XML creator Tim Bray has proposed a new HTTP error code: 451, “Legally restricted.” The idea is to create an unambiguous code that ISPs can return when a user requests a page that has been censored by a court or government. Note the specific number of the error code. Bray thanks Ray Bradbury in the footnotes.
451 Unavailable For Legal Reasons
This status code indicates that the server is subject to legal restrictions which prevent it servicing the request.
Private Internet legal court system. Legally binding in many countries
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) launches a second round of attacks in an attempt to censor the Internet.
After trying to adopt Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), both pieces of legislation turned out to be a disaster, causing outrage among Internet giants and ordinary users alike. Congress had to retreat. However it’s determined to get what it wants this time.
After the shelving of SOPA and PIPA back in January Reid stated,“There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved.”
As RT reported last month, Senator Reid added that lawmakers will“continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans’ intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the Internet.”
The vote on the anti-piracy legislation was postponed from its January 24date after Wikipedia and other popular websites went dark to protest the draft law.
Now the battle for online freedom continues.
The rebuttal to push Internet-regulating legislation has transformed into a new cybersecurity bill. The particulars of the latest attempt by senators to censor the Internet have not been disclosed to the public.
However some leaks suggest that the bill will grant the authority to crack down on the Internet to the executive branch of power, namely the White House. It looks highly possible taking into consideration that the legislation has to come out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.
The same Lieberman who earlier co-sponsored the so called Kill Switch bill that could allow the president of the United States to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and practically shut down the Internet.
After outrage from Internet advocacy groups, Kill Switch never made it in the Senate. This time it may be back under a new name.
“Hypocrisy from the U.S. Government — having U.S. officials self-righteously impose standards on other countries which they routinely violate — is so common and continuous that the vast majority of examples do not even merit notice. But sometimes, it is so egregious and shameless — and sufficiently consequential — that it should not go unobserved. Such is the case with the speech delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday at a Conference on Internet Freedom held at the Hague, a conference devoted to making “a stand for freedom of expression on the internet, especially on behalf of cyber dissidents and bloggers.” Clinton has been flamboyantly parading around for awhile now as the planet’s leading protector of Internet freedom; yesterday she condemned multiple countries for assaulting this freedom and along the way actually managed to keep a straight face as she said things like this:
follow the link its a good piece from a good writer.
“A bipartisan group of House members introduced legislation Wednesday that would boost the government’s authority to disrupt and shutter websites that hawk or host trademark- and copyright-infringing products, including allowing the government to order sites removed from search engines.”
We will find a way around this. Also isn’t this just government helping out corporations some more
As a friend of mine put it, “
It is interesting that they seem to state pretty early on how this could never happen in the U.S. perhaps just putting to rest early concerns from americans. Though I thought It was only more fringe groups that feared this stuff, like me.
I’m not being a conspiracy theorist, I don’t think they are just saying that to throw people off or what have you. I just really didn’t think they would bring up the idea of a western country doing this in the article. It seems odd for a publication to already be thinking of how this could (if this could) affect us, so soon after it happened in another country. In other countries that when talked about the phrase “that couldn’t happen here,” seems to follow.