Re: Lawsuits for falsyfying DNS responses ?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

When worded this way in a legal context, I’m pretty sure it is equivalent.

That is “may not” means “is not allowed to”.

Owen

> On Sep 13, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Alain Hebert <ahebert () 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 () 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.