Lawsuits for falsyfying DNS responses ?
owen at delong.com
Tue Sep 13 21:15:39 UTC 2016
When worded this way in a legal context, I’m pretty sure it is equivalent.
That is “may not” means “is not allowed to”.
> On Sep 13, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Alain Hebert <ahebert at pubnix.net> wrote:
> Well "may" is not "must".
> “260.34. An Internet service provider may not give access to an online
> gambling site whose operation is not authorized under Québec law.
> Alain Hebert ahebert at pubnix.net
> PubNIX Inc.
> 50 boul. St-Charles
> P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
> Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
> On 09/12/16 13:41, 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.
More information about the NANOG