Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the captain-beatty-approves dept.

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."

24 of 255 comments (clear)

  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 biek · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    4. 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.
  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 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.

    2. 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!

    3. 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.
  3. 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.

    --

    Technoli
    1. 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
    2. Re:Reference to... by davburns · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    3. 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.

  4. 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".

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

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

    --

    //TODO: signature
  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

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

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

  14. 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.
           

    --
    Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants