[191408] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lawsuits for falsyfying DNS responses ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (LHC)
Tue Sep 13 11:28:56 2016
X-Original-To: Nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <57D6E8BC.9010404@vaxination.ca>
From: LHC <large.hadron.collider@gmx.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 07:42:04 +0000
To: "Nanog@nanog.org" <Nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I believe that the CRTC has rules against censorship - meaning that Videotr=
on, Bell etcetera have a choice between following the CRTC code or the prov=
incial law (following one =3D sanctions from the other), rendering internet=
service provision to Qu=C3=A9bec impossible without being a dialup provide=
r from out-of-province=2E
The law may even be actually contrary to federal law=2E
On September 12, 2016 10:41:16 AM PDT, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@=
vaxination=2Eca> wrote:
>As many may know, the province of Qu=C3=A9bec has passed a law to protect
>the
>interests of its lottery corporation=2E
>
>To do so, it will provide ISPs with list of web sites to block (aka:
>only allow its own gambing web site)=2E
>
>There is an opportunity to comment this week in which I will submit=2E
>
>(I've gathered many arguments over the past little while already)=2E 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=2Egoogle=2Ecom and ISP's DNS responds wit=
h
>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) Qu=C3=A9bec law=2E
>
>(And it also creates interesting issues for DNS servers from companies
>such as Google which may have a anycast server located in Qu=C3=A9bec but
>are
>not considered an ISP and won't receive those documenst from the gov
>with list of websites to block=2E
--=20
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E
