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 <aheb...@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 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. >> >>