded to realize it's a pointless token action, then. Gotcha, thanks for clearing it up!

    9. Re:woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How? Do you think that judges control semi-transparent caches at some point between an ISP and its customers?

    10. Re:woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure this is more to do with cooperating ISPs who block sites as per the RIAA rulings in the UK.

      If we're talking about regimes like China, then all bets are off.

    11. Re:woosh by sjames · · Score: 1

      This page blocked and we aren't allowed to say why

    12. Re:woosh by Talennor · · Score: 1

      I agree. Even as a nerd there are better technical ways to protest censorship, like TOR.

      --

      //TODO: signature
    13. Re:woosh by sjames · · Score: 1

      Those government people probably can't connect to the net at all without their kids help. They would have to ask the ISPs to do the rewrite just like they had to ask the ISPs to handle the actual blocking. But to do that, they'd have to tacitly admit that there was an element of the dirty secret about what's being blocked.

    14. Re:woosh by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Usually the governments are not blocking pages directly. Instead they tell the ISPs or content providers to do the blocking on their behalf. So the ISP can block the page but still tell the customer that it's because of the government.

    15. Re:woosh by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Do they have National Security Letters in the UK?

      Honestly curious. Obviously, the equivalent of the US version.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re:woosh by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Even as a nerd there are better technical ways to protest censorship, like TOR.

      Except that in no way whatsoever are TOR and 451 error codes mutually exclusive. There is no reason to choose between them or argue which is "better".

    17. Re:woosh by mars-nl · · Score: 2

      When you get a 404 you will angrily send an email to webmaster@thesite.com and tell them to fix the damn site. When you get get a 451, you will probably send email to president@whitehouse.gov, legal@universal.com, etc and tell them to stop fucking with the internet.

    18. Re:woosh by mars-nl · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not allowed to tell you.

    19. Re:woosh by mrbester · · Score: 2

      The closest I can think of are security D-notices but they are to prevent dissemination of sensitive information by media such as newspapers. They can still say they received one, however.

      Alternatively, there are the discredited and soon to be abolished "super" injunctions, but for real secrecy there are Family Court cases.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    20. Re:woosh by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 2

      I think the nearest equivalent would be a D-Notice

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    21. Re:woosh by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I thought TOR was rooted by the security services?

    22. Re:woosh by blackest_k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess the average user probably wouldn't but who doesn't get the rather obvious reference to Fahrenheit 451 and the burning of books?

      I think its probably the perfect symbolism, and even if most people don't get it now they will learn.
             

    23. Re:woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you don't get it. It's not a solution, it's a protest.

      If it's a protest then why are they calling it "451unavailable" instead of "451 censored"?

    24. Re:woosh by smash · · Score: 1

      The requirement for blocking was put towards the ISPs here in Australia (i.e., government supplies a list, ISP must block stuff on list). Most of whom are against the idea. IF they were legally required to block due to the censorship law going ahead, you can bet your balls they'd be returning this 451 error code. There's nothing in the law governing exactly what the result of the block should be.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    25. Re:woosh by smash · · Score: 1

      It's also quite trivial to block using NBAR on cisco devices.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    26. Re:woosh by smash · · Score: 1

      It depends on how the government implemented the filtering. In australia's proposed regime for example, it was handballed to the ISPs and left up to them to implement a block on a government specified list of sites.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    27. Re:woosh by mjwx · · Score: 1

      They don't get it. The people who block your content in-line can send you back any page they choose, including a 404.

      If you get a page back it's not a 404.

      Shouldn't this really be a 403 "Forbidden" or a more British sounding 406 "Not Acceptable".

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    28. Re:woosh by jimicus · · Score: 1

      No, but pretty much every major ISP operates a transparent cache and they could very easily be ordered to keep the very presence of the block a secret.

    29. Re:woosh by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      unless they get told to block it under a secrecy order which gags them from revealing why it's blocked.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    30. Re:woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that point, you're no longer living in a state of law... because it would imply the government can not stand sunlight pointing out that that website was blocked "for government reasons" as opposed to "for legal reasons".

      I mean: if you could tell a judge "hey the government interferes with the internet by acting as if the website is just down or broken", it means the executive government interferes in judicial overview affairs.

      A judge would be able to proudly say "YES, it's blocked with a 451, because I blocked it, because it broke the law (see court documents at the following URL: X, if you have a problem with that, contact the government ombudsman at URL Y)".

      Your use of a 404 means "nothing to see here citizen (your name has been noted), move along" but it should only mean "resource not found (technical reason)".

      Sorry if I'm not making sense.. I tried to write it as clearly as I could. Please correct if wrong.

    31. Re:woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, because 403 means "the webserver forbids it to you" whereas 451 means "the webserver is cool with your request but the law forbids it".

    32. Re:woosh by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

      Well, I made the connection... ;-)

      --
      Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
      "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
    33. Re:woosh by operagost · · Score: 1

      Even I don't blame Obama for the actions of the UK government.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    34. Re:woosh by houghi · · Score: 1

      For Google it does not stop with just the notice. e.g. I did a search on harry potter filetype:torrent and at the bootom I get:

      In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

      If you read the DMCA complaint, you can find the URL (and many more) that you wer looking for. Hilarious, I think.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    35. Re:woosh by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      It's not the government in many of these cases that's doing the actual blocking, it's ISPs where the people that have to install the filters are your typical slashdotter.

      I'd just like to repeat that for you because it sounds vaguely important.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
    36. Re:woosh by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      If you don't, you're not allowed to talk about censorship ever again.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  4. I get the reference but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... shouldn't it be a 3xx or 5xx error code? 4xx means the client screwed up.

    1. Re:I get the reference but... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... shouldn't it be a 3xx or 5xx error code? 4xx means the client screwed up.

      Well, living in a country, that's sufficiently oppressive to ban you from reaching any Internet-site it is your pleasure to visit, is a client's screw-up.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:I get the reference but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically, if you live on planet Earth, you screwed up?

    3. Re:I get the reference but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      451 F is the temperature that paper burns at.
      There is a (book and) film with the same name with the same name dealing with censorship.

    4. Re:I get the reference but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      451 F is the temperature that paper burns at.
      There is a (book and) film with the same name with the same name dealing with censorship.

      Yeah, that's why GP put in his subject line "I get the reference but...". That said , I absolutely HATE when people start a sentence in the subject and then just continue it in the body.

    5. Re:I get the reference but... by ibwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      4xx means the client screwed up.

      Only if by "screwed up" you mean "requested something that couldn't be delivered". 4xx is also used for things like "Payment required" and "Forbidden". The four hundred range is exactly right for this type of code. Asking for something you are not allowed to have is, in a very technical sense, a client error.

    6. Re:I get the reference but... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      4xx doesn't always mean the client screwed up, 403:Forbidden is usually a permissions problem. Yes it could mean the client didn't send the correct credentials, but it can also mean that you genuinly don't have access to that resource.

      3xx definitely doesn't make sense here, I doubt the server is going to redirect you somewhere to get the now 'illegal' material.

      I will say that I prefer on looks that this would be a 5xx error. It fits very well with the description of the 5xx class of messages "Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has encountered an error or is otherwise incapable of performing the request."

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    7. Re:I get the reference but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would also be fairly appropriate for them not to use a code that is already in use (in this case by ActiveSync). Apparently cute names are more important then picking something sensible.

    8. Re:I get the reference but... by suutar · · Score: 2

      *shrug* It's no less (or more) a client screwup than requests that get 404 or 410. I realize 3xx, 4xx, 5xx are usually tagged as redirect, client error, server error but they're better described as "I can't do it but talk to Fred", "I can't do that and I'm not prepared to tell you if someone else can", and "Ow, my spleen!"

    9. Re:I get the reference but... by Sique · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't fit. The server has not encountered any error, and it would be capable to perform the request. It is not allowed to do so, which has nothing to do with technical reasons. Thus 4xx is the right range for the errors.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:I get the reference but... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      4xx doesn't always mean the client screwed up, 403:Forbidden is usually a permissions problem. Yes it could mean the client didn't send the correct credentials, but it can also mean that you genuinly don't have access to that resource.

      403 is an improper reply for a permissions problem. 403 is for resources that are there, but won't be given to anyone, no matter what their credentials are. 401 is for permissions problems, which the client can fix by providing the proper credentials. (Obviously if a site doesn't want to tell unauthorised people which resources are available or not, they will report 401 until proper credentials are given, and only then report 404 or 403 or whatever).

    11. Re:I get the reference but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well make it a variant of 204 (no content) in that case, seeing how nothing has screwed up and its just blocked content. Services didn't fail (not a 5xx) and its not an issue of the content not existing (4xx). It exists and can be served, its just blocked content so no content is served?

      I personally don't like the idea of a new status code, there are plenty enough already to deal with . However, if this is what it takes for regular folks to realize that the content is there and they are just being denied access to it by their government be it for censorship or any other reason, then maybe it isn't a bad idea afterall.

    12. Re:I get the reference but... by gman003 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better idea: open up a 600 "Non-Technical Fault" range. You could even go into more detail: a 600 error could be a generic block, while a 620 might mean "Copyright Infringement", a 630 "Terrorism" or even a 666 "Satanism and/or Heavy Metal".

    13. Re:I get the reference but... by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      If the content itself has been taken down, e.g., what happened recently with Freedom Hosting, a 5xx code would make sense. But perhaps also, if you are being blocked but the content is still available, e.g., a porn site in the U.K., a 4xx code would make sense.

    14. Re:I get the reference but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      client screwed up

      ...at the ballot box.

    15. Re:I get the reference but... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How about 233 Celsius?

    16. Re:I get the reference but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know meant to be funny, but it raises the rather obvious point. If there's a list of know copyright infringement, terrorism, child porn, etc sites and you have people who visit them and visiting them is itself a crime--intent doesn't seem to be a necessity for child porn, for example, but it sure helps the case--, why are they blocking the sites instead of simply returning the data and simultaneously forwarding the IP address (and if it's an ISP, the client information for said IP address) to the police? And if it's not a criminal being tracked and brought to justice, why the fuck is the government involving itself?

      PS - Yea, I know the reason why. The PM can't keep it in his pants so needs a nanny[state] to do it for him and can't explain to his kids not to d/l porn--as if they would anyways--while simultaneously leaving them to look up the most offensive gore imaginable or leaving them to drool over half-naked men/women instead of the full naked kind or even the full naked having sex kind. God save the Queen.

    17. Re:I get the reference but... by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      If the content itself has been taken down, e.g., what happened recently with Freedom Hosting, a 5xx code would make sense.

      5xx codes are for when the server screws up. If a site has been taken down, then you serve a 4xx code.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    18. Re:I get the reference but... by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      I think it would also be fairly appropriate for them not to use a code that is already in use (in this case by ActiveSync).

      Except its use in ActiveSync is non-standard.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    19. Re:I get the reference but... by operagost · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately, they already gave up their soap box and cartridge box. Maybe the jury box will work, as long as somehow the people who try to work around this aren't summarily tried in order to blind the public to the extent of the problem.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:I get the reference but... by cornjones · · Score: 1

      This may be splitting hairs but that isn't quite right. There are several 403 subcodes. 403.7 (and several others) have to do w/ an improper client certificate being offered with the request. If you offer the right cert, you can get in.

  5. Reference to... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who missed the reference and didn't click the links, this is a reference to Fahrenheit 451.

    1. Re:Reference to... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      For those who missed the reference and didn't click the links, this is a reference to Fahrenheit 451.

      Anyone who didn't get the references need to: Go back to highschool chemistry, and read more books.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Reference to... by stderr_dk · · Score: 5, Funny

      For those who missed the reference and didn't click the links, this is a reference to Fahrenheit 451.

      Anyone who didn't get the references need to: Go back to highschool chemistry, and read more books.

      We can't!

      --
      alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
    3. Re:Reference to... by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      But it is still wrong.
      It should be a 3XX or 5XX.

    4. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is just another reason it'll never happen. It's a loaded reference; what government is going to link themselves to F451 on purpose?

    5. Re:Reference to... by davburns · · Score: 4, Insightful

      4xx means that the requester is invited to try again (ie, to circumvent.)

    6. Re:Reference to... by oldlurker · · Score: 1

      For those who missed the reference and didn't click the links, this is a reference to Fahrenheit 451.

      Fahrenheit 451 is interesting, because contrary to what many believe it wasn't really about government censorship, and the culprit in the story isn't the state, but the people, and how they embraced apathy and lack of substance with watching TV over reading books. Source:the author

    7. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The judge specifically told me I'm not allowed to go to any more high schools.

    8. Re:Reference to... by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      Which is just another reason it'll never happen. It's a loaded reference; what government is going to link themselves to F451 on purpose?

      They will do just that. If this become part of the specification they will be obliged to follow them or else we can reject their censorship software on the basis that they are not compliant. eg: "No one is supporting paedophilia or aiding terrorism we simply want specification compliant software!". And when they do get compliant, everyone get the reference. It is win-win as far as living under a oppressive regime can be.

    9. Re:Reference to... by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      The book do not need to match reality in any way. It's a reference to burning books, censoring the web is burning books. That is the message.

    10. Re:Reference to... by suutar · · Score: 1

      The meaning is almost exactly the same as a 410, no? Or maybe 423. I don't see enough difference to warrant pushing it out of 4xx. I think the larger difficulty with using 451 is that there's already a 451 code, even if it is MS Exchange specific.

    11. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assumed it was a reference to the death of King Theodoric I. Thanks for your superior reference recognition.

    12. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The book do not need to match reality in any way. It's a reference to burning books, censoring the web is burning books. That is the message.

      If it needs that much correcting and explanation when discussing it with people who actually know what they're talking about, it sounds to me like it's a pretty shitty message.

    13. Re:Reference to... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      There's also the fact that I saw the link on reddit this morning.

    14. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4xx codes for SMTP indicate delivery can be retried; for HTTP 4xx codes are fatal. Now, a human can retry something that gives a 4xx, but a browser cannot.

    15. Re:Reference to... by sjames · · Score: 1

      They would read more books, but they keep getting those damned 451 error messages...

    16. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] it sounds to me like it's a pretty subtil message.

      I fixed that for you. You are welcome.

    17. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe we don't use the Fahrenheit scale. But you know, the reference is not really about the (not entirely correct) temperature required for paper to autoignite. It's about Ray Bradbury's book.

    18. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they dont have books in Chemistry. just like they dont have chemicals in English.

      I kid i kid, but yeah.

      captcha: Biology

    19. Re:Reference to... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      High school chemistry classes should be teaching that paper burns at 451 C not 451 F. Units people!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except it spelled Subtle

      you're welcome.

    21. Re:Reference to... by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Although Microsoft nabbed this unused code for their purposes, the associated text is apposite: Device Misconfigured

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    22. Re:Reference to... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I wonder what temperature a kindle burns at. Also what error code does a kindle return if you try to read a book which has been redacted by Amazon?

    23. Re:Reference to... by glwtta · · Score: 1

      You're so clever!

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    24. Re:Reference to... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      That reference is for books made of *rayon or cotton*. Since most books are made of cellulose it's pretty bogus.

    25. Re:Reference to... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The point is, it's a modern science class, it should be C, not F.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    26. Re:Reference to... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      A science class with proper SI units would be using kelvins - C poses problems when doing math.

      And for day to day use, Fahrenheit is explicitly based off of the human body temperature, and scaled such that the difference between the freezing point and boiling point of water is 180 (hence "degrees" Fahrenheit).

    27. Re:Reference to... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, the point is the reference is from an American novel from 1953.

    28. Re:Reference to... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big fan of the English system, but I do have to say the Celsius/Kelvin scale is much less interesting for everyday use. Maybe that's why Americans (beyond the farming and enormous climate variety angles) are much more interested in the weather than most other people - it's more interesting talking about the weather when it's in the range of 0-100 instead of -18-38...

    29. Re:Reference to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the difference between the freezing point and boiling point of water is 180 (hence "degrees" Fahrenheit).

      Riiight!! Because we all measure our temperatures with a protractor. That has got to be one of the most moronic excuses I've heard yet.

  6. Old(ish) but brilliant by ACS+Solver · · Score: 4, Informative

    The idea has been floating around for a while. It's still brilliant in the simplicity and anti-censorship attitude of it. What the article doesn't mention is that its an IETF draft now. Wish the error could be something like "451 Bad Government".

    1. Re:Old(ish) but brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary sound makes this sound like it doesn't really go farther than what's listed in the older Slashdot story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/1927246/an-http-status-code-for-censorship

    2. Re:Old(ish) but brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Terence Eden's Blog post "There is no HTTP code for censorship (but perhaps there should be)"

      Although to be more informative one of the comments should suggest to include the urn of the censored resource:

      451 Unavailable for Legal Reasons of Resource magnet:?xt=urn:ed2k:354B15E68FB8F36D7CD88FF94116CDC1&xl=10826029

      That would be as fun as the chillingeffect links.

    3. Re:Old(ish) but brilliant by mstefanro · · Score: 1

      The browsers, as a sign of protest, could make the 451 default page warn the user
      that access to the requested page has been blocked due to censorship. If plenty
      people see that threatening page while browsing the internet, they may take
      things more seriously.

    4. Re:Old(ish) but brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the draft expired July 15

  7. Already being done pretty much by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I visit www.thepiratebay.org on a browser that doesn't have an anti-censorship plugin installed, I get

    "The page you're looking for has been blocked.

    "We're complying with a court order that means access to this website has
    "to be blocked to protect against copyright infringement."

    1. Re:Already being done pretty much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic we wouldn't need 404 as well.

    2. Re:Already being done pretty much by colordev · · Score: 1
      If I visit www.thepiratebay.org... it works! (or it actually redirects me to thepiratebay.sx)
      If I visit www.thepiratebay.se the result is...

      Error 105 (net::ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED): Unable to resolve the server's DNS address
      The server at thepiratebay.se can't be found, because the DNS lookup failed. DNS is the network service that translates a website's name to its Internet address. This error is most often caused by having no connection to the Internet or a misconfigured network. It can also be caused by an unresponsive DNS server or a firewall preventing Chromium from accessing the network.

      I really can't say which one of us has got a better censorship. But more importantly, thanks for helping me to hack around this terrible obstacle of entering the pirate bay. Now the internet feels whole again.

  8. Wrong number series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4xx errors are for permanent problems. Much as I like the tongue in cheek use of 451, 3xx is the correct series as such an error is temporary unless the content is deleted.

    1. Re:Wrong number series by ravenscar · · Score: 2

      That's why embedding intelligence in your codes is a bad idea. Sometimes the world changes in ways that your original intelligence scheme did not anticipate. For example, what happens if you run out of codes that begin with 3? You're suddenly left with an intelligence system that is is either no longer able to meet your needs or no longer accurate.

    2. Re:Wrong number series by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Most laws and judicial orders don't have an experation date. So they should be prusumed to be permanent.

    3. Re:Wrong number series by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      how is it temporary? 404's have more chance of being temporary... unfortunately.

      the block is an intentional permanent problem that doesn't go away without some human doing something.. much like many other 4xx states.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Wrong number series by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps there could have been a slightly better numbering system, like using a period to separate the components (e.g. 4.4 for 404). But this takes up an extra byte once you get to e.g. "4.10 Gone", and you can't have a scheme that can take up an arbitrary number of bytes, so you may as well specify it as three bytes.

      HTTP also depends on the numbering scheme to facilitate graceful degradation: any status code can safely be handled the same way it would be handled by the x00 code, but without caching (if any, which 200 OK allows).

      In practice, there's almost no chance we'll ever run out of HTTP status codes. Saving the extra byte times trillions of HTTP requests is probably worth it.

  9. Misunderstanding of HTTP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I don't think that they understand the difference between the Internet and the Web. If an IP is blocked, no HTTP connection is made, and thus no HTTP response can be delivered.

    This would instead put the burden of enforcing the block on the web servers themselves. Or are requests to blacklisted IPs rerouted?

    1. Re:Misunderstanding of HTTP? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      quite many countries have implemented the blocking so that you'll served some page, just not what you were looking for.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Misunderstanding of HTTP? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 1

      Censored site are often hijacked by scary-looking redirect to state propaganda. If this is accepted in the future specification, that propaganda page will require to return this status code. eg: "HTTP/1.0 451 Corrupted Government"

      Non compliant censorship can, additionally, be protested on the basis that they are not compliant.

    3. Re:Misunderstanding of HTTP? by suutar · · Score: 1

      requests to not-resolved-in-DNS get rerouted by the ISP already, in many cases; easy enough to reroute these too.

  10. Amendment... by jemenake · · Score: 2

    Can we make "200" mean that the gov't is watching your traffic? The nice part is that we don't have to change any of the installed base of webservers...

    1. Re:Amendment... by mstefanro · · Score: 1

      That would be incorrect in case of HTTPS.

    2. Re:Amendment... by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, they're still watching. They just (hopefully) can't decrypt it.

  11. It would be an error code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not a page, you moron.

    1. Re:It would be an error code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can supply custom error pages for specific errors... moron.

    2. Re:It would be an error code by vipw · · Score: 5, Informative

      40X errors can still return an entity. The HTTP spec even says that the server SHOULD return an entity explaining the error. I'm afraid you're the one being a moron.

    3. Re:It would be an error code by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Is 451 a 40X error code then?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:It would be an error code by t4ng* · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just to clarify, if a web site is being blocked, then that web site can not send an error page to the client making the request.

      The error would come from whichever device is blocking the web site, and it would prevent forwarding of any data packets to the blocked site. The blocked site can't return an error page because it has no way of knowing someone trying to access it was blocked. Whatever device is doing the blocking is the one that can send an error code, if at all.

      Returning an html error page would be entirely optional, and I seriously doubt whomever is doing the blocking would give a rat's ass about a fancy custom error page. If they did, it might make for a nice amplifier in a DDoS attack. ;-)

    5. Re:It would be an error code by mrbester · · Score: 1

      You mean a 4XX response, like the 410 Gone Mark Pilgrim had for his sites a while back.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    6. Re:It would be an error code by smash · · Score: 2

      Given that most of the western world censorship is stuff being lumbered onto ISPs as a legal requirement (at least, that was the aussie proposal), the error would be returned by the ISP's filtering software.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    7. Re:It would be an error code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not too sure "Unavailable for legal reasons" is actually any good.

      First of all, I feel this is in line with guilty until proven innocent. So what if the website / website holder is vindicated? does that now mean he/she can chase the Govt for the damages incurred and loss of reputation citied by the stain of "legal reasons" and loss of income due to the downtime? At least with just a 404 it didn't give publicly damaging evidence that can be used in civil situations.

      I'd say make the message less harsh "Unavailable pending a regulatory review" we might as well not beat around the bush here, if we allow this to become the norm we are in effect accepting regulation. I guess slowly but surely it will happen and something inane like an error code and amendment of an RFC specification is a good place to start.

      Not good for us, good for them.

    8. Re:It would be an error code by Cederic · · Score: 2

      I'd say make the message less harsh "Unavailable pending a regulatory review"

      The problem is, the page isn't unavailabe pending a review. It's unavailable because a court has mandated that it be blocked or because a review has assessed it as containing illegal material.

      I'd have have 451: Unavailable for Legal Reasons followed by "It's child porn" or "The cunts at the Premier League convinced a court to get a site hosting no illegal content blocked despite the site doing nothing wrong or illegal".

      Nonetheless, the page is indeed unavailable for legal reasons.

    9. Re:It would be an error code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HTTP is delivered over TCP, and as such HTTP can't be used as an amplifier in a DDoS.

  12. Old News by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Old News by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      I suppose it is news that Open Rights Group is now supporting the code because of UK censorship. Sad that code is needed more and more.

  13. I see what you did there... by morcego · · Score: 1

    451... Nice... Ray Bradbury would be proud :)

    --
    morcego
    1. Re:I see what you did there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep voting for BO, you know the chick with the purple lipstick on TV.

  14. No, that's not a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Governments forbid people to talk about invasive measures, so even with a code for censorship, users can never be sure if a "normal" error code isn't the result of censorship. To pretend that such a code could in any way be reliable is to mislead users. Don't put up signs, route around the damage.

    1. Re:No, that's not a good thing by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Therefore we need a code that means "we aren't allowed to show you the real code".

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  15. We're going to need some subcodes or something... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would be strongly in favor of not having censored pages look like nonexistent or technically glitched pages, as there's nothing more insidious than silent censorship; but I have to wonder if an HTTP response code is the right tool for the job.

    The various existing codes are not particularly granular, and an anti-censorship pressure scheme that has any hope of succeeding needs to be granular.

    It doesn't help me if all I now is "Example.org is unavailable for legal reasons". I need to know what jurisidiction, what law, what court order(if any), what private actor (in the case of something like the DMCA), and ideally the asserted reason. Ideally, all that information would be properly marked up (not just a text blob) so that a browser could pretty-print it for the end user, a spider gathering statistics or scraping could gather statistics, and so forth.

    You need to, as directly as possible, tie the entities responsible for the fact that you can't see the page to the message that you can't see the page. If you don't do that, people might generate some diffuse displeasure; but will have little way of knowing who is behind the problem.

  16. 451 by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    So 451 will be the code the government will issue when they feel they want a revolution?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:451 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would be number 9.

  17. Well I this this is complete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This message has been censored by imperialist code #1984. Thank you for your tolerance, patience, and understanding.

  18. Great for automatic fallback to proxy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will work until browsers start to automatically try a list of proxies if they get a 451 error.

  19. Previously discuess on /. here by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1
    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  20. Paper? Bah. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    What's the Curie temperature of an HDD platter's magnetic coating?

  21. How is this supposed to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should ISPs sniff all our traffic and inject 451 pages whenever they smell the evil government bit in an HTTP response?

    1. Re:How is this supposed to work? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      No when an ISP, hosting provider, or search engine gets a order telling them to block access to a website they would use this error code when people request the page.

  22. actually, not so much by Comboman · · Score: 2

    451... Nice... Ray Bradbury would be proud :)

    Actually, not so much. While most people assume 'Fahrenheit 451' is about censorship, Bradbury claimed it was really about TV replacing books. He even fought (unsuccessfully) to keep Michael Moore from using the title 'Fahrenheit 9/11' for his film.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:actually, not so much by morcego · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was more than that. It was the books being replaced by the people own volition. The people allowed it, let it happen, and even condoned it. Which one could argued it exactly what is happening.

      --
      morcego
  23. Re:Previously discussed on /. here by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 0

    spelling = fail

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  24. nuce, but not quite technically correct.. by sdnoob · · Score: 1

    of course we know that server errors are 500s codes, not 400s.. and that is essentially what this is.. the server (or client's upstream) is taking the action... not the client.

    so i propose that the number instead be...

    HTTP/1.1 507 SOL

    1. Re:nuce, but not quite technically correct.. by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      Or it's a client error because the client is in a country with a shitty government.

    2. Re:nuce, but not quite technically correct.. by Ionized · · Score: 1

      451 is appropriate, as others in this thread have pointed out. 4xx indicates client is trying to access something that cannot be served to them, for whatever reason.

      403 for instance is an access denied message - "this content is here, but you aren't allowed to see it"

      5xx indicates server errors. in the case of blocked content, there is no server error. you just aren't allowed to see the content you are requesting, so the comparison to 403 is incredibly appropriate.

    3. Re:nuce, but not quite technically correct.. by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      nope, 451 is the perfect number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

    4. Re:nuce, but not quite technically correct.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it's a client error because the client voted for a shitty government in his/her country.

  25. NSA Spying by slash.jit · · Score: 1

    Cool. Now can we also have an HTTP code for websites that are being spied by NSA like 201 or something ?

    1. Re:NSA Spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do. It is any status code starting with a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.

    2. Re:NSA Spying by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I tried to go to the government's website but I got a 413 error :(

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:NSA Spying by stewsters · · Score: 1

      I think 200 is the one they use now.

    4. Re:NSA Spying by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I tried to order dessert in a restaurant and received a 314 - Pie Moved error.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:NSA Spying by indeterminator · · Score: 1

      I think I know that place. I tried to use the toilet there but I got a 418 - I'm a teapot. The last time I'm eating there...

  26. waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    governments and other large organizations always want more control over individuals because people who pursue "leadership" positions are generally sociopaths who gain pleasure from imposing their will on other (weaker) people

    a better idea would be to invest in technology that makes it impossible for any organization to have power over communication

    right now the only technology that shows promise is multi-channel peer-to-peer mesh networks, hopefully one is set up before western governments degenerate into authoritarian states like north korea

    1. Re:waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right now the only technology that shows promise is multi-channel peer-to-peer mesh networks, hopefully one is set up before western governments degenerate into authoritarian states like north korea

      Unfortunately, such a thing would require nearly simultaneous action by a large number of people which happens only rarely. For the same reason most people don't PGP encrypt their mails.

    2. Re:waste of energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right now the only technology that shows promise is multi-channel peer-to-peer mesh networks, hopefully one is set up before western governments degenerate into authoritarian states like north korea

      Unfortunately, such a thing would require nearly simultaneous action by a large number of people which happens only rarely. For the same reason most people don't PGP encrypt their mails.

      Every peer-to-peer technology started with a group of early adopters who ran basically empty nodes. But those empty nodes are necessary before the technology can reach a critical mass.

      The way to sell the network is for "disaster proof" communications. No centralized infrastructure to destroy, minimal investment to join the network.

  27. Yeah, that's why this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    reply is exactly what you hate.

  28. 451?? no no no.. let's call it a '1984' page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's give credit, where credit is due here in our de-facto Orwellian society...

  29. Expired by 0racle · · Score: 1
    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:Expired by stewsters · · Score: 1

      True it wont display correctly in browsers.
      Doesn't mean we can't use it anyways to prove a point.

      response.setStatus(451);

    2. Re:Expired by stewsters · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Expired by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      A 1984 error code would be more correct.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  30. But you cannot redirect from them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are only local.

  31. Why not 403? by DERoss · · Score: 1

    According to Section 10.4.4 of RFC 2616, 403 means:

    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.

    1. Re:Why not 403? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      403 is for a permissions error with the software. As in the system administrator didn't configure the file to be available for public consumption.

      the concept of a 451 error is a permissions error with the humans.

      I think its far more appropriate, its a subtle means of protest, instead of an error message that has another meaning.

    2. Re:Why not 403? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      In RFCs SHOULD NOT != MUST NOT. There is no imperative that must be followed, merely a guideline that it is beneficial to all to follow.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  32. Re:We're going to need some subcodes or something. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    The site you are visiting has been blocked for one or more reasons, please select what you are looking for and we will redirect you to an alternate site. Your IP Address will be logged.

    [] Unauthorized copies of Copyrighted materials
    [] Jihadist tips and chat rooms
    [] Politically Incorrect information
    [] Child Pornography

    [SUBMIT]

    We are sorry, but for legal reasons, the [CANCEL] button has been removed from this page.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  33. 420 Not Found by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

    I couldn't find your webpage, but dude, I totally found my stash!

    (See also: hash error)

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:420 Not Found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter already use 420 for 'Enhance Your Calm' when the client is rate limited :)

  34. It's not "Page Not Found"!!! by SendBot · · Score: 1

    I have a huge peeve with people calling 404 error "File not found" because url's are not files! "Page" is closer, but then it's not always a page requested via http.

    C'mon people, get this straight! It's not hard, now write this 100 times on the chalkboard:

    "404 Not Found"

  35. At what temperature do web pages burn? by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

    We should use that.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
  36. Why not 666? by aliquis · · Score: 2

    666: Blocked by your evil government. Move to a free country or fight for your right. Use it or lose it.

  37. Virgin Media UK by kennethmci · · Score: 1

    for thepiratebay.org

    HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://assets.virginmedia.com/site-blocked.html Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

    Then on the page you redirect too:

    HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified Server: Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) Last-Modified: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:35:14 GMT Cache-Control: max-age=4600, public Expires: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:36:23 GMT Vary: Accept-Encoding Content-Encoding: gzip Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Accept-Ranges: bytes Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:39:31 GMT X-Varnish: 2120962236 2120363846 Age: 25388 Via: 1.1 varnish Connection: keep-alive X-Varnish-Cache: HIT

  38. 420 by PPH · · Score: 1

    "Dude. What?"

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  39. Damnit not another by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    one of these threads.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  40. Re:We're going to need some subcodes or something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That information is supposed to be included in the error message. From Tim Bray's original proposal for the 451 error code, as reported here:

    Responses using this status code SHOULD include an explanation, in the response body, of the details of the legal restriction; which legal authority is imposing it, and what class of resources it applies to.

  41. Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Code 451... As in Fahrenheit!
    Ahhhh, that dry British wit!

  42. Re:We're going to need some subcodes or something. by mcl630 · · Score: 1

    The example error message the Open Rights Group gives in TFA does exactly what you're asking for.

  43. Thailand by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

    When I was in Thailand and tried to access a wikipedia page about King Rama IX I actually got a friendly page telling me that that page is banned in Thailand. At least they were upfront about it. Much nicer than a 404 or 451.

    Of course, I then just pulled up the Google cache copy of it and read that.

  44. Isn't this already covered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    403: Forbidden

  45. Well, you know... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    We all want to change the world.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  46. How appropriate by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    The ideal number indicate censorship!

    1. Re:How appropriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ideal number indicate censorship!

      Because they, like, totally chose that number by accident and you're the only person to pick up on the coincidence? Bravo, man, bravo. *golf clap*

  47. Death of the author by tepples · · Score: 1

    Fahrenheit 451 is interesting, because contrary to what many believe it wasn't really about government censorship, and the culprit in the story isn't the state, but the people, and how they embraced apathy and lack of substance with watching TV over reading books.

    For one thing, they're the same thing, as an apathetic electorate tolerates this sort of censorship. For another, a work means what it means, not what its author intended it to mean. Or does the law prevent death of the author from taking effect until 70 years after the literal death of the author?

    1. Re:Death of the author by oldlurker · · Score: 2

      Fahrenheit 451 is interesting, because contrary to what many believe it wasn't really about government censorship, and the culprit in the story isn't the state, but the people, and how they embraced apathy and lack of substance with watching TV over reading books.

      For one thing, they're the same thing, as an apathetic electorate tolerates this sort of censorship. For another, a work means what it means, not what its author intended it to mean. Or does the law prevent death of the author from taking effect until 70 years after the literal death of the author?

      They didn't just tolerate it, they actively caused it. Turning to mindless entertainment and shortened 'factoids' (that lack substance and depth) on TV. Bradbury saw the TV as an opiate. Only after people stopped reading did the state employ firemen to burn books.

    2. Re:Death of the author by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      they're the same thing, as an apathetic electorate tolerates this sort of censorship

      This I totally agree with.

      a work means what it means, not what its author intended it to mean

      This is silly.
      (you can say a work may have more/different meanings to the reader, but to say something someone wrote just plain doesn't mean what they intended it to mean is naive. Without context and intent a lot of writing is useless).

      does the law prevent death of the author from taking effect until 70 years after the literal death of the author

      And this is totally off topic...

  48. Fair use/dealing by tepples · · Score: 1

    [] Unauthorized copies of Copyrighted materials

    So your proposed response body includes a form. In the details field I'd write "Works incorporating a portion of a copyrighted work to criticize that work".

  49. Censorship is bad, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't mind if:

    1. The reason is stated,
    2. The parties that requested the block are identified
    3. If is not a legal court action (meaning is only censurable content for minors for instance), I've a way to opt out
    4. All parties pushing it have a fund to indemnify false positive cases both to server owners / site hosted and to users that where blocked

  50. Hey, that's what he gets by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    for bitching.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  51. Not all blocking is ISP level blocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are laws around the world that demand taking down specific offending pages from the site operator, not IP/DNS block for whole resource on ISP level - unless the site owner doesn't comply. Russia got one like that recently and there were even some sites putting up 451 error for Russian visitors, IIRC.

  52. (Farenheit) 451 by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

    This is too good. I mean no coincidence it is the same number as Ray Bradberys dystopian novel "Farenheit 451", about censorship where books are outlawed, and firemen burn all that are found...

  53. Re:We're going to need some subcodes or something. by mrbester · · Score: 1

    "And we also broke the back button until you hit SUBMIT. Submit, citizen!"

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  54. Wrong code by jrumney · · Score: 1

    Fahrenheit 451 reference aside, shouldn't this be a 5xx code? The 4xx codes are supposed to be returned when the client has made an error (for example, 404: the client requested a resource that does not exist). 5xx codes are for when the server has failed to process a valid request.

    1. Re:Wrong code by PPH · · Score: 1

      It would seem that the 451 code would be returned by a server located on a (relatively) free country attempting to comply with restrictions imposed upon users (clients) in authoritative regimes. If the server was located in that regime, returning such a code might be political (if not literal) suicide.

      Returning 451 from a server would indicate that you the client, have made an error in requesting material that your government does not wish you to see. The server has not made the error. The server is 'only following orders'.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  55. Cut out the middle man by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I prefer this page instead:


    This page was ordered censored by people in your government. We were silenced under threat of jail.

    Here are the names and phone numbers of the politicians in your country that mandated it, and the dates they are up for re-election.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  56. Error 832 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This page has been blocked by the British Government for your well-being.

    Please do not look up how to get around this block.

    1. Re:Error 832 by jpublic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      hehman mrman thatman ughman

  57. Error codes are meant to be for technical reasons by vawarayer · · Score: 1

    http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html Error codes are meant to be for technical reasons. Who cares WHY the page is not available. It's not available. That's technical & that's all.

  58. 419 would be appropriate by scsirob · · Score: 3, Informative

    As this is a total scam, why would they not assign 419 to it?

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:419 would be appropriate by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      As long as it doesn't affect the scam baiters.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  59. Re:Error codes are meant to be for technical reaso by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    Not entirely. If that were the case, there would be only one 4xx code: 401 NO.

    But in fact there are different codes for permissions, payment, structural changes, etc. It is not that strange that a new outside force gets a new code. Even then, this is an OSI layer 9 or layer 10 (Financial, often erroneously called "Economic") issue.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  60. People don't know they have sinned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would that special code be necessary? I suppose everybody knows when they've committed crimes or being immoral in other ways.

    1. Re:People don't know they have sinned? by jpublic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Some seem's

    2. Re:People don't know they have sinned? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I would like it to be very clear that the above person (3023069) is NOT the Jane Q. Public (1010737) who has been around Slashdot for years. This person has only been posting for about 2 days.

      I do not yet know Slashdot's policy on impersonating other users, but I intend to find out.



      (post 2)

  61. Who is going to remember? by chanio · · Score: 0

    Following Ray Bradbury's great story, there should be people that would remember by hard what the forbidden site was about... :>

    --
    Rwe obliged 2 save our future by choosing:O3 hole-greenhouse effect instead of accepting everydays gossip-nonsense chat?
  62. Gotta LOVE the number! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    451 for government censorship? Ray Bradbury would approve.