Lawsuits for falsyfying DNS responses ?
jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca
Wed Sep 14 04:14:17 UTC 2016
On 2016-09-13 03:42, LHC wrote:
> I believe that the CRTC has rules against censorship - meaning that Videotron, Bell etcetera have a choice between following the CRTC code or the provincial law (following one = sanctions from the other), rendering internet service provision to Québec impossible without being a dialup provider from out-of-province.
Canada's Telecom Act (*) dates from 1993, which predates the Internet
being a primary transporter that drives the economy.
The clause being looked at by the CRTC is 36:
Content of Messages
36 Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier
shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of
telecommunications carried by it for the public.
There is not explicit clause about a carrier not modyfying content or
blocking access, so one has to frame an issue to fit existing clauses.
(For instance, network neutrality is driven mostly by 27(2)
(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a
telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly
discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any
person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or
The CRTC asked for supporting evidence to allow it to reach a conclusion
that the Québec plan would force ISPs to breach the federal
Because so far, only lawyers have been involved, they have not
understood the implications of forcing ISPs to give false DNS answers
which goes beyond just blocking packets.
(For instance, most ISPs will block packets destined to an external port
25 to reduce spam being emitted by infected customers, but they allow
any/all email to be sent via their own servers. There is an element of
controlling content but was never challenged.
Because Section 36 allows the CRTC to approcve some control of content,
it is important to show that the type of control being requested by the
QC government show never be allowed because it is far worse than just
blocking port 25.
More information about the NANOG