Jean-Francois,
Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation has specific sections that makes altering
of data illegal under the Act.
In my non-lawyer opinion, sections 10 (5) (b) and (e) would be violated
by hijacking someone preference to go to Website A and replace it with
Website B without their express consent to do so.
Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/E-1.6.pdf
*Section 10 - 5 *
Description of functions
(5) A function referred to in subsection (4) is any of the following
functions that the person who seeks express consent knows and intends
will cause the computer system to operate in a manner that is contrary
to the reasonable expectations of the owner or an authorized user of the
computer system:
(a) collecting personal information stored on the computer system;
*(b) interfering with the owner’s or an authorized user’s control of the
computer system; *
(c) changing or interfering with settings, preferences or commands
already installed or stored on the computer system without the knowledge
of the owner or an authorized user of the computer system;
(d) changing or interfering with data that is stored on the computer
system in a manner that obstructs, interrupts or interferes with lawful
access to or use of that data by the owner or an authorized user of the
computer system;
*(e) causing the computer system to communicate with another computer
system, or other device, without the authorization of the owner or an
authorized user of the computer system; *
(f) installing a computer program that may be activated by a third party
without the knowledge of the owner or an authorized user of the computer
system; and
(g) performing any other function specified in the regulations.
It might be interesting to bring this to their attention, or the
attention of your own lawyers for comment.
Cheers,
~
Matt
On 12/09/2016 1:41 PM, 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.
