×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An HTTP Status Code For Censorship?

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the you-can't-get-there-from-here dept.

Censorship 369

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?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

369 comments

No problem (5, Funny)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 2 years ago | (#40270583)

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

Re:No problem (0)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about 2 years ago | (#40270669)

Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking, before I could fully articulate it.

Re:No problem (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40270683)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270745)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270985)

We can only hope the history repeats itself.

666 (5, Funny)

leromarinvit (1462031) | about 2 years ago | (#40270585)

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

Re:666 (5, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40270713)

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

Re:666 (5, Insightful)

FriendlyStatistician (2652203) | about 2 years ago | (#40270861)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271249)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270819)

HTTP 6 - Site Fucked Without Recourse
HTTP 69 - Site Fucked, With Mailed Faeces Acknowledgement

Re:666 (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about 2 years ago | (#40271195)

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 (3, Funny)

leromarinvit (1462031) | about 2 years ago | (#40271255)

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...

So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#40270587)

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 (2)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#40270607)

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 (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40270677)

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 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271019)

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 (4, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | about 2 years ago | (#40270697)

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 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271051)

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

The Used could be redirected to the EFF.org [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 [wikipedia.org], as well as Marshall McCluhan [marshallmcluhan.com]'s official website.

 

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271203)

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

Well yes, but there's no point returning "932 - OUT OF CHEESE ERROR" if there is no agreement over what a return code of 932 actually means. That's sort of what the entire article is about.

Re:So what if there SHOULD be, nobody will use it (5, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#40271037)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271253)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271285)

Slashdot needs a "-1, WTF" moderation option.

It's all in the point of view! (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40270611)

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! (5, Insightful)

Luke727 (547923) | about 2 years ago | (#40270817)

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! (5, Informative)

next_ghost (1868792) | about 2 years ago | (#40270975)

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! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271023)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271033)

in this case the server never received the request but instead the request is being intercepted in the middle so, no, it's not technically accurate.

Re:It's all in the point of view! (1)

flonker (526111) | about 2 years ago | (#40271283)

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.

Easy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270617)

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

Re:Easy (5, Funny)

Narnie (1349029) | about 2 years ago | (#40270777)

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

HTTP 451 (5, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | about 2 years ago | (#40270621)

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

Exactly (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270703)

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 (2)

jc42 (318812) | about 2 years ago | (#40271007)

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:HTTP 451 (4, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#40270709)

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.

That is fucking brilliant; W3 you listening? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271009)

Get this going.

Re:HTTP 451 (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#40271047)

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 (5, Insightful)

xeno (2667) | about 2 years ago | (#40271135)

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.)

I vote for a 6xx range... (2)

St.Creed (853824) | about 2 years ago | (#40270635)

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... (1)

mdenham (747985) | about 2 years ago | (#40270801)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271097)

Technically, neither the client nor the server is responsible for the failure (it's the ISP sniffing packets) so neither 4xx nor 5xx is an appropriate response. Perhaps we do need a 6xx range for errors from unexpected proxies. Which has the advantage of allowing 666 as a censorship error, as suggested elsewhere.

At least some kind of standard 'censored' response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270637)

....would be useful.

Seems correct to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270643)

"The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred."

The user has erred by allowing a copyright cartel to takeover their government.

Besides, doesn't IPv4 already have support [wikipedia.org] for a censorship flag?

Client error (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270649)

The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred.

If 403 - forbidden (you don't have permission to access the resource) is "client error", then so is living in a country where by law you are not allowed to access the site.

Censorship? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270651)

Why not just stop pirating movies and stuff? This is a good thing. People should learn to respect other peaople's right.

Re:Censorship? (2)

tobiah (308208) | about 2 years ago | (#40270771)

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

Re:Censorship? (1, Offtopic)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40270931)

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

Re:Censorship? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271227)

+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.

Stop. (5, Insightful)

mikkelm (1000451) | about 2 years ago | (#40270653)

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. (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#40270791)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270943)

Hence the chilling effect.

Does HTTP allow 3 character numbers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270675)

if so: 1982.

Re:Does HTTP allow 3 character numbers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270939)

if so: 1982.

1984 has 4 characters.

Yes (1)

CloneRanger (122623) | about 2 years ago | (#40270689)

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.

501 Not Implemented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270723)

"The server ... lacks the ability to fulfill the request."

Thailand (4, Interesting)

FRiC (416091) | about 2 years ago | (#40270735)

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.

HTTP 303 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271157)

HTTP 303 - See Other [wikipedia.org], that's what you really want.

I do agree with the rest of /. , though, I think. This probably warrants it's own code, or range, honestly.

My personal vote - HTTP 666 EVIL

China Does It (5, Interesting)

tobiah (308208) | about 2 years ago | (#40270741)

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 (1)

desertfool (21262) | about 2 years ago | (#40270837)

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

They should learn from the greater evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270767)

Do as the Iran government does, when you try to see google reader here they redirect you to the google search when over https and to their own censorship site (http://peyvandha.ir/) when over http.
actually I don't know how they do it, but technically they shouldn't be able to redirect https.

Re:They should learn from the greater evil (1)

amirishere (2651929) | about 2 years ago | (#40270809)

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? (4, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 2 years ago | (#40270811)

In honor of Room 101.

Re:How about using HTTP 101? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271111)

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

Re:How about using HTTP 101? (4, Insightful)

FriendlyStatistician (2652203) | about 2 years ago | (#40271173)

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.

Nigel & The Dropout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40270843)

They cant avoid the dropouts!
http://www.nigelandthedropout.com/promo-bay-only.html

Redirect to a page... (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | about 2 years ago | (#40270917)

..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.

It's the way you did it. (3, Funny)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 2 years ago | (#40270919)

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:It's the way you did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271155)

WE WERE ON A BREAK!

402 Payment Required (1)

kwark (512736) | about 2 years ago | (#40271025)

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

rfc? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271029)

I think this is a genuinely good Ida.

what now, someone raise an RFC as an extension to the HTTP codes RFC?

How are you blocking? (2)

falstaff (96005) | about 2 years ago | (#40271083)

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.

305 Use Proxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271087)

seems appropriate, if not in the sense intended by the RFC.

Use a 5xx code (1)

russotto (537200) | about 2 years ago | (#40271105)

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.

If you know you are censored, it wont work (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about 2 years ago | (#40271117)

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 (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#40271163)

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

451... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271169)

...has my vote.

305 - Use Proxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40271189)

"The requested resource MUST be accessed through the proxy given by the Location field. The Location field gives the URI of the proxy. The recipient is expected to repeat this single request via the proxy."

Poor RIAA & MPAA etc executives! (1)

barvennon (2643433) | about 2 years ago | (#40271207)

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.

Why return a HTTP response at all? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#40271241)

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 (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#40271259)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...