Lawsuits for falsyfying DNS responses ?

Tue Sep 13 14:44:15 UTC 2016

Jean-Francois,

Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation has specific sections that makes altering 
of data illegal under the Act.

In my non-lawyer opinion, sections 10 (5) (b) and (e) would be violated 
by hijacking someone preference to go to Website A and replace it with 
Website B without their express consent to do so.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/E-1.6.pdf

*Section 10 - 5 *

Description of functions

(5) A function referred to in subsection (4) is any of the following 
functions that the person who seeks express consent knows and intends 
will cause the computer system to operate in a manner that is contrary 
to the reasonable expectations of the owner or an authorized user of the 
computer system:

(a) collecting personal information stored on the computer system;

*(b) interfering with the owner’s or an authorized user’s control of the 
computer system; *

(c) changing or interfering with settings, preferences or commands 
already installed or stored on the computer system without the knowledge 
of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;

(d) changing or interfering with data that is stored on the computer 
system in a manner that obstructs, interrupts or interferes with lawful 
access to or use of that data by the owner or an authorized user of the 
computer system;

*(e) causing the computer system to communicate with another computer 
system, or other device, without the authorization of the owner or an 
authorized user of the computer system; *

(f) installing a computer program that may be activated by a third party 
without the knowledge of the owner or an authorized user of the computer 
system; and

(g) performing any other function specified in the regulations.

It might be interesting to bring this to their attention, or the 
attention of your own lawyers for comment.

Cheers,

~

Matt

On 12/09/2016 1:41 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> As many may know, the province of Québec has passed a law to protect the
> interests of its lottery corporation.
>
> To do so, it will provide ISPs with list of web sites to block (aka:
> only allow its own gambing web site).
>
> There is an opportunity to comment this week in which I will submit.
>
> (I've gathered many arguments over the past little while already). But
> have a specific question today:
>
> Are there examples of an ISP getting sued because it redirected traffic
> that should have gone to original site ?
>
> For instance, user asks for www.google.com and ISP's DNS responds with
> an IP that points to a bing server?
>
> If the risk of a lawsuit is real, then it brings new dimension to
> arguments already made agains that (stupiod) Québec law.
>
> (And it also creates interesting issues for DNS servers from companies
> such as Google which may have a anycast server located in Québec but are
> not considered an ISP and won't receive those documenst from the gov
> with list of websites to block.
>