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 aheb...@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. > >
