[191454] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lawsuits for falsyfying DNS responses ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Sep 15 16:04:03 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <57D8CE99.1080101@vaxination.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:03:44 -0400
To: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 12:14 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei =
<jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>=20
> 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 =3D sanctions from the other), =
rendering internet service provision to Qu=C3=A9bec impossible without =
being a dialup provider from out-of-province.
>=20
>=20
> Canada's Telecom Act (*) dates from 1993, which predates the Internet
> being a primary transporter that drives the economy.
>=20
> The clause being looked at by the CRTC is 36:
>=20
> Content of Messages
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
Please explain to me how one modifies a request or response without
managing to =E2=80=9Ccontrol the content=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cinfluence =
the meaning or purpose=E2=80=9D?
Blocking a request or simply failing to answer MIGHT be within the law,
but returning a false record certainly seems to me that it would run =
afoul
of the law cited.
Owen
