State of Kentucky Seizes Control of 141 Domain Names

ashmodai9 writes "In a rather interesting (read: insane) decision, a district judge in the State of Kentucky has awarded control of 141 online gambling domain names to the governor of the state. Most of these are hosted offshore, and very few are registered under US domain name registrars, let alone registrars in the State of Kentucky (are there any?). You can check out the press release here, and confirm that the Commonwealth of Kentucky does in fact now 'own' these domain names by performing a WHOIS search on any of the domains listed here."

Comments

A few of these morons and

[unity100]

ICANN will be handed over to U.N., resulting in whole lot of mess.

Re:A few of these morons and

[paradxum]

This is EXACTLY why we (the US) should not control this resource. I love living in the US, and think it is a great country (yes, we make mistakes... but other countries do too.) But I don't think any 1 country should control this resource for exactly reasons like this.

Re:A few of these morons and

[Anonymous Coward]

They operated an illegal buisness in the US. These laws have been on the books since at least the early 70s. The consequences of operating an illegal enterprise is the misfortune that occurs when it's brought in contact with the law. Don't like it? Force your US customers to use proxies and foreign banks to gamble. If you must have a site visible to Americans, it's simple, redirect them to a ad supported not for pay site. The ads can even be for things of interest to them, foreign proxies and banks abroad. Handing the organizational oversite to the UN does nothing without a treaty between the US and UN that gives the UN specific authority over the DNS system in Amercia. Guess what will never happen?

But for the sake of argument, "What happens if ICANN gets policy made at the UN?" Judge issues orders compelling whoever owns the most authoritative DNS servers in the US to change the entries. I'm totally fine with DNS breaking. I can't tell you how much I won't miss the rest of the world. BBC, Economist, and a few others accepted. Oh wait, they'll have a plethora of sites serving everyone in such a dystopian eventuality.

I don't hear anyone whining for the small businessmen trying to get by selling heroin in Turkey.

Re:A few of these morons and

[ottothecow]

Sarah Palin

Alaskan politicians are good at understanding the internet

Re:A few of these morons and

[kaosfury]

From reading the articles available, not all of the domains were American businesses. If it is not in America, what right do we have to tell them to stop? Is it really their responsibility to block access from their website to us? How would they accomplish such a miraculous feat?

Re:A few of these morons and

[SQLGuru]

Al Gore should control it, after all, he invented it.

Layne

Re:A few of these morons and

[Repossessed]

I'm hesitant to hand these things over to the international community, the US is far from perfect, but there are precious few countries with limits on government seizure and protection of free speech (hell, as far as I know, we're the only ones with the later).

On the other hand, if the courts are going to keep up with BS like this, maybe we can give someone else a shot.

Re:A few of these morons and

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Sarah Palin

Al Gore invented The Internet

The same internet that's a "series of tubes" to Ted Stevens.

And the "series of tubes" guy Stevens is also the "bridge to nowhere" guy.

And the "bridge to nowhere" was supported, then disclamed, by Palin.

Full circle. OMFG! It's a cabal trying to control the world!

Re:A few of these morons and

[Amouth]

if i offer up a service.. that i run(serve) where i am and is legal for me to do.. and you want to partake in it.. but it happens to be illegal to do where you are..

why should i be punished if you do it? i mean really? think about it..

Re:A few of these morons and

[operagost]

I imagine having the UN "run" ICANN would be messy. If this had been done a few years ago when the Europeans were crying for it, Kojo Annan would probably have control of Google.com and Yahoo.com.

Re:A few of these morons and

[unity100]

kopi annan.

Re:A few of these morons and

[k1e0x]

So wait.. you don't want the smaller group of elected bureaucrats in the United States to run it.. you want the larger un-elected group of bureaucrats at the U.N. to do it?

Bureaucrats will play bureaucratic games with this.. they will make it political and use that political leverage such as was done in this case to outlaw something someone felt was wrong.. I think instead I think this can be done by a private or non-profit and most importantly non-political standards body of some sort with much better result.

(Actually upon checking I found that ICANN *is* non-profit private entity now.. so we just need to keep the government off their toes.)

Re:A few of these morons and

[Kagura]

... was supported, then disclamed, by Palin.

The word you're looking for is "declammed", a common issue with building bridges between the Alaskan isles.

http://blog.sellsiusrealestate.com/wp-content/clam2.png -- Picture related, it's a bunch of clams (from an Alaskan highway project).

Re:A few of these morons and

[IIH]

Or what about if I post on an Iran website that I hate Islam that that's against their laws. Do they get to come over here and arrest me? Get real, your logic sucks.

If the "they" is the US, then yes. Do something on a US web/site that's against their laws and they come over and arrest you, even if you've not ever been in their country. Check Gary McKinnon for one recent example. The logic may suck, but real life sucks worse. The more fundamental question is, where should the line be drawn? Without a "great firewall of X" acting like customs, there's no way of stopping information crossing boundary's. If something posted by a citizen by county A is uploaded by an ISP of country B, to a server located in country C, which is owned by someone in country D, breaks a law in country E, what exactly should happen?

Re:A few of these morons and

[Wowlapalooza]

"Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet", debunked (among other places) here: http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm (dated) and http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

(Burning my karma once again, folks don't seem to like to see "popular" falsehoods debunked).

Re:A few of these morons and

[ScrewMaster]

Why do people automatically assume the UN will fuck it up, when the UN has operated the international phone network competently for decades? Is it just this weird anti-UN propaganda that the people in the USA are subjected to?

The U.N. doesn't "operate" squat. They have oversight over the international standards body that specifies how the various national phone systems interact. That's about it.

The two situations are not comparable: it's hard to subvert a phone system the way DNS can be subverted. Phones either work ... or they don't. There's no reason for the U.N. to have any real involvement in international telephony. The Domain Name System is an entirely different kettle of fish, and I'd say the probability of U.N. members screwing it up for some perceived political advantage approaches unity.

Furthermore, what I don't understand is why some Americans are so eager to hand over control of what has become critical infrastructure for us (and, I might most of the rest of the industrialized world including our allies) to a fundamentally corrupt organization like the United Nations.

DNS works, it works pretty well, and I've yet to find an overriding reason to change that, in spite of ICANN's essential incompetence. Better a group of fumblers running the show, than someone with the will and the ability to do real damage. Remember, the reason we're even discussing this is because control of DNS is power, power on a global scale. A lot of people want it, a lot of people will abuse it ... and we'd ALL best acknowledge that fact. The only reason I've heard to date for the U.S. ceding authority over the root servers is that it's "unfair" that we have it. My attitude is ... tough cookies. Life isn't fair, and frankly, I don't trust most of the rest of the world to do a better job than we have so far. Neither should you.

I see no reason to take the chance (and it would be a hell of a risk) to let any multinational organization take over the root servers. The only reason that China, Russia, Libya and other similarly-inclined entities haven't been able to bend DNS to their will is because we won't let them. Sure, they can fuck with the system within their borders all they want, but they can't screw with anyone else. Consequently, I think it would be a serious mistake to do anything precipitate: if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Obviously, stupid judges are a problem. A better, less dangerous approach would simply be to limit what the judiciary can do regarding domain name transfers to those domains registered to U.S. citizens. Congress would have to do that, I suppose, but that's what it might take. That's what treaties and diplomats are for.

Or is it this weird anti-US propaganda that people in other countries are subjected to?

Re:A few of these morons and

[SL Baur]

Why do people automatically assume the UN will fuck it up, when the UN has operated the international phone network competently for decades? Is it just this weird anti-UN propaganda that the people in the USA are subjected to?

The U.N. doesn't "operate" squat. They have oversight over the international standards body that specifies how the various national phone systems interact. That's about it.

My answer to the AC is, how many international phone calls do you make per day? The system is very screwed up. Disconnects, bad connections, wrong numbers are very very common.

Your answer is probably correct, but now who do I blame?

Re:A few of these morons and

[rastos1]

to a fundamentally corrupt organization like the United Nations.

Hold on. Just to make sure I understand: You say that the system should not be moved

• from entity that screwed up - hint: TFA
• to entity where multiple countries have equal chance to push their agenda. You know all this plurality thing ..

?

I don't say that UN never screwed up. They did. Sometimes by bending over to US. But considering the current state of affairs in US, it is hypercritical of US to call anybody corrupt.

Re:A few of these morons and

[mr_gorkajuice]

Or is it this weird anti-US propaganda that people in other countries are subjected to?

Yeah, sorta. But then again, how is that much different from:

[...] frankly, I don't trust most of the rest of the world to do a better job than we have

Except, of course, that when something like this happens, we actually can say "Look, you messed it up!". You don't have that luxury (yet?)

Re:A few of these morons and

[delt0r]

Its really not all that bad. What we need is say, a local name space for each county. Then if that country wants xxx.$COUNTRYCODE they can. Oh wait a minute we already have that!

Here in Austria most people will use some *.at address and if not then *.de etc. What country the Website is in matters. The only problem is not so much the top level domains but the perhaps less than ideal distribution of root servers. As I understand they are somewhat distributed, but are still very dependent on a root-root server rather than a true distributed system.

However as I live in Vienna I can say that moving the control over to the UN will not improve matters at all.

Re:A few of these morons and

[Elldallan]

Exactly how does it benefit the rest of the world that the bureaucrats is from the United States instead of the United Nations? Sure it obviously benefits the United States but why should the rest of the world give a damn about that?
The rest of the world actually has more to say about who gets a post in the United Nations than in the United States which ofcourse is right since the rest of the world should not have any say in the internal workings of another government.

But do not try to make it sound as if the world is better off with a bunch of bureaucrats from the United States than a different bunch of bureaucrats from the United Nations. A private or non-profit organisation suffers from the same problem, they have to be based somewhere and will thus fall under the sole jurisdiction of one particular country.

Re:A few of these morons and

[ScrewMaster]

Sorry if this sounds like trolling, but I'm really fed up with this Yankee attitude that the only just and right country in the world is yours.

Sorry if I just sound irritated, but I'm damned tired of people that take my worlds and fucking generalize them beyond any reasonable stretch.

Stick to the point.

Re:A few of these morons and

[ScrewMaster]

Where's the evidence that the UN is 'fundamentally corrupt'? You made the statement, so the onus is on you to back it up with facts.

Nonsense. I'm under no onus whatsoever. Besides, a minute or two with Google is sufficient to show anyone plenty of "evidence". The way the U.N. handled the Iraq oil-for-food program was stellar, by the way.

Furthermore, the reality is that any large group of people drawn from all walks of life with the express purpose of creating laws and acquiring power and influence will be corrupt. It's human nature ... take a look at the United States Congress for a good example. Everyone thinks that significant corruption has existed there only in recent times, but in fact it goes back to the very early days.

People suck, and nothing will ever change that. I see no reason to believe that a multinational organization given oversight of the root servers won't run it badly. Are you trusting enough to think that the likes of China and Russia wouldn't use DNS to serve their own needs at the expense of everyone else? Would you like the Russian Business Network to have access to the roots? No? Then think this through very carefully.

The U.S. Federal Government has maintained a largely hands-off policy towards DNS, which is why so many countries hopped on the World Wide Web bandwagon in the first place. Now, if that's not something acceptable to your country, build an alternate Domain Name System that suits your purposes. The technology is readily available. What? You want to U.S. to keep paying for it, but you want to have everybody else run it? Oh, you want to be able to keep having reliable domain-based communication with the rest of the planet now that you've put all your economic eggs in the Internet basket? Really. Well, maybe you shouldn't have been so trusting, but you know what? That's not our problem. It's yours.

In any case, my original argument stands: in spite of your insulting rhetoric (and here's a hearty "fuck you too, arsehole".) You still haven't provided a good reason for the U.S. to cede authority over the root servers to anyone, much less the U.N., other than the aforementioned misguided sense of "fairness" which is easily discounted as irrelevant.

Remember this ... we built the root servers, we own them (well, a U.S. corporation does), we allow everyone in the world to use them, and now you want to take them away from us. You're the one who wants something for nothing, wishes to take that which is not yours! Yet you accuse us of having a sense of entitlement. Buddy, you are some hypocrite, let me tell you. Not sure why I wasted the time typing this.

Another absolutely classic case of sour grapes. Grow up, and if you are really so bothered about this build out your own system and shut the fuck up.

Re:A few of these morons and

[ODiV]

"Wowlapalooza claims to understand jokes", debunked here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=976031&cid=25158853

Re:A few of these morons and

[odourpreventer]

Don't forget that McCain invented the Blackberry.

Re:A few of these morons and

[shoemilk]

Not sure why I wasted the time typing this.

Because it was a fun read :)

Re:A few of these morons and

[k1e0x]

No, I don't want bureaucrats at all to control it, not at all. Politicizing it is the wrong thing to do.

However it would be slightly worse if those bureaucrats controlling it are unelected though don't you think?

Re:A few of these morons and

[rtb61]

The whole idea of a central control for global domain names is just plain stupid. All you do is set up a treaty, which governs a uniform method of mirroring domain names to IP addresses across international boundaries, not that it controls domain names, just to that it controls IP address usage. As for domain names each country sets up it's independent registrar and selectively mirrors or puts in own domain data base entries in ie. good example, for .gov addresses they always point locally and if you want the US from outside the US you use .gov.us rather than the bullshit world government insanity of the current US administration '.gov' pointing to the the US.

Of course the real beauty of this system, is you the individual user can decide which domain data name addressing database you wish to use (default ISp configurations would point to the local where the country is of sufficient technological competence to create a domain name address registrar) and governments around the world can generate lot's of additional income by re-auctioning of the core .com and .net all over again.

Re:A few of these morons and

[Raenex]

(Burning my karma once again, folks don't seem to like to see "popular" falsehoods debunked).

Oh bullshit. I've seen this "debunked" and debated nearly every time this gets mentioned in a thread, and it's nearly always modded up. Acting like some kind of martyr with your karma is a cheap Slashdot trick to get modded up.

Re:A few of these morons and

[Wowlapalooza]

Maybe it is, but I'm not the type to try and "scam" karma by using trickery. Honestly, I thought the correction was just as likely to be modded down as Flamebait, but I appreciate the fact that someone considered it Informative.

Re:A few of these morons and

[Raenex]

Maybe it is, but I'm not the type to try and "scam" karma by using trickery. [...] but I appreciate the fact that someone considered it Informative.

I suspect most people game the system without even thinking about it, in the same way they might call somebody with an opposing view a troll. The point is that moderators often respond to special pleading about karma, so your Informative is tainted, even if that wasn't your conscious intention.

Chicken

[77Punker]

What I'd really like to gain control of are those 11 secret herbs and spices.

Re:Chicken

[sabre3999]

And now for the ever present movie reference...

Move over Colonel, here comes the General!

Re:Chicken

[snowraver1]

1. flour
2. lard
3. fat
4. oil
5. grease
7. deep fryer crud
8. salt
9. bread crumbs
10. MSG
11. aritificial flavouring.

Don't tell anyone!

Re:Chicken

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

You left out the beaks and claws.

Re:Chicken

[Nursie]

Chicken, grease, salt!

Re:Chicken

[josh61980]

Kentucky Fried Chicken Spice
1 tablespoon rosemary
1 tablespoon oregano leaves
1 tablespoon powdered sage
1 teaspoon powdered ginger
1 teaspoon marjoram
1 1/2 teaspoons thyme
3 tablespoons packed brown sugar
3 tablespoons dry minced parsley
1 teaspoon pepper
1 tablespoon paprika
2 tablespoons garlic salt
2 tablespoons onion salt
2 tablespoons chicken bouillon powder (or 4 cubes, mashed)
1 package Lipton tomato Cup-a-Soup mix

Place all ingredients in blender and pulse for 3-4 minutes to pulverize, or rub through a fine strainer. Store in an airtight container so the spices will not lose their potency. Makes about 3/4 cup.

Add 1 ounce mix to every one cup of flour for coating chicken. http://www.razzledazzlerecipes.com/eatingout/eating_k/kentucky-fried-chicken-spice.htm

Enjoy.

Re:Chicken

[beacher]

And the secret to their state jelly! It's kind of bland but the tube makes it so easy to spread on the bread!

Re:Chicken

[Captain Spam]

Careful! You might get yelled at or shot for calling it a "state"! :-)

In the year I've lived here, it's as if I've heard the term "Commonwealth" (generally preceded by "our great") more often than I've heard the term "State" in the rest of my life. Someone please rescue me.

Re:Chicken

[Bryansix]

They don't even have beaks and claws. Didn't you hear? They genetically mutated the chickens to get rid of them.

Re:Chicken

[Icarium]

That would be the number 6 he left out...

Re:Chicken

[elrous0]

Are Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia supposed to think their shit doesn't stink too?

Re:Chicken

[Gewalt]

I don't know what the first 10 are, but 11 is soylent green.

Re:Chicken

[zippthorne]

Base-2 fool. Chicken, fat, salt.

Re:Chicken

[Hal_Porter]

We can see number 6 here. Are you in Kentucky?

Re:Chicken

[NeuroManson]

You forgot the most important part: Eraserhead Chicken. They're man made and they're new!

Re:Chicken

[turtledawn]

Have you ever BEEN to Virginia? Hell yeah they think their shit doesn't stink...

Re:Chicken

[eln]

I've actually made "cloned" recipes from that site, and most of them are...not exact, to say the least. They're from people who tried to make something that tasted like the original dish, not the actual authentic recipes for the dishes in question.

Besides, if anyone ever posted the authentic recipe, the KFC mafia would find them and smother them to death in beakless, clawless chickens with enormous breasts. Everyone knows that.

Re:Chicken

[bluefoxlucid]

Live, conscious chickens are mutilated without any regard for their health.

"Mechanically separated" is the term. They're shoved through a machine that starts tearing them to pieces, basically. Then they're dead. What regard for their health could you possibly have?!

Re:Chicken

[DaFallus]

1. Chicken
2. Grease
3. Salt

Re:Chicken

[pleappleappleap]

Soylent Green is people!!!

Re:Chicken

[StikyPad]

beakless, clawless ... with enormous breasts.

Funny, that's exactly how I like my women.

Re:Chicken

[maxume]

He is claiming that their beaks are clipped off well before they are slaughtered. I guess he thinks they hand feed them or something.

Re:Chicken

[Dahamma]

Mmmm. I knew there was a reason I crrrave it fortnightly!

Re:Chicken

[Bryansix]

I was a joke. I know it is FUD.

Re:Chicken

[bryce4president]

I'm guessing you eat a lot of Tofu, drink soy milk, and donate regularly to PETA?

Re:Chicken

[mapmaker]

FYI: I've found that Astroglide makes a much easier-to-swallow sandwich.

Re:Chicken

[nawcom]

You forgot the most important part: Eraserhead Chicken. They're man made and they're new!

bah! you have no respect for such an amazing movie. if you want to quote it, you have to quote the entire scene:

Mr. X: I thought I heard a stranger. We've got chicken tonight. Strangest damn things. They're man made. Little damn things. Smaller than my fist. But they're new. Hi, I'm Bill.
Henry Spencer: Hello there. I'm Henry.
Mrs. X: Henry works at LaPelle's Factory.
Mr. X: Oh. Printing's your business? Plumbing's mine. For 30 years now. I've watched this neighborhood change from pastures to the hell-hole it is now!
Mary X: Dad!
Mrs. X: Bill!
Mr. X: I put every damn pipe in this neighborhood. People think that pipes grow in their homes. But they sure as hell don't! Look at my knees! Look at my knees!

Re:Chicken

[bluefoxlucid]

Oh. That's just dumb.

Re:Chicken

[stimpleton]

"...smother them to death in beakless, clawless chickens with enormous breasts."

Keep going....I am nearly there...

Re:Chicken

[RealGrouchy]

I like to use empty honey containers (the squeezy kind with the yellow lids, on the left in this photo) for my jams (also for maple syrup).

The narrow tip makes for convenient knife-free spreading, and the lid comes off for relatively easy refilling. (Tip: the width of the mouth is just wider than a standard plastic cola bottle mouth, so just cut off the top of a cola bottle for a refill funnel)

Un(?)fortunately, I stopped buying grocery-store honey in favour of refilling the containers with bulk honey or buying jars of honey directly from local producers, which makes it harder to have extra of these containers to reuse.

- RG>

Re:Chicken

[Requiem18th]

They do it foy egg laying chickens so it wouldn't supriseme if they did it for meat chickens.

Enjoy u insensitive clod: http://www.hsus.org/farm/multimedia/gallery/layers/debeaking.html

Re:Chicken

[cayenne8]

Regardless.....

I say fuck KFC....I'd rather have Popeye's Spicy chicken. It actually has great flavor, goes great with Mardi Gras, and their red beans are the bomb!!

Re:Chicken

[ArsonSmith]

Actually clipping beaks on food chickens would be a ridiculous waist of time. There is both no reason to and the care for the chickens isn't even that much. They are kept in very large, over crowded pens and food is dropped in on top of them until they reach slaughter weight. It would be more than cost prohibitive to individually go to each chicken and clip anything. They are just pushed to the slaughter house and inspected any that don't make it get tossed into the nuggets bucket.

Laying chickens on the other hand are clipped for their own safety. Otherwise they are kept in much more comfortable situations, feed well and attempted to be kept happy. The less stress on the hen the better and more productive they are.

Re:Chicken

[operagost]

Your post reads like a boring leftist's car bumper. By the way, it's 2008, and Kentucky has had many non-whites in prestigious positions in government and business. It's notable that they were neutral in the Civil War, if you're really interested in history.

Re:Chicken

[Arterion]

This sort of "mutilation without regard for their health" happens to prey animals in the wild every day, far from the intervention of humankind.

Who knew?!

We, as humans, are still evil and horrible for doing it. Yet we need to protect the endangered lions and tigers and bears so they can continue on with their mutilations of prey animals, I suppose.

That would be the typical PETA stance on the issue, wouldn't it?

As for your comment to racism: black folks and white folks are, for the most part (in the USA), culturally different. Any animosity between the cultures (not races) is due almost exclusively to those differences. It just so happens that it's easy to correlate race with culture, and that's by skin color.

It's all about actions, not skin color. When you try to pass cultural friction off as being about skin color, you're really missing the whole point of why it exists, and thus you'll never make any progress toward positive change.

In other words, if every black person in the world woke up with milky white skin, the problem would NOT go away. You would still have a huge cultural divide to reconcile.

There IS such a thing as true racism, where some people hate other people because of their race, or the color of their skin, but it is very, very rare. For most people, "racism" is just the subconscious correlation of skin color and culture.

If you don't know how to tell the difference, you might try a test: "Do you know any decent, likable black/white people?" If the answer is yes, then that person isn't really racist, because race isn't the ultimate determining factor in how they feel about a person. Likely, the persons they have identified as liking from that particular race have qualities (NOT skin color) that seem more palatable.

Re:Chicken

[NeuroManson]

Actually it was a paraphrase from MST3K, I don't think they had the space to quote an entire scene from a David Lynch movie.

Re:Chicken

[vistic]

I think you didn't realize the parent post was about K-Y lube and not about some delicious fruity jam.

Re:Chicken

[RealGrouchy]

Oh, fuck, how embarassing! Thanks for pointing it out.

If I had realized that, I would have instead told of how I use peanut butter jars for K-Y lube!

- RG>

Re:Chicken

[turtledawn]

I suppose being crowded six hens to a 2 foot square cage in a barely lit warehouse with almost no ventilation and a slanted mesh floor, stacked six layers deep for five months, is slightly better than being in a crowd of 10,000 in 8000 square feet for the whole six weeks of your life. Maybe.

Re:Chicken

[Allnighterking]

Oh. ... you said you wanted to cluck... ouch... Ma bad.

Re:Chicken

[iq in binary]

Aside from the fact that the pictures shown on that site aren't even in the US, about half of those fowl were cocks.

Meaning that the entire premise of the OBVIOUS and BLATANT bias of that organization was completely rendered retarded by the fact that they weren't even showing egg-hens.

No they don't de-beak egg laying hens, they need to eat. They cannot eat without their beaks unless they are tube fed like foi-gras ducks. Way too much money to have every hen surgically altered with a tube feeding system to keep them alive. Foi-Gras makes $3,500 to a pound, eggs make much less.

Long story short, you're an uneducated liberal that's never worked a hard day in his/her life. Learn to suck a dick or sweep a floor, only thing you'll ever be good at until you get a clue.

Re:Chicken

[turtledawn]

Honestly, is that the best you can come up with Mr. Coward? I do actually eat plenty of eggs, I just buy them from a local farmer who pastures his chickens- and my favorite charity, to which I have set up an automated monthly donation, is Heifer International. So you see, I am putting my money where my mouth is, supporting my local community, AND helping the less fortunate. Awareness of suffering, both human and animal, is the first step to alleviating that suffering. The battery farms maintain the security of their income through the obscurity of their practices, something I thought a Slashdotter would reject.

Re:Chicken

[maxume]

I don't remember exactly where, but I read somewhere or another that Kentucky had some significant multiple more people fighting for the Union than it did for the Confederacy. I wish I could find the reference, and the multiple.

Well...

[aztracker1]

window.location.replace('http://pwned.ky.us/');

Re:Well...

[aztracker1]

I just think it's funny that Kentucky is ky.us (K-Y us)... How appropriate.

Interestin'....

[UncleTogie]

Cue the lawsuits in 3....2...1...

Is there ANY legal precedent for this, or does the KY AG just brain-fart regularly?

Re:Interestin'....

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

I'm sure Kentucky would love to have the operators of these sites come into Kentucky to attend the trial. It would make it very easy for Kentucky to arrest them for violation of the laws prohibiting gambling ("Beshear said Kentucky loses tens of million of dollars a year to online gambling, which is illegal in all 50 states." and "Sections of KRS Chapter 528 specifically mandate the forfeiture of any gambling devices, such as domain names and websites for Internet gambling, and make it illegal to conduct, promote, advertise, own, profit from or conspire to profit from an illegal gambling operation." from the press release.)

Rule of 3

[Zerth]

Live in one country, host in a second, DNS in a third. Preferably non-contiguous ones that don't share languages.

Re:Rule of 3

[mazarin5]

Do business in a fourth?

Re:Rule of 3

[Pollardito]

I think what you meant to say is "Buy three houses in different countries, buy hosting in all three countries, have three different domain names under three different DNS registrars in different countries"

The only thing less stable than being subject to the whims of the lawmakers in one country is being subject to the whims of lawmakers in three separate countries. Safety is having multiple providers for the same services, not having each of three different services under a different provider.

Re:Rule of 3

[Zerth]

Nope! I'd consider it important not to overlap, because the judge/government might go after your other assets, even if unrelated. I'd only have all 3 in each country if the ownership was completely distinct and undiscoverable.

On the other hand, if you can afford 3 of everything, I'd spread it over 9 countries.

Thanks!

[Thelasko]

[sarcasm] for posting a link to gambling911 in the article. Not like anyone reads Slashdot at work or anything. [/sarcasm]

Re:Thanks!

[WorldInChaos]

Blocked here too... If anyone knows a different place, well then...

Re:Thanks!

[jep77]

A quick search on news.google.com yields: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-kentucky-tries-to-seize-gambling-site-domain-names.html

Re:Thanks!

[Bob The Cowboy]

Not to flame you or anything but....

Why did you click on it? If you're browsing at work, the responsibility falls on you to monitor your own browsing. The web will not censor itself just because you're at work.

Bill

Re:Thanks!

[Thelasko]

Why did you click on it?

I rolled over the link to see what it was. My finger must have twitched or something (too much coffee?). There was an interesting moment of panic once I realized what I had done.

Slashdot is usually a little more responsible than that.

Re:Thanks!

[Tet]

Slashdot is usually a little more responsible than that.

Yeesh. Linking to an article on a gambling web site that is completely relevant to the story, and you call that irresponsible? Land of the free, eh? No wonder America is in such a bad state right now...

Disclaimer: My income is 100% dependent on online gambling, so I have strong views on this. But I might have more sympathy if the US anti-gambling laws were genuinely for moral reasons, rather than just protectionism. I'd still disagree with them, but that's another matter...

Re:Thanks!

[Thelasko]

Yeesh. Linking to an article on a gambling web site that is completely relevant to the story, and you call that irresponsible?

It's not my fault I'm behind a Websense gateway. Many people that read Slashdot are. The OP is irresponsible, or perhaps a better word is inconsiderate, for not keeping that in mind.

Re:Thanks!

[Tet]

FWIW, it would never have occurred to me that a news story might be blocked by a gateway. Had I been submitting the story to Slashdot, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Different cultures have different moral values, and in mine, gambling is simply not on the scale of things that people might object to. If that makes me irresponsible or inconsiderate in your eyes, so be it.

Re:Thanks!

[Raenex]

It's not my fault I'm behind a Websense gateway. Many people that read Slashdot are. The OP is irresponsible, or perhaps a better word is inconsiderate, for not keeping that in mind.

What the fuck, why should the original poster care that you are filtered by Websense? How is that his responsibility? As somebody who is not afraid to click on that link, why should I be denied information because of your puritanical fear?

Confirm?

[jonnythan]

I WHOIS'ed about a dozen of these domain names, and not a single one showed up as having anything to do with Kentucky.

How would the State of Kentucky "seize" a domain name registered in the Isle of Man anyway?

Re:Confirm?

[halcyon1234]

How would the State of Kentucky "seize" a domain name registered in the Isle of Man anyway?

Simple. The judge says "I'm teh reel ultimate powerz and my gavel sez I PWN TEHSE NAMES ON THE TUBES!" And since he ordered it, it must obviously happen.

Next up, Judge Orders Construction of Perpetual Motion Machine.

Re:Confirm?

[Lord Apathy]

Same here. I checked about a dozen random ones and none showed up owned by Kentucky.

Re:Confirm?

[ashmodai9]

Domain Name: GOLDENCASINO.COM

Registrant:
        Commonwealth of Kentucky
        Michael Brown (secretaryofjustice@ky.gov)
        125 Holmes Street
        Frankfort
        Kentucky,40601
        US
        Tel. +1.8592557080

Creation Date: 27-Oct-1997
Expiration Date: 19-Nov-2010

Many of them appear to be changed to me. Some from the list aren't, but a lot of them are.

Re:Confirm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps some of the registrars complied and some did not. I'd guess that the ones that did are likely in the US and the ones that didn't are elsewhere.

Certainly while a US judge can order something as much as he or she wants, it's up to the person getting the order as to whether they comply or not. If I recieved an order from a US judge (I'm in Canada) I'd pretty much do nothing (other than shooting an email to any lawyers I knew) until I got something through local law enforcement - which is the usual policy for serving warrants or orders from the USA in Canada.(ot

Re:Confirm?

[Cow Jones]

Domain Name: GOLDENCASINO.COM

Registrant:
        Commonwealth of Kentucky
        Michael Brown (secretaryofjustice@ky.gov)

I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch our mothers from his neon claws!

...

Re:Confirm?

[Bryansix]

Quick everybody call that number!

Re:Confirm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up, Judge Orders Construction of Perpetual Motion Machine.

Easy, just make a wheel where the relationship between the circumference and diameter is exactly 3.

Re:Confirm?

[The Cisco Kid]

Interestingly enough, the DNS for GOLDENCASINO.COM is still live, and it still appears to serve the casino's website.

Perhaps the Kentucky secretary of justice doesn't quite understand how DNS works. ;)

Re:Confirm?

[Bobfrankly1]

Registrant:
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Michael Brown (secretaryofjustice@ky.gov)

Wow, how do I get an @ky.org e-mail address? Hopefully it's a slick and water-soluble process!

Re:Confirm?

[Hal_Porter]

90% of the Isle of Man would starve if KFC closed.

Re:Confirm?

[NotPeteMcCabe]

I read somewhere that a hundred or so years ago, the Indiana state legislature passed a law dictating that the value of pi was 4. Not even 3, for god's sake. I never found out if this story was apocryphal or not, because when I read it I hadn't learned what apocryphal meant.

Re:Confirm?

[AioKits]

How would the State of Kentucky "seize" a domain name registered in the Isle of Man anyway?

By sending TWO men to the Isle of Man! Probably to bully and threaten him.

Re:Confirm?

[Dog-Cow]

It's just as likely that you don't have a clue either. Any idea what "cache" means?

Re:Confirm?

[Rival]

Actually, for a hexagonal wheel, that would be correct.

Re:Confirm?

[dysmey]

Actually, it did happen back in 1897, when the General Assembly (Indiana's legislature) was hoodwinked into almost passing a bill mandating that pi be by law 3.2. The bill was dropped after the Assembly consulted a mathematician at Purdue.

The Indiana Pi Bill

Nonetheless, Hoosiers do not think well of Kentuckians; they are an unending fountain of Kentucky jokes, and this issue will certainly keep the well flowing.

Re:Confirm?

[Brewskibrew]

Wouldn't "I'm in yr DNS, takin yr domains" or "all your gambling are belong to me" be more appropriate?

Re:Confirm?

[characterZer0]

He's right. Check the DNS server listed in the whois.

Re:Confirm?

[WillAdams]

Actually, if you actually do the math, or build a physical example, the dimensions for this (from the Bible) do work out --- the difference is in the addition of the thickness of the physical vessel.

William

Re:Confirm?

[ahodgson]

He sends a court order to Verisign, which controls all .com names, is an American company, and obeys US court orders without question.

Rule #1 - don't use .com, .net or .org if you aren't an American company.

Re:Confirm?

[ahodgson]

The just send it to Verisign who transfers it unilaterally. Nothing the registrar can do.

Re:Confirm?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Furthermore, it's a modern conceit to think poetic speech is somehow required to say "3.14" instead of "3".

3 is plenty good when just talking and rounding. It is the proper integer to round pi to, after all.

Moreover, although strained, when you consider "3" is acceptable for rounding from values from 3.499 to 2.500, the description of 3x the diameter most certainly falls within this range.

I.e. the math works out, and it's a fraud to claim this somehow "disproves" the accuracy of the Bible.

Because God knows there's plenty of other junk in there more than capable of it.

Re:Confirm?

[LibertarianWackJob]

"I'm in y'alls DNS, takin y'alls domanins"

"All y'alls gambling are belong to me"

I'm in Texas but I'm pretty sure this still applies.

Re:Confirm?

[Homr Zodyssey]

"He"? Who? It was Dubyah that screwed up Katrina. This is a Franklin County Circuit Court Judge, and the Kentucky's Governor Beshear (a Democrat).

Re:Confirm?

[Kagura]

Hexagons are the new circle. :)

Re:Confirm?

[Kagura]

Far quicker summary than the article deserves: Indiana put a method to square the circle into law to define pi.

If you want to see some real things you can do with only a compass/straitedge combo, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass_and_straightedge. In addition to "squaring the circle", it's impossible to "double the cube" volume or to trisect an angle using only these tools. As a matter of fact, the man instrumental to the bill above also claimed to have solved these two impossible feats, as well. Very neat stuff, though.

Re:Confirm?

[corsec67]

# dig GOLDENCASINO.COM
GOLDENCASINO.COM. 3600 IN A 200.124.141.138
 
# whois GOLDENCASINO.COM
  Domain Name: GOLDENCASINO.COM
  Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
  Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
  Referral URL: http://www.publicdomainregistry.com/
  Name Server: NS1.SURF4SPEED.COM
  Name Server: NS2.SURF4SPEED.COM
  Status: ok
  Updated Date: 25-sep-2008
  Creation Date: 27-oct-1997
  Expiration Date: 18-nov-2010
 
Registrant:
    Commonwealth of Kentucky
    Michael Brown (secretaryofjustice@ky.gov)
    125 Holmes Street
    Frankfort
    Kentucky,40601
    US
    Tel. +1.8592557080
 
# dig GOLDENCASINO.COM @NS1.SURF4SPEED.COM
GOLDENCASINO.COM. 3600 IN A 200.124.141.138
 
# whois 200.124.141.138
 
inetnum: 200.124.128/20
status: allocated
owner: E-Commerce Park, N.V.
ownerid: AN-ECPN-LACNIC
responsible: E-Commerce Park N.V.

So it isn't an issue with the cache, asking the nameserver that Kentucky points that domain at resolves to an IP owned by a company in Nevada.

Maybe KY wanted to own the domain without actually disrupting service?

Re:Confirm?

[robertjw]

Quick, somebody arrest that guy for running an online casino. Goldencasino.com appears to be functional, and if Michael Brown owns the domain name...

Re:Confirm?

[Kvasio]

from outside US:

Domain Name: GOLDENCASINO.COM

Registrant:
  Rosehip Ltd
  (....)
  Antiguilla

So this takes the case back to WTO, not UN.

Re:Confirm?

[Draek]

Plus, if the Bible actually contained the exact numerical value of Pi we'd still be printing Gutenberg's version, and we wouldn't be any closer to finishing than half a millenia ago.

Trascendental numbers: God's way of showing us that the universe truly is a fucked up place.

Re:Confirm?

[The Cisco Kid]

Yes, actually I do. I've been setting up DNS servers since before you knew what one was.

I know how to directly query an authoritative server for any given zone, bypassing any local resolver cache. Do you?

Oh, and given that further reading of the court order finds that 'the domain configurations shall otherwise remain the same', it seems I really do know wtf I am talking about, doesn't it?

Re:Confirm?

[Emilio III]

I ran whois queries on all 137 domains listed above, and two (goldencasino.com and itsrealpoker.com) registered with answerable.com appear to be owned by Michael Brown. Two others (highrollerslounge.com and luckypyramidcasino.com) are registered with enom.com and appear to be owned by Eric Lycan. None of the others seem to have been affected. Both Michael Brown and Eric Lycan have the same email address, allegedly that of secretary of justice for Kentucky.

Re:Confirm?

[sumdumass]

Or maybe KY is setting clones of the site up so it can see who is logging in and using it.

Jurisdiction?

[Oqnet]

Arn't the offshore sites and registars a little out of the juridiction of the state? I could understand(well not really even then) if it was the government of the United States doing this. But the state being able to take things from people over seas just because they accept american gambling? How is that different then shutting down a store in Africa because they run a store that is illegal by american standards and accept US currency? By a state no less.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are taking bets from people within Kentucky in violation of state law. If the African store was selling drugs to Americans, the same thing would happen. The feds don't enforce most of the drug and gambling laws. The states do.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[orclevegam]

Simple, the judge is out of his god damned mind. It's becoming increasingly clear that the legal and administrative bodies of the US government have only the most tenuous of grasps on the way the internet works, and absolutely boneheaded rulings like this one only go to reinforce that opinion.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Oqnet]

So, they went to a site out of the country to do it. Are you saying that you should ban everything in amsterdam just because some guy from kentucky decided to go there?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[corsec67]

That doesn't answer how Kentucky has jurisdiction.

That should be the federal governments jurisdiction, since that really is interstate (or international) commerce.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[dgatwood]

Well, there's a little thing called lex causae that kicks in here. We have laws of one state attempting to govern people who are not within that state and are not technically doing business in that state. This is effectively allowing the state of Kentucky to overrule the sovereignty of other countries. Such extraterritorial influence should only be allowable if the action they are prohibiting causes provable harm to victims within the state (e.g. fraud laws). These laws, however, prohibit harm to third parties (legal in-Kentucky gambling institutions).

Kentucky should have the right to punish its citizens for online gambling, but IMHO has no legitimate claim for punishing anyone outside of KY for taking the bets any more than they have the right to fine companies in California for shipping wine directly to KY residents (see Granholm v. Heald). In fact, that case is pretty much an exact mirror of the way this one would go down if it ever reached the Supreme Court except that in this case, Kentucky doesn't even have little bits of the 21st Amendment to help prop up their position.

This law about as clear a violation of the interstate commerce clause as you can possibly get, and it's only a matter of time before it gets overturned. That said, given that Kentucky has done this before with other industries and has been slapped down, I think this time the Kentucky government needs to be slapped down a LOT harder, much like a repeat offender gets a longer jail term....

Re:Jurisdiction?

[Verteiron]

Naturally, I cannot find the quote now, but I remember hearing yesterday (I want to say it was on the BBC world service) that the judge involved "was aware that the ruling could affect other countries' access to the gambling sites, but said he was only concerned with Kentucky.".

In other words, he knew perfectly well what he was doing was going to affect people outside KY and he did it anyway. Can't we do something do him for that?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[PingXao]

[BLOCKQUOTE]How is that different then shutting down a store in Africa because they run a store that is illegal by american standards and accept US currency?[/BLOCKQUOTE]
Ask Manuel Noriega. He got the full monty.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[number11]

They are taking bets from people within Kentucky in violation of state law. If the African store was selling drugs to Americans, the same thing would happen.

And if an American provided pictures of unveiled women to someone in Saudi Arabia, would Saudi Arabia have jurisdiction over the domain involved?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[tshetter]

Wasnt there a WTO ruling about offshore gambling hat went against the USA?

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm

Looks like USA cant ban online offshore gambling.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[data_monk]

but what if it can be clearly shown that these foreign sites hate our freedums and support terrists? anything goes then, right? or what if they thought these sites were GOING to hate our freedums or support terrists in the future time? and they retaliated pre-emptively?

Re:Jurisdiction?

[The Moof]

Can't we do something do him for that?

You can try to get him kicked off the bench. Contact the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission and file your complaint.

Re:Jurisdiction?

[gyroidben]

All the domains are .com, which, I thought, was intended for american companies. It's not like it's .nl or .uk domains that they're messing with.

Wow.

[doctor_nation]

I am just completely flabbergasted that this can occur. By this logic, China could sue every website that posts anti-government information and seize all of their domains. Including something like google. This is really blowing my mind- can someone smarter than me explain what the judge was smoking, and why this isn't actually going to happen?

Re:Wow.

[HaeMaker]

Wait for the appeal.

Re:Wow.

[kabocox]

I am just completely flabbergasted that this can occur. By this logic, China could sue every website that posts anti-government information and seize all of their domains. Including something like google. This is really blowing my mind- can someone smarter than me explain what the judge was smoking, and why this isn't actually going to happen?

You don't understand. We can do what we want to them. They aren't allowed to do anything to us. If they try to do anything to us, then they are evil war mongering terrorists or some other label that we've yet to make up. We'll get away with everything that they let us.

This applies equally to everyone.

Re:Wow.

[einer]

I second this request for clarification. Did we really just send up a sign that says "If we don't like your site, we'll jack your domain because it's our internet. Love the USA." Via what process and mechanism of authority was this allowed to occur? Did the governor log into the root servers himself and update the named.conf? Is there some kind of gui-rific web2.0 webapp that only our statesmen have access to that allow them to direct traffic on the tubes? Do states actually have the authority to jack domains that violate their laws? How has thePirateBay been allowed to exist for this long?

Re:Wow.

[joeyspqr]

1) We can see the website here, therefore we have jurisdiction
2) ?
3) profit!

Re:Wow.

[X0563511]

The difference? ICANN is in the US, not China. If it was in China, exactly what you said would be happening. But then, the rest of the world would wake up, and ICANN (or it's international-except-china equivalent) would not be under the exclusive control of a single nation)

I wonder how many people need to get screwed before ICANN goes properly international.

Re:Wow.

[Obyron]

The District Courts are the lowest courts in the Commonwealth. They have limited jurisdiction, and typically deal with piddling misdemeanors or civil cases with low damages. How this even originated in District Court and not Circuit Court (the court of general jurisdiction over "real" cases) boggles my mind, but IANAL.

This would still have to get through the Kentucky Court of Appeals, as well as the Kentucky Supreme Court, and then there's always an appeal to The Supremes. Right now this is like a divorce court judge (which is what Kentucky District Court judges were until the recent-- read: last year-- establishment of the Kentucky Family Courts) ruling on international law, and I can't imagine it'll stand.

Also, I notice that a couple of domains have been changed to Secretary of Justice. This would be the head of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, which is responsible for the State Police. This should not be confused with the Attorney General, Jack Conway. He actually struck me as a level-headed, intelligent, reform-minded guy.

All that said, this is one more reason for me to be glad I moved out of that crazy place!

Re:Wow.

[kesuki]

well it helps if you know the 'rest' of the story. not only are these offshore gambling sites using rigged double dealing programs, so that nobody ever wins 'big' prizes... but some of them are so dishonest that they then sell your CC info to credit card pirates, or even double or triple bill people.

so basically they're a reverse ATM you spend hours and hours giving these sites your money, so they can put it in a bank.

there is no way to win, which is why people should only play casino games online if they're 'free' to play with no membership fees or prizes...

if you want to wager money go to a a reputable casino, avoid bar units, gambling rooms, and some Indian casinos. or at the least, play a real card game with real cards where they use a machine shuffler.

las vegas is generally clean, but there have been times that corruption in the state gambling agency that grants licenses that have allowed machines to be 'chipped' to avoid the big prize.

online gambling is the biggest set of crooks since the mob learned that reel machines could be mechanically rigged to mint money.

Re:Wow.

[smoker2]

Does that mean you can't cheat online then ? It's easier to hack a way into a gambling site than it is to take a crowbar to a one-armed bandit in full view of security.
WHo says the company always wins ?

Re:Wow.

[nicklott]

It will happen/is happening because the good ol' US legal system encourages registrars and hosts (and in fact pretty anyone) to roll over at even the faintest whiff of a legal threat, cf the DMCA. It used to be that you were "innocent until proven guilty" (except in Louisiana of course), but it's now very much that you are "guilty because we say you are".

Re:Wow.

[Wizzo1138]

Even if everything you say is true of these websites, Kentucky still has no jurisdiction to remove them from the internet.

Re:Wow.

[RealGrouchy]

I wonder how many people need to get screwed before ICANN goes properly international.

Screw that, let's just make our own Internet. With Blackjack. And Hookers.

Unless, you know, some judge in Kentucky doesn't want us to.

- RG>

Re:Wow.

[Pommpie]

To be fair, shuffling machines in some games (blackjack being the most notorious) can reduce your chances against the house. They speed up the games being dealt, which obviously increases your rate of loss, and they also remove the only way for a player to get an advantage over the house by card-counting systems.

If you want a perfect game of blackjack, you'll want to go with hand shuffling at a casino you can trust to play a straight game - most major North American and Western European gaming destinations fit the bill.

Re:Wow.

[gd2shoe]

...before ICANN goes properly international.

Is there such a thing? I know there are international organizations that are sufficiently independent and bipartisan to claim that. The real question is: is there a sufficient set of metrics to gage "properly international". The UN and the IOC, perhaps the best known international organizations would fail any such metric. This leads me to doubt that it exists (or believe that the current political environment makes it infeasible).

How then can anyone demand ICANN go "properly international"? (This question will plague everyone before it does go international.)

Re:Wow.

[CodeBuster]

As has been discussed by other posters the domains in question were recorded with registrars incorporated inside the United States and apparently the State of Kentucky was able to pressure them into handing them over (ICANN was probably not directly involved). The solution, as other posters have mentioned, is to register your gambling domain with an offshore registrar located in a country that is likely to tell the State of Kentucky to piss off. They could try to threaten ICANN into cutting off redirects to foreign registrars or country level DNS servers (don't know the exact terms, but others have posted in detail) but that is sort of like the nuclear option (which ICANN probably doesn't want to do) and would accelerate the breakup of the world-wide Internet into country controlled networks (already happening to some extent). Actually, it is something of a minor miracle that ICANN has been able to hold the whole thing together this and prevent a proliferation of country-controlled Internets from cropping up in direct competition to ICANN controlled DNS registrations (countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and others would probably prefer something like this in the long run anyway).

Re:Wow.

[kesuki]

well, that's the oldest trick in the book, if you and a few friends know sign language and you're playing poker around a table in a crowded place, they can sign the hands of each player to you, so you know what to bet, and when to fold.

like they say, if you're playing cards and you can't tell who the mark is, then the mark is you.

most likely the people in your link didn't even hack the site, they just reverse engineered the packets coming from the poker site, to reveal everyone's hands because they coded it sloppy and fed that data early and then cached it to memory for the 'reveal' at the end.

and online gambling also brings into play card counting programs, because they can't possibly know what software you're running. that's why you don't gamble online. too easy to cheat.

WTF???

[drakaan]

I understand that a few of those sites have recently been in the news because of backdoors and cheating, but what is going on here?

The governor of Kentucky (a state in which I do not reside), is trying to tell me that I can't go play poker online? This is abso-fricking-lutely ridiculous.

the most important question:

[circletimessquare]

what's the over/ under on how many days before kentucky reverses itself?

and what site should i go to to get a piece of that action?

Re:the most important question:

[iceyone]

I understand http://ky.gov/ has quite a lot of online gambling action.

What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[MosesJones]

Seriously what is the issue here? Given that the biggest gambling Mecca in the western world is in the US (Las Vegas) which has the biggest gambling sporting events (Boxing) what is the issue with online gambling?

I'm a Brit, our issue was that we couldn't tax it so they went offshore. Our solution? Change the tax rules so they want to come back onshore. So far society hasn't collapsed and it appears that doing online poker is less risky than trusting your money to a bank right now anyway. I have friends who work in the sector who get nervous when they fly to the US even though they are developers, its just madness that the US seems to thinks gambling is a massive evil, in a country that things gun ownership is a right.

Given the current banking collapse and the way the Fed have clearly gambled on things (house prices going up for ever) it is ranking up there with a Kim Jong Il moment as weirdest things that a government could do.

The scary bit is I don't see anyone pushing back on it, not McCain, not Obama, not congress and certainly not the President. So please someone tell me

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[spire3661]

One word. Taxes.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a "60 Minutes" segment a couple of years ago where Leslie Stahl was interviewing an online gambling operator. During the interview, she blurts out, "Gambling is bad for you!"

The interviewee took it in stride. As for me, I would have responded, "TV, especially TV news, is worse."

But that's me.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Capt James McCarthy]

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

As long as it's taxed and has governmental oversight, nothing. There are state owned and run lotteries, Nevada and New Jersey have casinos, many other states have "Riverboat casinos," and many horse/dog tracks around the country.

Hell, the Kentucky Derby isn't there to look at the "purdy ponies."

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[night_flyer]

have you been paying attention to the global markets lately? It wasnt people investing that caused the meltdown but unadulterated gambling...

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[NeutronCowboy]

It's wrong that the various state governments cannot collect taxes from it. If you pay close attention, most states have state lotteries. That's gambling. But it's legal because the state gets all the proceeds. Online casinos, however, are not, because they don't share their revenue.

It's really a money grab masquerading as morality. Sad, I know.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[CompMD]

Actually, in the US gun ownership is *explicitly* defined as a right. Gambling on the other hand, is not.

Now excuse me while my CETME and I blow away some tin cans.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Religious people dislike it. Here in the US, they hold sway in places like Kentucky and there are enough of them to get the Federal Government to placate them most of the time.

2. There are people in the middle class and up who gamble for fun. There are people in the low-middle and lower classes who gamble as an attempt to make money. They typically don't succeed and this leads to worse poverty which leads to stronger gambling. Rinse, lather and repeat. So the claim goes anyways. Gambling targets the poor, the minorities, etc. To "help" them we must limit their access.

3. Gambling is still linked to crime in many people's minds. Kind of like how marijauna is a gateway drug, gambling leads to all kind of bad things. Las Vegas is still perceived as a place run by crime behind the scenes by these people.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Shaleh]

I logged in, but for some reason I lost my session and became anonymous again.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[hypergreatthing]

States and politicians aren't getting paid off enough is the problem.

That and the established gamling places are fighting against it because it's direct competition.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't believe that this action by the governor is motivated by some religious conviction. In the state of Kentucky, horse racing is king. The state is looking at legalizing casio style gambling but only allowing the horse racing industry to run it. Follow the money (and read the press release). This is all about someone in the horse racing industry not liking the competition.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[X0563511]

I logged in, but for some reason I lost my session and became anonymous again. ... there's little point in posting something like that. How can someone know if it was you or me? Or neither?

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[X0563511]

This is all about someone in the horse racing industry not liking the competition.

Which is perhaps even more retarded than the alternative. Poker isn't Horses.

This would be like Microsoft getting mad at Walgreens because they are taking in cash that could have (possible? it's a stretch... but thats my point) gone to them instead.

(company names picked randomly, but chosen from different markets)

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It isn't enumerated as a power that the federal government has, so it's a state issue, but states can't control commerce in other states, so there you go.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Gallon of Fuel]

I have friends who work in the sector who get nervous when they fly to the US even though they are developers, its just madness that the US seems to thinks gambling is a massive evil, in a country that things gun ownership is a right.

I take offense to both of those comments. I don't see how the US as a whole thinks gambling is evil. Do you know how many casinos and racetracks are in this country? Take a look

Tell me again why gun ownership is not an individual right? What is inherently evil about gun ownership? Have you noticed that when the UK enacted strict gun control, the knife crime went way up in proportion? I'm sure that's just a coincidence though. There's no way that crime is crime, and that fundamental social issues are fundamental social issues, regardless of the tool involved to commit those crimes. I'm sure guns are the cause of violent crime. Yep, completely sure of it.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[erlenic]

I like in Kentucky, and I'm heavily involved in politics here, so I think I can answer that question with some authority:

Gambling makes the baby Jesus cry.

You may notice that I made no attempt to disclaim that answer as sarcasm. That's because it's not. People here literally want to stop gambling because it's supposedly immoral.

To the rest of the world: I'm sorry for our idiotic governor. I promise to help stop his re-election in 2011.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[m.ducharme]

Actually, as a Brit, it's your fault (or your ancestors', anyway). None of this would be a problem if the Puritans hadn't felt the need to leave Britain and go found a new country in the New World. Thanks a pile.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[erlenic]

3. Gambling is still linked to crime in many people's minds. Kind of like how marijauna is a gateway drug, gambling leads to all kind of bad things. Las Vegas is still perceived as a place run by crime behind the scenes by these people.

The sad part is, gambling was a major issue in the last gubernatorial election here. And the idiotic governor who pulled this bullshit was running on a platform of legalizing some gambling to fund universal health care for kids. The GOP ran ads claiming that gambling is immoral, and leads to increases in abortion rates (no, I'm not joking, they seriously tried to promote that idea).

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[waterford0069]

OMG Ponies!

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Clovis42]

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

You should ask the Governor in question, Steve Beshear. Oh wait, he is not against gambling. He actually ran on a platform of expanding gambling in Kentucky. I kid you not, this guy loves gambling, but only the kind that gets taxed by the state... oups... I mean Commonwealth. This is the best news coverage I've ever seen about my state...

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[91degrees]

It's addictive and there's a reasonably high risk that gamblers will turn to crime to fund their addiction.

This may or may not justify banning it but at there is at least a reason behind it.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[COMON$]

Well the problem comes in the idea that the societal fallout from gambling in the US is that we have a welfare system. In areas where gambling is allowed, there are higher instances of welfare usage and higher crime rates. This results in more taxpayer money going to programs and law enforcement to support the idiots who cannot control themselves. In my state there is a big debate over this. I wish I could find the pages with reliable stats for both sides but I am feeling lazy today. But last I heard for every $1 generated from taxes in a given state it costs the state $1.25-$1.50 to cover the fallout.

I am really indifferent to the issue, there is a casino just over an hour drive from my house out of state so we get the fallout and none of the taxes here anyway.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?
Some of those guys have spammed me. Persistently. Over a long period of time. Of course the rest have not so I can wish them luck.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Capt James McCarthy]

I don't care either way as well. I consider gambling a tax for those who suck at math anyways.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Jason Levine]

Well, horse racing and the lottery are fine. It's those other forms of gambling that are dangerous. Why? Well, John Stewart explained it best and this is from memory, but...

Horse racing is ok, because those horses can just run through the tubes. Poker chips, however tend to get clogged in the tubes, preventing your other Internets from getting through. When that happens, you want to send a nice big lottery ball rolling through the tube to break up the clog and get things moving again.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[maxume]

At a minimum, it makes it clear that he is willing to stand by the statements made in the anonymous comment.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[coolsnowmen]

But we wouldn't be here if your continent wasn't so opressive...
wait, but we also wouldn't be here if noone found it because Europe was so obsessed with colonialism...
wait, but-

It is about money, power, and sex, and always had been. When its not about that, its needless harm coming from misplaced good intentions to save the children, the cheerleader, and the world, from X.

But as long as there are addicts someone will blame gambling/mj/alcohol. But sometimes addiction is genetic so that kind of sucks.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[gillbates]

You've heard it before, "The love of money is the root of all evil".

The appeal of gambling is the gambler's love of money. I have no particularly love of money - while I recognize it's utilitarian aspect, I don't place it on a pedestal above all other things. Hence, I find gambling rather boring.

I come from the opposite perspective: Why do people defend a practice that takes their money away from them? They'll rant about taxes, but if the taxman cometh with spinning wheels and blinking lights, it somehow magically becomes entertainment?

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Daimanta]

Conclusion:

Shaleh IS ANONYMOUS. This is a groundbreaking discovery in the history of /.

Let all people rejoice, we caught anonymous redhanded!

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Technician]

Seriously what is the issue here?

The deal is they can't stand the competition. From the news article..

"Unlicensed Internet gambling significantly undermines and threatens horseracing, Kentucky's signature industry and a key tourism industry, by creating unregulated and untaxed competition; "

Follow the money. It has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of the state, but everything to do with protecting the gambling revenue of the state from competition. The unregulated and untaxed competition is the issue.

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

This is not the issue. The state has horse racing. The issue is someone else is gambling outside of the state control and is in competition with it.

Personally my biggest issue with gambling is I am not the house. After taking a stastics class I learned to never gamble against the house. Over time it is always a loss. I've done a lot better in the stock market. Many people forget buy low sell high. I sold 30K of stock last fall at $26 a share. It's now $18.75. I hope the market goes up and down a few more times before I retire. Remember, buy low.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[MrMr]

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?
My guess:
Gambling is about as expensive as paying tax but a lot more fun.
It is therefore competing wih and undermining the acceptability of the source of income of judges and government officials.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[hesiod]

> save the children, the cheerleader, and the world, from X.

Everyone gives X too much undue blame... all he wants is Birdman's crest!

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[stonewolf]

Nothing at all as far as I can see...

Of course, I have some self proclaimed Christian relatives who will tell you that all gambling is owned, sponsored, controlled and for the sole benefit of the great evil one, Satan himself. They believe that fighting gambling is the same as fighting Satan. The same folks support Israel because they think that the founding of Israel signals the end times and the second coming of Jesus Christ. At least I don't have any snake handlers in the family (and we don't mention great great granddaddy the religious zealot who lead the murder of all those folks from Missouri and don't you think the movie sucked?)

If you are one of those, then you probably think that there is something wrong with gambling, all that support of Satan and demons and such... So, those folks think that blocking gambling is a good thing. Oh, BTW, those folks are thick on the ground in Kentucky, they vote, and they have guns. And, they know how to use both of them.

OT comment, I've had several encounters with Brits who are totally befuddled by the US. They think that since we split off from them we should be like them. They forget that all the nut cases in all of Europe (and elsewhere) have been coming here for the last 500 years and that only a little bit of the US was ever part of the UK. Basically I have come to the conclusion that the Brits I have met are as clueless about the real US as most Americans are about the UK.

BTW, I personally, am descended from a long line of religious extremists who left England in the 1600s and so I feel I have personal knowledge of how their minds work (or don't depending on your point of view.) In other words, if you try to understand Kentucky by the standards of the UK you are as nuts as a Kentuckian would be to judge the UK by the standards of Kentucky.

Oh well, everyone seems to make the mistake of thinking that everyone is like them and everyplace is like their hometown. They aren't.

As a wise man once said, the only thing wrong with France is that they killed all their aristocrats and the only thing wrong with the UK is that they didn't.

Of course, that was all said from the point of view of a Buddhist from Texas. Take it for what its worth

Stonewolf

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[rainman_bc]

As long as it's taxed and has governmental oversight, nothing.

Can China collect taxes when her citizens travel to Las Vegas to gamble?

Seriously, oversight is one thing, but the taxation part is bullshit. It's protectionism, plain and simple.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[tirerim]

The stock market is still gambling. It's partly a game of skill, in analyzing the information about the market and the companies you are buying, but it's gambling nonetheless.

And in poker, you're not playing against the house, just against other players. Just like the stock market. In poker the house takes a small cut of every pot; in the stock market, your broker does.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[ishobo]

Can China collect taxes when her citizens travel to Las Vegas to gamble?

Yes, it is called a tax on income.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[dcam]

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

It is a tax on the stupid. Typically they are the people least able to defend themselves.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[MosesJones]

Which is why in the UK we legalised it, now most of these places have come back onshore because its easier to get the top line development staff and it looks better in terms of security than being in some bolt hole.

Taxes are the reason to legalise it, not the reason to criminalise it. If you want the cash then you need to make it legal.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[shiftless]

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

According to the Southern Baptists, and other puritanical religious groups controlling large shares of the federal and state governments (especially in the South), gambling is a sin. This is the #1 reason why gambling is largely illegal in the US. Also the same reason why alcohol sales are prohibited on Sundays in my county and why there are certain counties around here where alcohol sales--and possession of more than a certain quantity of alcohol--are prohibited. It's the fucking religious nutjobs who feel it is their duty to have a say in others' personal lives.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[dwye]

> None of this would be a problem if the Puritans
> hadn't felt the need to leave Britain and go
> found a new country in the New World.

Wrong. The Puritans settled New England, then *northern* Ohio, and so were hundreds of miles away from Kentucky. The people that you want to despise are the Scotch-Irish (so called because none were Irish, only a bit more than half were Scottish, and almost none of those were Scots, aka Highlanders, and they should probably be called Anglo-Celtic Borderers, except that is too long). The problem, then, is that France let England seize control of its usual ally, Scotland, after which the militarized border folk on either side of the no-longer significant border were unnecessary, and gradually forced out.

Yes, it is all the fault of *France*. No Puritans were involved (especially as most Puritan families in NE have decayed to the point of being Unitarian Universalists, not Fundamentalists, and thus would never care about gambling except for its effect on the poor, which they would deplore but never try to reduce).

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Myrddin Wyllt]

The appeal of gambling is the gambler's love of money. ... Hence, I find gambling rather boring.

Perhaps it is because you find gambling rather boring that you fail to understand it's appeal. It's not about money, it's about winning; money is just how we keep score.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Myrddin Wyllt]

If gambling is a sin, how come God plays dice?

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[ScrewMaster]

in a country that things gun ownership is a right.

Well ... it is, until the Constitution is amended to make it otherwise. What you meant is, "in a country that thinks gun ownership should be a a right." Probably you should read more U.S. history to understand why that right exists: your country was responsible for that. You certainly seem up on our recent history though, I'll give you that, which should in itself give you pause to rethink your position. When governments finally go mad (as they always do, in the end) it's best for the people if they're not totally defenseless.

But in answer to your question, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with gambling: it's just one way among many to flush your money away. Personally, I prefer hookers ... however, the difference in the U.S. (and, oddly enough, a number of Muslim countries) is that it's considered immoral, which means that various self-proclaimed guardians of the public need to "do something" about it.

Pisses me off ... it's our money, we earned it, and if we want to give it away to a bunch of crooks it's our goddamned business.

But some people think they know better, and they have the power to back up their beliefs.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[ScrewMaster]

"unadulterated gambling"? Personally, I'm having a hard time figuring out how gambling with underaged girls caused the financial crisis.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[RJFerret]

Ironically, in the US we have state lotteries, which are private corporations endorsed by the states to "pick the pockets" of our poorest citizens with the "can't do math tax".

According to that link, Kentucky participates in two interstate lotteries.

So obviously they don't find anything actually wrong with gambling and are simply hypocrites.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[Bob9113]

I'm a Brit,...in a country [the US] that things gun ownership is a right

Funny - you post your (entirely valid) disagreement with the overreach of the US government in this case, and in the same post decry a right that came about as a result of the overreach by your government back in the 1700s, and which remains protected to prevent overreach by our government.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[shiftless]

For the answer to the real question you are asking, refer to this article.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway?

[nobaloney]

As long as it's taxed and has governmental oversight, nothing.

Is this the same governmental oversight that the U.S. has used so successfully on banks and mortgage companies?

NSFW

[Thelasko]

Websense blocks it.

Re:out of curiousity

[whoever57]

Can anyone link to the list of domain names that Kentucky is attempting to seize?

Just RTFA. It's not too difficult, I promise.

Re:out of curiousity

[drakaan]

Here ya go: linkage

Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[mr_mischief]

ixwebhosting's parent is Ecommerce, Inc. in Kentucky, USA and Austria, Europe. With them you can host, register a domain, and get a credit card merchant account.

It's a big state with roads, universities, and ... actual cities. Just because there are parts of the state that are isolated and backwoods with people who are isolationist and backwards doesn't mean nobody in the whole state has an Internet connection.

In related news, not everyone in the state of New York is a tough Italian mafia soldier or Jewish writer with an overbearing mother. Not everyone in California is a beautiful, sexy, wine-making goddes under 50 or a Silicon Valley millionaire.

The same applies to people descended from different places who have immigrated. Not all Germans are engineers, and not all Persians sell rugs or drive taxis. Not all Mexicans are illegal immigrants, and not all white men are rich or powerful.

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[aztracker1]

and not all white men are rich or powerful

There goes my dating chances...

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[Narnie]

I'm having a hard time following what you're saying. Think you could provide a venn diagram with projected ratios? Cause I think you left out the German candy makers, Californian hippies, and NY business tycoons and I need to know where they fit in.

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[fortyonejb]

and not all white men are rich or powerful.

Thanks for rubbing it in =/

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[StikyPad]

I was with you in the beginning, but then you started with the crazy talk:

Not everyone in California is a beautiful, sexy, wine-making goddes under 50 or a Silicon Valley millionaire.

The same applies to people descended from different places who have immigrated. Not all Germans are engineers, and not all Persians sell rugs or drive taxis. Not all Mexicans are illegal immigrants, and not all white men are rich or powerful.

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[maxume]

Candy makers are Swiss. I don't know where that leaves watch makers though.

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[adamofgreyskull]

ffs. You're saying I need to completely update *all* my sweeping generalisations about the peoples of the world??! Thanks. Just when I thought I had everything figured out.

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[jbeaupre]

-- flips watch over -- Hmmm, Danish watch with Japanese movement. Now I'm really confused. Can I still count on New Zealand having a lot of sheep?

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[glwtta]

not everyone in the state of New York is a tough Italian mafia soldier or Jewish writer with an overbearing mother

You've never actually been to New York, have you?

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky.

[ScrewMaster]

Well, for myself I'm a Jewish Italian Mexican German Persian illegal alien engineer, who just happens to be rich and powerful and drives a taxi. So what does that do to your theory?

So may knee-jerk reactions....

[Kid Zero]

I'll bet that's what's going to happen.

1. There is one sport in Kentucky you can gamble on: horse racing. That's very controlled. Screw with that revenue stream and you won't be on their good side.
2. Let's see your feelings when your 13 year old takes your credit card for a spin online and puts you in several deep holes.
3. If you win, will you get paid?
4. Then there's the situation with some sites already blocking access from Kentucky. If some are doing it, it's possible for all to do it.

We won't address the point that gambling is simply a easy way to lose money.

Re:So may knee-jerk reactions....

[superdave80]

2. Let's see your feelings when your 13 year old takes your credit card for a spin online and puts you in several deep holes.

Yeah, because online gambling is the only way for a 13 year old to run up your credit card.

Re:So may knee-jerk reactions....

[Nursie]

2. don't let your 13 year old use your credit card, it's not that tricky.
3. If the US hadn't driven out its own homegrown poker sites that wouldn't be much of an issue. It still isn't any more of an issue than buying stuff from overseas. If you order something from another country, will it arrive?
4. Sure, but why should they have to? If the kentuckians don't want it available it's their responsibility to stop their citizens from connecting to those servers, not vice versa. It's not like they connect to you and force you to play.

Sure it's a waste of money and you won't see me doing it, but this whole thing is backwards.

Re:So may knee-jerk reactions....

[Bobfrankly1]

I'll bet that's what's going to happen.

Not on offshore gambling websites you wont! So says a district judge in Kentucky! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Re:So may knee-jerk reactions....

[maxume]

The issue is jurisdiction. If Ohio doesn't like Bourbon, they don't send distillers in Kentucky a notice that they can't make Whiskey anymore, they ban importation. If Kentucky doesn't like gambling, it should do something that works inside of Kentucky, not try to assert control over half of the planet.

I live in Ky

[Anonymous Coward]

and I have never been so ashamed. Ky doesn't just deserve its backwards reputation it earns it!

Re:I live in Ky

[jbeaupre]

I married a woman from Kentucky and moved there. I tell people she married me to get new genes in the family. It so happens some of her relatives didn't have to change last names when getting married.

Re:I live in Ky

[Hawke666]

Umm, nobody has to change last names when getting married.

And they'll sieze domins outside the US how?

[MECC]

Just how do they plan to grab a domain outside the US?

Lovely precedent

[Biff Stu]

So does this mean that the state of Alabama could seize the domains names of all vendors of on-line sex toys?

Re:Lovely precedent

[RudeIota]

I believe that's the state of Mississippi that has banned those.

Alabama has gotten all the press, but there's an embarrassing number of states which prohibit specific sex toys, like vibrators...

"Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia."
-- http://www.vibratingtouch.com/?page=faq

Re:Lovely precedent

[Nadaka]

nope, still available in MS. My girlfriend browses them regularly.

Re:Lovely precedent

[arotenbe]

No, but Kentucky can!

Re:Lovely precedent

[BobMcD]

What the hell is an 'on-line sex toy'? And how much does it cost???

Re:Lovely precedent

[Biff Stu]

You never heard of an on-line sex toy? They're a crucial component of modern interweb maintenance. You got to keep those tubes well lubricated.

Re:Lovely precedent

[BobMcD]

Perhaps that why all my Cisco gear is so damn cranky all the time...

Re:Lovely precedent

[kchrist]

I believe teledildonics is the word you're looking for.

What next?

[mweather]

Next we'll see China seize 141 illegal democracy websites, such as whitehouse.gov.

Re:What next?

[DeadManCoding]

As long as they don't take whitehouse.com, I'm tempted to go along with that...

Re:What next?

[TheRaven64]

What, exactly, does whitehouse.gov have to do with democracy?

Re:What next?

[mdm-adph]

Your example is incorrect -- I see very little of anything democracy-related at whitehouse.gov in its current form.

Re:What next?

[erlenic]

Nothing in the world would make me laugh harder than that.

Re:What next?

[Caetel]

I didn't think the White House really represented democracy anymore...

Re:What next?

[pjt33]

It's run by someone who would be a strong believer in democracy if he could pronounce it.

Re:What next?

[flex941]

I think this was meant as a serious question. Not (Score:5, Funny???) at all.

Corrections

[mpapet]

Given that the biggest gambling Mecca in the western world is in the US (Las Vegas)

I don't know about that. Native American casinos have far and away outstripped Nevada for gaming supremacy. California appearing to be the biggest State.

Some other places in the world probably have bigger operations either in construction or complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_Macau

The judicial event in question is odd to say the least. The chances are excellent this one will go a few rounds through appeal. The gaming industry doesn't like attracting attention to itself, so they'll probably let it die at some point to stay out of the limelight. The former owner of the domains will be encouraged to let it go.

Online gambling isn't seen as a direct threat to location-based operations, but sooner or later organized crime will run that too.

don't blame the US for its beliefs

[Shivetya]

this isn't about beliefs, it is all about money.

Just like alcohol and cigarettes are regulated all in the name of money.

Gambling is no different, if the state license it then its permitted, otherwise its not. Simple as that. nothing about religion here (but maybe in KY) because many states that forbid gambling have lotteries (which of course are state sanctioned : the key word)

Re:don't blame the US for its beliefs

[erlenic]

Here in KY, there are an insanely high number of people who literally want gambling illegal for religious reasons. It's what the last Republican governor ran on for re-election. Luckily he was beaten, because he was a sleazy idiot. But he was beaten by another sleazy idiot, so it's just a case of same shit different dog. Wait, this is a political discussion. I guess you can mark me redundant.

Why is anyone outside of Kentucky obeying this?

[MikeRT]

If they're not based in Kentucky, are not soliciting criminal gambling activity from and the registrars are not based in Kentucky, on what jurisdiction did this take place?

VERY Interesting Line In Order....

[maz2331]

The judge included this line in his order:

"The domain names' configurations shall otherwise remain unchanged."

So - the state is not permitted to use the siezure to shut down the sites.

What's also interesting is that the title of the case is Commonwealth of Kentucky v. 141 Domain Names.

In other words, they didn't sue the companies and owners, they are doing a "civil forfieture" type of case. Nobody affected by this case was notified or served process.

This case is going to be really fun to watch. You can bet that it's going to be removed to Federal Court very quickly.

Re:VERY Interesting Line In Order....

[kent_eh]

The judge included this line in his order:

"The domain names' configurations shall otherwise remain unchanged."

So - the state is not permitted to use the siezure to shut down the sites.

So then, what's the point of this exercise?
Or is the judge just handing the state a hollow victory for some reason?

Re:VERY Interesting Line In Order....

[Rary]

Now I'm really confused. What's the point of seizing a domain name if you're not allowed to change anything? What does the State of Kentucky gain by owning a bunch of domains that they can't do anything with? What happens when those domains expire? Will the State have to pay to renew them? Or will they just let them expire so the original owners can buy them again? What have they accomplished by doing this?

Re:VERY Interesting Line In Order....

[Technician]

n other words, they didn't sue the companies and owners, they are doing a "civil forfeiture" type of case. Nobody affected by this case was notified or served process.

I think it would be fitting if one of the domain owners from another country found the state of Kentucky guilty of the theft of the domains and as a penalty Kentucky had to forfeit this domain name. http://kentucky.gov/

Re:VERY Interesting Line In Order....

[Wowlapalooza]

It won't have any immediate effect, but when the gambling companies go to change their nameservers, transfer domains between themselves, etc. they'll be stymied. As time goes on, this will become more of a thorn in their sides.

A better question, for perhaps someone who is familiar with Kentucky's civil forfeiture procedures (don't all speak up at once now!), is: what happens now? How will the gambling companies litigate in order to get their domains returned to them, through Kentucky's legal processes? Or, would it just be easier for them to appeal this decision through the federal court system? Enquiring minds want to know

Re:VERY Interesting Line In Order....

[kent_eh]

It won't have any immediate effect, but when the gambling companies go to change their nameservers, transfer domains between themselves, etc. they'll be stymied. As time goes on, this will become more of a thorn in their sides.

Or, as their renewal date approaches, they'll just register a new domain name (possibly under a non ".com" TLD... maybe the national TLD of where they are physically located), and announce the name change on their site for 6 months or so.
Business as usual.

Re:VERY Interesting Line In Order....

[initialE]

This is well and fine until the domain comes up for renewal.

Parent Missing Major Component

[MSTCrow5429]

Um, where's the link to the court ruling??? If there isn't yet one published, the parent needs to say so.

Re:Parent Missing Major Component

[ashmodai9]

Here you go, sir, the court order.

Re:Parent Missing Major Component

[Wowlapalooza]

Here you go, sir, the court order.

Which shows a circuit court, not a district court ruling.

Not really enough for a "badsummary" tag, but a little sloppy nonetheless.

Re:whos making the changes?

[ashmodai9]

That's the whole point. ICANN actually complying and handing over domains (i.e. someone else's property) to the governor of some state because they state that the domain violates state (we're not even talking a country here, we're talking a state) law is insanity.

There is really no difference between that and what you stated (Iran seizing control of all domains that promote something other than Islam), or China seizing control of all domains that promote free speech or democracy.

How this actually happened (the State of Kentucky obtaining ownership of domains) boggles the mind. It's not the judge that belongs in the loony bin, it's ICANN.

WTO Ruiling

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the WTO rule that online gambling is legal, and doesn't that trump this? Also, isn't the domain name registrar outside the law? I could be wrong, but this ruiling is rediculous.

Re:WTO Ruiling

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Worse, doesn't some law about the Internet and Congress trump any state action?

Can some other domain seize control of KY.gov because Kentucky is behaving illegally according to some other jurisdiction that allows those gambling domains?

Re:WTO Ruiling

[stephanruby]

Didn't the WTO rule that online gambling is legal, and doesn't that trump this? Also, isn't the domain name registrar outside the law? I could be wrong, but this ruiling is rediculous.

The WTO ruled that, and then they allowed for retaliatory trade action to be taken against the US. In other words, some US industries will be hurt by what Kentucky did. Those industries will complain to the Federal government. And then, the Federal government will come down hard on Kentucky.

That being said, if those online casinos are indeed committing fraud against the people in Kentucky, then the WTO will probably allow the US to take retaliatory trade actions against the countries hosting those casinos. A casino that doesn't pay its winners is not good for trade. It makes the entire online gambling industry look bad.

Next...

[trailerparkcassanova]

...they'll block transportation to Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

pot, kettle...

[scotsghost]

Beshear said Kentucky loses tens of million of dollars a year to online gambling, which is illegal in all 50 states. And, he said, the illegal activity has repercussions far exceeding its monetary losses to the Commonwealth:

• Unlicensed Internet gambling significantly undermines and threatens horseracing, Kentucky's signature industry and a key tourism industry, by creating unregulated and untaxed competition;
• The accessibility of the Internet, and the unregulated and private nature of Internet gambling, creates conduits for youths to log on and place wagers;
• The anonymity of the Internet and sophistication of encryption devices make it difficult to trace online laundering schemes; and
• The unregulated gaming lacks consumer protections to ensure that individuals who choose to gamble are actually paid for their winnings.

So the most significant problem with online gambling, in Kentucky's eyes, is that it decreases the pool of money available to the horse track. Of course, they can tax that. They're really whining about the drop in tax revenue.

The last point is a good one, but it's as applicable to internet shopping as to internet gambling. Anytime you give someone money over the 'net, do it with a credit card. Any problem with the transaction, for any reason, call your card issuer and issue a chargeback. It's that simple, and it's the only thing that works. Government hasn't figured out a better way to deal with e-commerce yet, and they aren't likely to anytime soon.

The others are just a state who can't deal with new technology -- they're whining about how the Internet works, for chrissake. Welcome to the 21st century, Kentucky. Can we move forward now??

Re:no. just imagine

[geoffspear]

russia, perma member of the council, and has veto power. and, run by a mafia mob.

And if the UN controlled ICANN you just *know* decisions on domain names would be brought before the Security Council.

many are back but see dates of last update

[electrogeist]

I checked a few random domains and noted some very recent updates... noone would really think this would stick?

$ whois casinoextreme.com
      Updated Date: 23-sep-2008
      Creation Date: 15-feb-1999
      Expiration Date: 15-feb-2010

$ whois casinoextreme.com
      Updated Date: 23-sep-2008
      Creation Date: 15-feb-1999
      Expiration Date: 15-feb-2010

$ whois inetbet.com
      Updated Date: 23-sep-2008
      Creation Date: 15-jan-1999
      Expiration Date: 15-jan-2012

Re:many are back but see dates of last update

[ashmodai9]

I think you are right, because I checked again, and only 10 or so domains currently are owned by the State of Kentucky. Yesterday, the number was much higher - over half - and it wasn't a matter of registrar compliance (I don't think the individual registrars had a say in the matter), ICANN was the one who handed control of the domains to the State.

Re:no. just imagine

[nick.ian.k]

does that look like a nice picture ?

That's entirely dependent upon whose brand of pig-headed nationalism you want to subscribe to and whose you want to take a giant shit on.

Proper Procedure?

[failedtoinit]

#1 Link for us who are at work Try Here #2 The article that I linked notes that it was requested that access to these sites be blocked to persons inside the Commonwealth, or lose access to the domains. It seems the site owners were unwilling to comply.

Counter-workaround: Find a friendly court

[davidwr]

These companies should get temporary injuction from a court in the jurisdiction of their domain registrars to protect the registration or order its reversal.

No domain registrar in his right mind is going to risk contempt of court from a local judge just to obey a court order in a state or country far away.

Let's see if Kentucky is willing to send its lawyers to courtrooms around the world to fight this.

In a battle of courts, he who has jurisdiction in the locality of the affected party usually wins.

So what *is* 'dem Kentucky Judges drinkin'?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . I must have missed that ad campaign: "Kentucky Bourbon: Now fortified with genuine crack, PCP and LSD"

Seize them from Kentucky

[Nom du Keyboard]

If it's this easy to seize domains, can another jurisdiction now seize them from Kentucky and put them back online?

But on a more serious note, where is the WTO in all of this? The WTO has ruled that the USA cannot bar gambling and now Kentucky, a clearly parochial, backwards part of the USA to say the least, has done exactly that. There should be huge damages awarded over this screw-up and Kentucky should have to pay them all.

Also, Kentucky's rational for all this is that Commonwealth law allows seizing "devices used in illegal gaming", and this somehow extends to Internet domains. You'd think under that logic that they ought to be breaking into their own citizen's homes and seizing personal computers and broadband connections, but somehow they're refraining from that so far. Wonder why?

Note to gamblers: Seizing the domain name is different than trying to seize the actual IP addresses. Chances are that all these sites can be gotten to by IP address at minimum.

Note to Kentucky residents: There's an election only about 6 weeks from now. Take this opportunity to throw out all these assholes while it's easy to do.

Re:Seize them from Kentucky

[hobbesmaster]

Sorry, we elected the governor and attorney general last year, and they are both on 4 year terms.

Oh, and the democratic challenger to the republican minority leader (was majority until they lost the senate) is utterly pathetic. I didn't vote for Lunsford in the primary but, ugh... he has to be better than McConnell.. same went the thinking about Beshear vs Fletcher. :/

Finally, did you notice how the governor and the attorney general of Kentucky are democrats?

Re:Seize them from Kentucky

[tibman]

Couple of things.. the domains are still up, the ownership was just transfered pending further action. All the sites were asked to block access to KY citizens and did not. As far as i know, no damage has been done to anyone yet. (other than the gaming sites not paying out winnings?)

I can agree with you that they should act against the offending citizens, but can you imagine what that would take? It's much more efficient to cut it off at the source.

Note to Kentucky residents: There's an election only about 6 weeks from now.
Quoted from wikipedia: "Kentucky is a commonwealth, meaning its government is run according to the common consent of its people. ... Kentucky is also one of only five states that elects its state officials in odd numbered years ... Kentucky holds elections for these offices every 4 years in the years preceding Presidential election years. Thus, the last year when Kentucky elected a Governor was 2007; the next gubernatorial election will occur in 2011."

and.. i'll go ahead and say the whole backwards comment is off the mark. I don't want to argue though.. but if you're curious at all, check out Kentucky. It says things like 46% of the population isn't affiliated with churches and medical stuff like KY did the first artificial heart transplant. It was the only neutral state in the Civil war, which is pretty interesting.

Has it been decided?

[fermion]

Forbes, amongst others are reporting that the hearing is not be held until late friday the 25h. According to this article, the intent is to block Kentucky access to these sites. While it is true that anyone in Kentucky can simply use a proxy to override such blocking, the technology nevertheless exists to at least attempt such blocking. At the very least they could not accept payments from Kentucky. I do not know whether banning offshore gambling is a good or bad thing, but it is presently with the jurisdiction of the state to do so. Therefore, if one does business in the state, even without a business presence, the state does have the right to seek redress.

Of course it is not ironic the kentucky would play hardball to stop offshore gambling, as Gambling is often seen a zero sum game, i.e. no value is added, and therefore every dollar used in offshore gambling is one dollar less that can be taxed by the state. Texas, for instance, would unlikely take such stand since everyone in texas tends to go to Louisiana.

In the end, this is only a matter for those who to circumvent united states laws for profit. This is not some blogger who is trying to get his or her message out to the world, or some troupe creating edgy political satire. These are businesses trying to make a quick buck, and Kentucky says it can't be done in this state. The seizure of domains is just like the seizure of any other property. Again, i necessarily agree with it, like I don't necessarily agree with the seizure of so-called drug trade profits. But the offshore gambling industry has been challenges these laws for a while, and clearly have the resources to defend themselves, and maybe make some equitable changes in law. I don't see why anyone should feel sorry or get freaked because one battle has been lost in war that they are clearly willing to fight.

Re:Has it been decided?

[bucky0]

I'm going to invoke the slippery slope argument on giving the state of kentucky the ability to block its citizens access to internet sites.

I will then cut and paste the "The hangman came for x but I wasn't x, so I didn't care" poem.

Re:Has it been decided?

[Dog-Cow]

Friday the 25th? KY must be on a different calendar too.

Kentucky only has some of the domains.

[Animats]

"Highrollerslounge.com" is currently registered to "Commonwealth of Kentucky Justice Cabinet" and not currently resolving. The registrar was eNom, a favorite registrar of bottom-feeders. Enom is behind "Club Drop", with dozens of dummy registrars to pick up expiring domain names; they're a bulk registrar. Since Enom deals with many slimeballs, their policy is "If we are sued or threatened with lawsuit in connection with Service(s) provided to you, we may turn to you to indemnify us and to hold us harmless from the claims and expenses (including attorney's fees and court costs). Under such circumstances, you agree that you will, upon demand, obtain a performance bond with a reputable bonding company or, if you are unable to obtain a performance bond, that you will deposit money with us to pay for our reasonably anticipated expenses in relation to the matter for the coming year." So, unsurprisingly, that domain was transferred to Kentucky.

On the other hand, "Bugsyclub.com" is still connected to a gambling site. Their registrar is "Fabulous.com PTY LTD." "One of the leading domain monetization programs". "Fabulous.com" tries to be anonymous on their web site, but they're incorporated in Brisbane, Australia, and hosted in Santa Clara, CA. They used to be "Domain Intellect Pty Ltd", in Melbourne.

"sportsbook.com", once a major gambling site run from the UK, now a lesser site run out of Malta, is still up, and registered with Network Solutions. Sportsbook had some previous problems with the state of New Jersey over similar issues.

Re:out of curiousity

[HTH NE1]

And among them, goldenpalace.com.

Luck failing

[just_another_sean]

Apparently gambling911 took a shot at using Drupal and have lost.

Unable to connect to database server

If you still have to install Drupal, proceed to the installation page.

If you have already finished installing Drupal, this either means that the username and password information in your settings.php file is incorrect or that we can't connect to the MySQL database server. This could mean your hosting provider's database server is down.

The MySQL error was: Too many connections.

Currently, the username is bohearn and the database server is localhost.

        * Are you sure you have the correct username and password?
        * Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
        * Are you sure that the database server is running?

For more help, see the Installation and upgrading handbook. If you are unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your hosting provider.

Re:no. just imagine

[orclevegam]

Is all of them an option?

Wish we could come up with some way of doing a distributed secure DNS system that way no one country, group, or organization could control it, but distribution and security seem to be opposing ideals.

interesting...

[Sfing_ter]

So they attempt to have the hearing without anyone knowing, and then get the judge (cue Judge Brown or Sanders from Boston Legal...), find for them. It is kind of like pulling the fuel cap off of the car to stop it from being driven... (sorry for the car analogy).

This is going to get overturned in the long run, in the short run, most of the sites still operate just fine, the few that don't moved to new domains already. Perhaps if Kentucky just ran it's own dns servers and forced all isps providing service inside it's borders to use their dns servers then they could block them without the courts. But then that's a whole other ball of illegal usurpation of rights

Reminds of a flame war i had with an "in law", in which she was going to have aol kick me off the internet. >:} She can still go fuck herself.

Article from Forbes magazine

[Anonymous Coward]

The horse racing lobby controls KY. That's why there's no casinos in the state. This is just a continuation of that control.
Forbes.com article about Steve Beshears attempt to ban internet gambling sites

As a native Kentuckian, this is truly embarrassing.

Re:out of curiousity

[DrVomact]

I tried to RTFA, but I'm at work and the URL has "gambling" in it, so I got a "Access Blocked" and "This attempt has been logged" for my pains. So FTFA. How about a helpful answer?

i dont know, i assure you

[unity100]

sooner or later a group of countries will try to bring sweeping control schemes to the general council, and then that will move to security council eventually.

Swing Lo Sweet Pendulum

[J4]

Government is at it's best when it's overreaching.

Kentucky

[Ohio Calvinist]

In other news; Kentucky has computers now! Disclaimer: I am an Appalachian-American so it is ok. Seriously. :)

Re:Kentucky

[Clovis42]

In other news; Kentucky has computers now! Disclaimer: I am an Appalachian-American so it is ok. Seriously. :)

Sorry, I am still offended. We've had computers in Kentucky for almost a decade now...

Re:Kentucky

[jadedoto]

Here in Lexington we've had them for at least 8 years... http://aggregate.org/KLAT2/press.html

its a long running issue

[nimbius]

im from the state of kentucky, and this all stems from the governors magificent plan to bail us out of debt through the creation of 12 casinos across the state. horse-farms obviously object to the idea, while poor people shake their heads and wonder who is going to seriously say "kentucky" instead of "vegas" next holiday season.

not to mention, we're all bankrupt and homeless from the declining market.

Re:its a long running issue

[ShaunC]

horse-farms obviously object to the idea, while poor people shake their heads and wonder who is going to seriously say "kentucky" instead of "vegas" next holiday season.

Tourists probably aren't the primary target, casinos tend to draw out locals even in communities with strong "opposition" to gambling. Tunica county, MS legalized casino gambling and there are 8 or 10 casinos operating there now and doing extremely well. From what I've seen walking through the parking lots, most of the patrons are from nearby areas like Memphis or Tupelo, in for a night of fun and gone whenever their wallets empty out. These are day-trip people, not folks who decided to go there instead of Vegas.

If it's done right, legalizing gambling can indeed fill the municipal coffers. Tunica went from being the poorest county in the United States to the wealthiest in Mississippi, all in less than a decade. Of course this doesn't scale very well (if gambling was legal in every city, no regional "hubs" would benefit disproportionately), but Kentucky's far enough away from any such hubs that it might work.

bleh

[unity100]

I don't hear anyone whining for the small businessmen trying to get by selling heroin in Turkey.

and those in turkey wont be whining over the drug, gambling and prostitution mafia that is run through vegas and constitutes basically entirety of porn and gambling operations on the web.

but oh wait - THEY will whine about not having access to the world, since their clientele will be reduced to some young zits in 100 m internet users in usa, in addition to local moms using the internet from idaho and whatnot.

and the small businessmen trying to sell heroine 'through websites' in turkey will still have access to ENTIRE european union internet network, because its practically already a part of it through existing treaties.

knock yourself over in your isolation, you moron. its only bad for you.

Malware alert

[Animats]

"goldencasino.com" tries to install "goldencasino.exe". That can't be good.

Re:Malware alert

[Atrox666]

Maybe someone should charge the owner of that address with spreading malware. The Commonwealth of Kentucky I believe.

Ok...

[CBob]

So now the Chinese Gov't gets Amnesty International & all those pesky Tibet sites.

The French and Japanese govt's get Greenpeace and the Russians & North Koreans get all the news sites.

Problem solved!

(insert comment about hydrogen and stupidity here)

This Begs the Question...

[tigreye007]

What is technically considered gambling online when it comes to this law? Here is why trying to put boundaries on the internet is entertaining: What if I created an account in Tennessee, with my Tennessee login, but log in in Kentucky. Is that against the law? Are we talking the physical location of the connected machine? Lets take this a step further. If I use this same account, and I'm in Tennessee, connected wirelessly to a router based in Kentucky, is this against the law? What if the situation was reversed? Is it the physical location of the connection to the internet? How about another approach. If I am physically in Kentucky, remoting into a machine in Tennessee that is running the casino software, is that therefore technically legal? What if the situation reversed? Are we talking my personal physical location at the time the connection to the gambling website was made? Head..hit..floor... ::passout::

General Assembly is worse

[goodben]

While Russia does not have a veto over the General Assembly, I think putting something important in the hands of the General Assembly is much worse if you consider the percentage of UN members that are under the thumb of petty dictators.

Re:General Assembly is worse

[geoffspear]

Sure, but no one petty dictator has all that much influence over a given UN agency. A system subject to the whims of some random county judge can't be significantly better than a system subject to regulations reached by international consensus, even if a lot of the countries reaching that consensus (most of which, really, probably don't really care much about domain name squabbles) aren't all that admirable.

Re:General Assembly is worse

[goodben]

It may be that this isn't a big deal to the various assortments of petty dictators, but they will often gang up on unpopular countries. Witness how the UN commission on racism is consistently and ironically hijacked by antisemitic agenda. It is worth noting that censorship is a universal concern for dictators and other autocrats and totalitarians. Control over the internet would likely inspire the various anti-freedom forces which make up the majority of the UN to work together for their individual benefit.

will be turned over on appeal

[DragonTHC]

The state of Kentucky doesn't have the legal authority to seize domain names owned by people who don't live in Kentucky. Especially not those registered or hosted elsewhere. This is going to be overturned on appeal or worse. Kentucky made a brash move here. Not the smartest move either.

Re:will be turned over on appeal

[Carlosos]

More important that this is why the registrars even obeyed to the order (that are not located in Kentucky) and which ones ignored it because they know that there is no jurisdiction.

This is at least a good indication not to buy domain from http://www.publicdomainregistry.com/ since they are not located in Kentucky and still gave at least one domain to the state.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't *think* that they can.

[Kadin2048]

I think that they were only able to grab the names that they did, because they were gTLDs, and hence fell under ICANN's direct authority. Since ICANN is a U.S. corporation, they bullied them and got the registration information changed.

It's interesting to speculate about what might have happened, if they had tried to go after a foreign domain name that was registered via an RIR. I don't think they would have been as successful. The RIR could have just told them to piss off, and then they would have had to try and get ICANN to step on the RIR, which might or might not have been effective.

ICANN only has so much sway over the RIRs. Their only bargaining chip is a sort of nuclear option -- threaten to stop directing DNS queries for their ccTLD to them, by removing them from the DNS root. This could easily precipitate a situation where the RIRs decided to split the root and just cut ICANN out completely. (I think in Europe somebody's actually maintaining an alternate root, sort of on standby all the time, for exactly this sort of eventuality.) I doubt this is a road they want to go down, because it could lead to a lot of nastiness and perhaps even breakage of the Internet generally. So while they may reluctantly cooperate with U.S. courts when it comes to gTLDs -- they have little choice, since with those addresses, the buck stops with them -- they're unlikely to do anything more than point in the direction of the RIR if an order comes in concerning a ccTLD.

So really, what this whole debacle indicates is twofold:

1. All gTLDs should be assumed to be vulnerable to assault under U.S. law, and companies or individuals 'owning' gTLD addresses should realize that they do so only at the whim of legislators or judges in the United States.
2. Anyone doing anything that's not welcomed in the U.S. (which could be anything from gambling to anonymous financial services to drug discussion, these days) would do well to move away from using gTLDs and instead use an address under a ccTLD, where the country in question has a friendly attitude to their business and is likely to resist U.S.-led pressure.

It's not that simple

[querist]

I live in South Carolina, which is culturally similar to Kentucky in many unfortunate ways.

In South Carolina, which only a few years ago instituted a lottery, it is illegal for a merchant to allow someone to pay for lottery tickets with a credit card. I think the idea is that there is a risk in not being able to collect payment for the tickets, though the reason put forth to the public is that they don't want people going into debt to gamble.

Most places that sell lottery tickets have ATMs that will obediently dispense money withdrawn from your credit card, usually at a HIGHER interest rate than a purchase. The difference, however, is that once you withdraw the money from the ATM, it's cash. There's no longer a problem with the Lottery Commission receiving their payment.

I've been to Vegas a few times due to SANS conferences, and I've noticed that none of the casinos accept credit cards directly. They all have plenty of ATMs. I strongly suspect it is for the exact same reasons as described in the previous paragraph.

I suspect that many states have similar bans on using credit cards to pay for gambling, and I also suspect that it is for essentially the same reason as stated above. They may _say_ it's to protect people from going into debt, but the practical, bottom-line reason is that it guarantees that the [insert purveyor of gambling services] is paid.

Can anyone who has been to Kentucky and bet on the horse races tell us if they accept credit cards for wagers?

Re:It's not that simple

[CowboyNick]

It may not be obvious, but you can actually take money out on a credit card at the casino cashier window. You don't have to go to the machine first; it just helps speed along the process and keeps the line moving. Most of the casinos in vegas process their transactions through Global Cash which also runs the ATM machines at the casinos. When you do take money out on a credit card at these windows they also take your thumb print, check your ID, and have you on video as evidence of the transaction, so they are much less at risk for chargebacks.

Re:It's not that simple

[opec]

Can anyone who has been to Kentucky and bet on the horse races tell us if they accept credit cards for wagers?

Yes. I live a few hundred yards from the Red Mile track in Lexington. The tellers and machines accept credit cards.

Re:whos making the changes?

[DrVomact]

How this actually happened (the State of Kentucky obtaining ownership of domains) boggles the mind. It's not the judge that belongs in the loony bin, it's ICANN.

Did it happen? I looked up the registration records of a sampling of the domains in question, and none of them say they are owned by Kentucky. Maybe this is merely a case of some judge enjoying delusions of effectiveness? I'm at work, so I can't actually try to access these sites; did you try? It might be nice to do so, before going into hyperventilation.

I'm confused about what's at issue. Does the State of Kentucky now claim to own the domains in question? Or do they have a court order in place that directs Domain Name Servers (DNSs) to respond to all HTTP traffic to those domain names by resolving to a domain that's actually owned by Kentucky? Does Kentucky claim to have seized some property (domains), or does it claim to have blocked access to them via the DNS route? Did it work?

You know, for a technical discussion forum, there seem to be too many people interested in moral outrage and too few in explaining or discussing the technical issues that result from this legal decision. We can always get morally outraged once we understand the technical stuff, right?

Lots of gambling here in KY

[anonymousJUGGERNAUT]

horses, riverboat casinos (I think, out on the Ohio river), an appaling number of Bingo parlors. It's a little hypocritical to go ballistic on the internet services. But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is a state claiming jurisdiction over the internet. That's f**king crazy and has to be stopped.

In other news,

[vamidus]

the government of Uzbekistan has seized control of over 1000 domains owned by illegal industry of makeup. Uzbekistan officials are willing to return domains to the offending companies on promise they will never again engage in sales of cosmetics and a fine and a transfer fee is paid in full to the treasury of Uzbekistan. The prime minister of Uzbekistan also expressed his concern with western women distastefully displaying the intimate and private parts of their body like face, neck, arms and feet. He reminded the world that Uzbekistan men can only have so much patience and if women of the west continue this ongoing insult Uzbekistan will have no other choice but do dress each offender in appropriate attire, by force if necessary.

Re:out of curiousity

[Jupiter Jones]

And among them, goldenpalace.com.

Well, no problem then.

They'll just buy the state of Kentucky and rename it to Goldenpalace.com.tucky.

JJ

Oh my side!

[rahlquist]

All your base belong to kentuckeeeeeeeeeee

What next Kentucky, a Slander suit to get the domain name away from Kentucky Fried Chicken?

Re:Oh my side!

[fishybell]

You laugh, but apparently the people of Kentucky are very proud of "their" chicken. I, for a brief period of time, dated a girl from Kentucky who was dumbfounded that we, in Utah, had KFCs. After all, it says Kentucky right in the name, why would they be anywhere else? Never mind the fact that the first KFC was (until we tore it down to install a new KFC/A&W) in Utah.

Listen carefully...

[ewrong]

and you can hear the sound of 141 legal teams laughing all the way to the bank.

Internet Gambling~= voting machines== Fraud

[HighOrbit]

What's wrong with internet gambling? Well, what's wrong with electronic voting machines?

There is absolutely no way to know if manipulation/fraud is being comitted. There is no trail or independent confirmation or any way at all to tell if it is honest. (at least at "real" tables, you can watch the dealer and other players and you know they are regulated by the state gaming commission). And since large amounts of money are involved with no oversight, you can almost guarantee it WILL be manipulated. Internet Gambling should be outlawed, not because of killjoy prudism or moralizing, but because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from certain fraud. Its now a question of "if" the players are being defrauded, but "how much" are they being defrauded.

Even wellknown "respected" sites can be fraudulant. Take a look at this MSNBC story Poker site cheating plot a high-stakes whodunit.

Re:Internet Gambling~= voting machines== Fraud

[MosesJones]

state has an obligation to protect its citizens from certain fraud

Remind me how that went in Florida again?

Re:Internet Gambling~= voting machines== Fraud

[bnenning]

There is absolutely no way to know if manipulation/fraud is being comitted. There is no trail or independent confirmation or any way at all to tell if it is honest.

Not true. For example with online poker, you can use programs that store your entire hand history. Any blatant cheating would be easily detected, and even subtle cheating would show up in a large enough sample size. There are players with databases of millions of hands, and nobody has found any significant deviations from random chance.

Internet Gambling should be outlawed, not because of killjoy prudism or moralizing, but because the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from certain fraud.

Wow. By that logic we should also shut down etrade, because fraud is "certain" to occur in the stock market somewhere. How about letting people make their own decisions about the risks?

Even wellknown "respected" sites can be fraudulant. Take a look at this MSNBC story Poker site cheating plot a high-stakes whodunit [msn.com].

Sure. Just like in a live game, players can collude with each other or the dealer. Again, the cheater was caught by statistical analysis of hand records.

Ethically wrong? Exploitation of the weak...

[mkcmkc]

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

Assuming you're not trolling, the answer is that it entails exploitation of the weak. In particular for some fraction of people who gamble, it becomes an addictive behavior. Those people, in risking more than is rational, do damage to themselves and their loved ones (who may also be relying on them financially).

Over and above that, at a broader level it promotes greed and a "something for nothing" mentality that is corrosive to society.

The particulars might be in dispute, but you'd have to be blind to not see that gambling causes considerable suffering. I thank my lucky stars that I have other options for gainful employment available to me.

Somebody is playing April Fools

[rocker_wannabe]

I checked several of the domains and WHOIS doesn't show anyone in Kentucky as any of the contacts. This sounds like a joke to me. If it isn't then there are some people who are going to get laughed at for sure

Best line from the article

[abucior]

"A spokesperson for a spokeswoman for the state cabinet that filed the suit told the ..."

Wow. Spokespeople have their own spokespeople now?

Just another step down the road

[stormcoder]

One more step down the road to National Socialism. Welcome to Germany circa 1938.

I think the article overstates the facts

[SuperSlug]

From the article:

PPA Berates Kentucky Seizure of Online Poker, Internet Gaming Domains (http://www.pokerpages.com/poker-news/news/ppa-berates-kentucky-seizure-of-online-poker-internet-gaming-domains-31140.htm)
by PokerPages.com
Wed, Sep 24th, 2008 @ 12:00am

only two minor, non-poker domains: luckypyramidcasino.com and highrollerslounge.com are known to have had their domains seized under the order, which was sent electronically to Internet registrars after its issuance. Both of those domains are believed to have been serviced by US-based registrar service ENOM, allowing the seizures to occur.

However, none of the poker sites in first paragraph are believed to use US-based domain services, so all of those sites remained accessible with no interruption in service.

Lexington Herald-Leader Article says different:

[anonymousJUGGERNAUT]

A Kentucky newspaper is reporting that this case has not yet even been completed: Court hearing over gambling Web site names delayed The Associated Press FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A court hearing on whether the state of Kentucky can gain control of the names of more than 140 online gambling Web site names has been delayed. Gov. Steve Beshear, who supports legal casino gambling, is looking to block Kentuckians' access to 141 online Web sites. Some are among the most popular gambling sites for online players in the United States. A forfeiture hearing before Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate has been continued until Friday at 3:30 p.m. Home to the Kentucky Derby, the state already allows legal wagering on horse races, a lottery and in bingo halls. But Beshear says Kentuckians are wagering millions on illegal and unregulated gambling.

Justice

[DoofusOfDeath]

Am I the only person who would be delighted if through some mysterious cause, all resolutions of Kentucky's government-related domain names get redirected to off-shore gambling sites?

Re:Justice

[Antique Geekmeister]

Or Wikipedia, and the leaks there on Swiss banking systems and off-shore banking. Too many of the gambling businesses, incliding online casinos, are crooked to have sympathy for them as people. But like allowing the KKK to march in the name of free speech, this is an amazingly dangerous ruling.

Re:out of curiousity

[GrenDel Fuego]

I tried to RTFA, but I'm at work and the URL has "gambling" in it, so I got a "Access Blocked" and "This attempt has been logged" for my pains. So FTFA. How about a helpful answer?

I'm guessing that at least some of the domain names in question will cause THIS page to give you the same "Access Blocked" message.

Of course, someone already pointed it, so you most likely can't read my post ;)

Re:no. just imagine

[heelrod]

Hey! At least the mob is honest in what they do....
mob people

ky.gov?

[circletimessquare]

what a great name for a porn site, a site named after lube

or, alternately, it's a great starting point for a kentucy tourism campaign: "there's a little ky in you"

Kentucky must be a paradise

[alphad0g]

Imagine - the biggest issues that the governor has to deal with revolve around online gambling. I guess with the Creationism museum (oops! Intelligent Design), Kentucky must truly be heaven on earth now that the gambling problem is cleared up. Maybe the Governor will get the Nobel peace prize for this? I guess he already tackled the hard stuff like poverty and health care. Could he be our 2012 presidential candidate? Maybe he will win on write in votes this year. Wow! It is good to be an American. I am sure the other states will follow and Utopia is just around the corner.

Another side benefit

[hellfire]

The US government is notorious for giving itself exceptions, both directly and indirectly. Credit cards come with hidden fees that the merchant must pay. For example, of that $1 for the ticket, anywhere from 1 to 5% goes to a transaction processor who validates that the card is good and has an open balance. That's 95 to 99 cents that goes to the vendor of the ticket. It's illegal in the states to charge someone a different price for any item using a credit card instead of cash, so the merchant eats that. It's meant to encourage the use of credit cards as something just as good as cash, and makes the fee a cost of doing business. Since what I described is a federal rule, this is a good way to get around since this is only a state law.

There are probably many reasons for this law being enacted. Laws don't usually have only one true reason for existence, and you know that if it wasn't a law, some people would try to blow their $5000 platinum card on lottery tickets at some point.

side note: you may see many local mom and pop gas stations charging gas at two prices, one for credit and one for cash. Yes, that's illegal, and one of the reasons you don't see the big corporate chains doing it. However, the mom and pops are getting away with it because gas margins are slim and in the current economic climate the government isn't entirely unwilling to crack down on them since they have more important things to worry about at the moment.

Re:Another side benefit

[dheltzel]

Can you prove that it is illegal to charge a different price for cash or credit? I'll bet you can't because it not codified in any law that I know of, certainly not at the Federal level. The CC companies don't like it and they wield a lot of economic power, but it's not illegal in any sense.

Some CC companies prohibit having a minimum amount for a CC charge like you see in some places, but again, it's not illegal, just a condition that the vendor agreement places on the business. They might lose their right to accept CC's, but they will not be arrested.

The reason that large chains don't give a discount for cash is that handling cash has it's own costs and the services provided by the CC companies makes up for the fees they charge. Mom and Pop businesses don't see the non-cash transaction savings, but they do see the CC fees.

Re:Another side benefit

[Mr2001]

It's illegal in the states to charge someone a different price for any item using a credit card instead of cash, so the merchant eats that.

Er... do you have a cite for this being illegal? I know it violates the merchant agreement, but I'm not aware of any "federal rule" against charging different prices for credit cards vs. cash.

In fact, IIRC, even the merchant agreements allow you to give a discount for cash, as long as the advertised price is honored for credit cards.

Re:Confirm? NO

[AliasMarlowe]

On my whois, with the database record marked as updated today, it shows like this:

Domain Name: GOLDENCASINO.COM
Registrar: DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Referral URL: http://www.publicdomainregistry.com/
Name Server: NS1.SURF4SPEED.COM
Name Server: NS2.SURF4SPEED.COM
Status: ok
Updated Date: 25-sep-2008
Creation Date: 27-oct-1997
Expiration Date: 18-nov-2010
>>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:14:54 EDT

Contact the governor

[alphad0g]

Tell him he is a tool! http://governor.ky.gov/contact/contact.htm And thank him for the Creationism museum too.(Dinos and Man living side by side)

Probably Temporary

[maz2331]

My guess is that the judge did that to prevent damaging the owners prematurely, but did give the state the names.

It looks like he at least tried to balance the interests of the state and the owners, for now, especially as how there are further proceedings planned.

The owners did NOT participate in this case, and the judge wants to be careful not to damage someone who later might prevail.

At least that's my guess for now.

Re:no. just imagine

[nick.ian.k]

In that case, run in laughing maniacally with one of those round cartoon bombs in hand, I suppose.

Re:out of curiousity

[dougisfunny]

He said that it was blocked because gambling was part of the URL. Not because it was mentioned in the content of the page.

Re:no. just imagine

[unity100]

thieving neocons is far worse.

but theiving neocons are to leave in exactly 45 days. russian mob, or china oppressors are not.

Re:Jurisdiction and war

[AxeTheMax]

In other words, he knew perfectly well what he was doing was going to affect people outside KY and he did it anyway. Can't we do something do him for that?

Of course you (or your government) can do something. That is to declare war on Kentucky. I'm only half joking, this is ultimately how limits to power are established.

Pressure Fry

[maz2331]

The missing part of the recipe is that KFC pressure frys their chicken, and without a pressure fryer, you can't duplicate the result.

How do you swing the citizenship, though?

[swb]

I'd even settle for just the passports, but when you can get multi-national citizenship, then you're in pretty good shape.

Forget the Chickens, what about the Cows?

[LibertarianWackJob]

Speaking about PETA, check out this article from today's Dallas Morning News:
PETA asks Ben and Jerrys to use human breast milk in ice cream

PETA asks Ben & Jerry's to use human breast milk in ice cream

09:37 AM CDT on Thursday, September 25, 2008

Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- Ice cream made from breast milk?

That's what the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream to consider making.

The Virginia-based nonprofit group sent a letter to company co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield on Tuesday asking them to use human breast milk instead of cow's milk in their products.

PETA says the health of consumers and cows would benefit from the switch.

Ben & Jerry's spokesman Rob Michalak said the company applauds PETA's creative approach to bring attention to an issue, but believes that a mother's milk is best used by a child.

Re:out of curiousity

[whoever57]

I tried to RTFA, but I'm at work and the URL has "gambling" in it, so I got a "Access Blocked" ...

That's strange, I don't see the word "gambling" in the relevant URL, which is the last link in the summary:
http://www.holdemradio.com/smfforum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=2663.0
From the summary:

You can check out the press release here, and confirm that the Commonwealth of Kentucky does in fact now 'own' these domain names by performing a WHOIS search on any of the domains listed here. "

Justice - American Style

[DJ Jones]

I propose that the fine State of New York hereby seize all domains registered to the commonwealth of Kentucky in order to prove a point and prevent further embarrassment of our country.

- Index pages filled with lude photoshoped pictures of Kentucky Judges may also be considered.

Re:no. just imagine

[moxley]

Russia certainly can't be run by men anymore crooked than those who are running the US.

There are elements of the federal government of the United States have been being run as a criminal enterprise for many years; like HUD for one... Ask Catherine Austin Fitts. That's not even the worst of it.

I love America, I love the country and the people and our best traditions, but our government is beyond broken and I think that it is likely that ICANN could be in better hands - with everything that is going on here with "big content" like the RIAA/MPAA - the economic situation, the facists in government who want to make this a nanny state....I can think of a lot of threats to the resources ICANN controls if it stays. .

Re:no. just imagine

[Venik]

Neocon ideology is not tied to Bush and Cheney, or even to the GOP. It's an expression of US nationalism and superpower mentality. Many Russians will argue that Clinton administration with Albright's "new world order" was a far more potent realization of neocon ideology, while Bush represents a limited - albeit more militaristic - form of neo-conservatism. Historically, USSR and later Russia found it easier to establish common ground with Republican administrations in the US. Not to mention that Bush with his idiotic foreign policies probably was more instrumental to Russia's economic recovery than Putin, who just provided political stability while aptly exploiting America's numerous foreign policy flops.

Heck of a job

[MarkGriz]

Registrant:
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Michael Brown (secretaryofjustice@ky.gov)

Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.

WTF

[fudgefactor7]

US and KY law stops at the border. How the hell can they hand over a domain name owned OUTSIDE THE USA to the state of KY... Hey, it occurs to me that someone needs to lube up, so perhaps KY isn't such a bad idea at the moment.

Re:WTF

[BagMan2]

Where's its owned doesn't matter. What matters is where authority for the ownership resides. If somebody in a foreign country owns a car that resides in California, that car is still subject to US laws, even though it is owned by somebody outside the country. The same goes for domain names. Authority over the .com root domain name resides under US authority, so it is subject to US law. They should have registered their names under a root domain name that is not controlled by US law (assuming they could find some other country they trusted more).

dont talk without having a clue

[unity100]

russia is run by a REAL mob. analogies dont hold. cia, bush et al would look like a brutal bureaucracy compared to the back alley mob that is ruling russia.

anyone raises their voice, even in some positive tone of criticism, they GET KILLED no later than 6 months or so.

in contrast, michael moore is still going around the country without getting clubbed to death accidentally by a lone police officer in usa.

that should tell you the difference.

Re:dont talk without having a clue

[moxley]

I understand your point and am well aware of the situation in Russia as well as the Russia mob's reach other places.

My post wasn't about being able to unable to criticize the government.

My point is that rackeetering murderers are racketeering murderers. The fact that the "good guys," neck deep in lies, blood, theft, treason etc are more beaurocratic about it only makes them worse IMO.

Re:dont talk without having a clue

[unity100]

criticizing government was just an example to show you the difference.

you think the mob who kills anyone who dares talk in 12 months would not be any different than the neocons you speak of ?

my friend, russia is not even living under a fascist government. its far worse. there is no need to lie even, just confiscate, impound, repress, kill.

Re:dont talk without having a clue

[Kagura]

The fact that the "good guys," neck deep in lies, blood, theft, treason

I don't disagree with this line, but overall I disagree with parent and I agree with grandparent "unity100". If you can't understand "good guys and bad guys", how about "bad guys and far worse guys"?

For however bad it may be in America at the current time and in the near future, analogies are hard to draw with the Russian government.

Re:dont talk without having a clue

[drew30319]

crud - didn't mean to mod 'offtopic' - sorry! I think that by responding then my mod goes away... right? Sorry again.

Re:dont talk without having a clue

[mollymoo]

The moderation does go away, but I'm pretty certain I still just got your moderation to meta-moderate. Ahh, the wonders of Slashcode. Neither + nor - (I guess that means no impact on your karma either way, if you care about such things), in case you were wondering.

Re:dont talk without having a clue

[syousef]

in contrast, michael moore is still going around the country without getting clubbed to death accidentally by a lone police officer in usa.

You mean that he has money, and russian whistleblowers don't?

Re:no. just imagine

[unity100]

that 'new world order' of albright and clinton gave us the free internet.

world has never been the same again. see, you and me, talking together, im here, god knows where the hell are you.

that kind of world order is preferable to any else you mentioned.

russia's economic recovery is SOLELY due to selling of energy resources, and its stability is due to the fact that whomever opposes anything kremlin or the mob does, gets killed in 6 to 12 months.

Bad "WHO0...O0SH".

[gd2shoe]

I have mod-points, but I'll be kind and respond instead. Compare the user IDs of the two posts. He was trying to give an explanation to brain-dead moderators. He didn't communicate this very well, but your over-your-head style response was entirely inaccurate. It was an easy mistake to make.

Re:Bad "WHO0...O0SH".

[myvirtualid]

I have mod-points, but I'll be kind and respond instead. Compare the user IDs of the two posts. He was trying to give an explanation to brain-dead moderators. He didn't communicate this very well, but your over-your-head style response was entirely inaccurate. It was an easy mistake to make.

Yeah, about that.

Is that not what meta-moderation is for?

Is it not like a joke, that when you have to explain it, or point out that it was a joke, there is no more joke?

Dude, the OP even bothered to enclose their comments in sarcasm tags.

When we start having to add comments to protect comments from moderators, we really have jumped the shark-infested cupcakes.

And, yes, I will be modded down as off topic. So what? Deal with it.

The last thing we need is a flurry of posts and mods aimed at protecting posts from the overly zealous and the large-integered.

Buh.

Re:Bad "WHO0...O0SH".

[gd2shoe]

Hey, I'm not the one who made the original statement or the followup explanation. I'm not one of the guys who modded him "troll". I didn't say that he'd used good judgment, or that we weren't sinking into shark infested cupcakes.

I'm just saying that you made a mistake yourself, and you can learn from it.

Re:International Treaty's will not like this

[BlueStrat]

The US has already been punished for interfering with offshore gambling. I believe one country was given the right to ignore US copyrights as repayment for actions by the US... This is definatly going to get pulled to federal court and dismissed.. the precedent here would be disasterous

This is why Slashdotters should be encouraging this, not criticizing it!

Imagine the WTO ruling that no member country had to honor US copyrights as retaliation/punishment?

Free proprietary games, free proprietary software & operating systems..music..books...plus, so many countries doing this at once that the US wouldn't have near enough bombs, missiles, ships, or soldiers to dare trying strong-arm tactics!

What a circus that would be! As an added bonus, maybe it would keep politicians busy enough for a while to not be able to pass more stupid crap to remove more freedoms and money from the people.

Go, clueless Kentucky courts!

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Chicken What about Kentucky

[davidsyes]

Bourbon?

Is there any smidgen of Kentucky Bourbon in the recipe?

But, as for the recipe discovery, what if somebody orders chicken, then IMMEDIATELY puts it in portable deep freeze and begins to play "CSI" on it? Break it down into various pieces, then dissolve out the various chemicals, spectral-analyze the disposition of the spices about the mass or volume of the piece, aerosolize some of the skin and "sniff out" the constituent ingredients....

If the recipe can be culled....

I am sure if somebody dumped a few dozen deep-fried bodies of agents or significant people on the doors of the US government, with presumed operatives' name toe-tagging them, they'd play "FBI" or "MI-5" and figure out in what deep-fryer the bodies were or were not crisped.

Just treat the chicken like a forensics job. KFC cannot expect to keep their recipe secret **FOREVER**, i think. After all, most patented products have to be published in exchange for the opportunity to sell to consumers.

Deterrent?

[Slashdot Parent]

if anyone ever posted the authentic recipe, the KFC mafia would find them and smother them to death in beakless, clawless chickens with enormous breasts.

That is supposed to have a deterrent effect... how?

I'll explain for you,

[EmbeddedJanitor]

But first get the fuck off my Golden Gate Bridge. I decided I own it this morning, so it is now mine.

Re:no. just imagine

[Antique Geekmeister]

The original system wasn't bad. But to get federal agreement, and international cooperation, you've got the human problem of getting the countries to accept it, and the tendency of people to compromise, and the individual nation's desire to have local censorship and monitoring.

The result is the US export encryption regulations, French's encryption policies, the whackiness with 80-bit SSL keys we had for years, etc.

Kentucky is offering gambling!

[SleptThroughClass]

GOLDENCASINO.COM is registered to Kentucky. Going to the site... Gasp! Why, they're offering gambling! Kentucky is offering a gambling site!

Technically, I see that DNS lookup is pointing at an IP which is probably in the Caribbean. Maybe Kentucky hasn't altered the DNS info yet, but they should have had someone fixing that because they are required to reduce damage -- if Kentucky thinks the gambling is bad they should stop it, but if Kentucky doesn't know gambling is bad they are required to not damage the site's income.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Ethically wrong? Exploitation of the weak...

[glwtta]

In particular for some fraction of people who gamble, it becomes an addictive behavior.

Yep, it's the same reason why cigarettes, alcohol, and food are illegal.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:no. just imagine

[Kagura]

That's entirely dependent upon whose brand of pig-headed nationalism you want to subscribe to and

Does it have to nationalism to hold the opinion that in this one specific situation, the US government is a better steward than the UN might be?

Re:no. just imagine

[Kagura]

Or if it's a government that is opposing the motherland, then Russia shuts off natural gas to that country until said country is absolutely forced to capitulate.

Re:Ethically wrong? Exploitation of the weak...

[MosesJones]

Are you serious?

So you are against state lotteries, on-course gambling, Las Vegas, the stock market (what is that but gambling on the future direction of stocks), walking across the street (what is that but gambling against the odds of traffic), driving to work (same again). Its not "something for nothing" its a gamble, its placing a stake and playing the odds.

Alcohol causes considerable suffering, smoking causes considerable suffering, guns cause considerable suffering, driving causes considerable suffering, religion causes considerable suffering, the banking industry causes considerable suffering, US foreign policy causes considerable suffering, drowning causes considerable suffering.

What do you want to ban next?

You can keep protecting people based on your view of what morality is, but you'd be blind not to see the idiocy of a policy based on banning something because it causes considerable suffering to a small minority of people.

Land of the Free?

Re:no. just imagine

[LWATCDR]

Hey the UN put China on the Human Rights Counsel so what could wrong?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Each country controls their domain

[BagMan2]

Each country has a country-code domain name that is controlled by their respective countries. Those ending in .uk are controlled by UK law. Similarly, those ending in .us are controlled by US law.

The crux of the problem is which country has the rights to .com, .edu, .gov, and .mil? The answer is the country that invented them obviously, the US. If you don't want your domain name subject to US law, then you better find a root domain not controlled by the US in which to register it.

People just need to realize that the original root domain names are basically in the .us domain and are going to be treated as such.

Re:no. just imagine

[nick.ian.k]

Does it have to nationalism to hold the opinion that in this one specific situation, the US government is a better steward than the UN might be?

That's dependent upon the basis of the opinion. If you can avoid painting things in terms of "good guys and bad guys", as well as provide a solid reason for why the US in particular should serve as steward in this instance (as opposed to some other nation), you might have a valid point. Arguments suggested so far have pointed towards the issue of having extremists around in the UN when they've pointed at anything specific at all. By this reasoning, the US is equally ill-equipped to serve as a non-biased party because the US has more than a few rather extremist agendas of its own.

Re:no. just imagine

[nick.ian.k]

A billion Chinese people think China would be a better steward.

That's it exactly. [Nationality] thinks [Nation] is good, because they're the good guys, of course. Awful, empty-headed, hubris-laden reasoning.

The next thing ...

[Tired and Emotional]

Next, Kentucky will rule they own all domains that mention evolution. (starting with Slashdot)

Re:no. just imagine

[thethibs]

Jack Rickard and his army of sysops gave us the free internet.

What the hell did Albright and Clinton have to do with it?

Re:Chicken What about Kentucky

[compro01]

Attempting to determine the recipe via spectroscopic analysis would be difficult. Most spices are fairly complex chemically, so you'd get a massive amalgamation of various component chemicals, which you would have to determine what combination are what spices and those chemicals would likely vary significantly depending on where the spices were grown.

I've checked about 20 of the names so far

[Allnighterking]

And not a one of them is owned by the state of Kentucky..... Don't tell the govna.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hand it over to the IAU

[syousef]

Hand it over to the IAU instead! They'll come up with a ruling that redefines domains similar to this one.

(1) A domain [1] is a name mapping to an IP address range that (a) is located in the United States, (b) is big enough for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit (with law suites).

(2) A "dwarf domain" is a is a name mapping to an IP address range that (a) is in the United States, (b) is big enough for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit (with law suites), and (d) is not a porn site.

(3) All other names mapping to an IP address [3], except porn sites, in the USSun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Fish" and are to be eaten by bigger fish.

Re:KFC recipe? Who cares!

[syousef]

My wife reacts aphylactically to even trace amounts of a number of spices and especially to garlic and onion. The fact that she can easily stop breathing and has been hospitalised on more than one ocassion means nothing comes into the house that can affect her, and that I also can't eat those foods because if I forgot and kissed her that could literally in the worst case end her life. Our rule is if I'm likely to be around her in a 24 hour period I stay away from food that's wrong for her.

Fortunately she's a fantastic cook. (I eat a little too well). Lasgne, Canneloni, Lemon or Oyster chicken, steak and veg, home made pizza. I don't miss out. The thing is because we don't eat out I find that if she goes away and I do indulge I feel ill. Mostly because we don't use a lot of fat and oil in our cooking. (We use way too many carbs because they're easy and tasty and are trying to change that). KFC in particular makes me feel really sick if I eat it. By contrast the chicken we make at home tastes great. On the rare occassions that we have fried the chicken my wife's batter is much nicer and it takes more of it to make me feel ill. Likewise takeaway pizza just tastes like pure crap compared to pizza made on a nice base with a bread maker. There are still meals I love that I'll eat if I'm not around my wife - kebab and the odd burger are high on the list - but in general junk food is just that when you're use to good stuff. Now the good stuff takes a lot more effort to make, isn't that much cheaper (especially when you factor in waste), but since we have to make the time anyway I'm glad we don't eat a lot of rubbish. If I could wave my magic wand and make her allergies disappear I would - but that's because I don't like her in danger, for convenience, not because I'd trade home made for KFC.

Please join my class action lawsuit

[earlymon]

OK, it's simple. I hereby proclaim that all gambling in Kentucky has had ruinous effects on my life. ISO like-minded individuals to join me, find a shark, and find a state that hates Kentucky enough to seize ownership of the Kentucky Derby, distribution of proceeds from same to go to the class members.

And we'll spend it all on Kentucky Bourbon and then rise to the intellectual level of today's featured judge.

IOW, I propose we fight faar with faar!

All your domain belong to US

[Tyrannicalposter]

All your domain belong to US, as in the United States.

Re:out of curiousity

[Kalriath]

Awesome. So this means that one wrong click by the uninitiated will no longer result in all sorts of GoldenPalace.com adware shit popping up?

Fuck I hate those cunts - there's no reliable way to get rid of their crap short of reinstalling.

And you point is ...?

[bigsteve@dstc]

If such a control scheme was deemed to be against the US national interest, it would be vetoed by the US. Ditto for the other permanent members. So how does this make it bad for ICANN's power to be transferred to the United Nations?

Hand it over to AU

[bigsteve@dstc]

We invented koalas and Crocodile Dundee. What better credentials could you ask for?

Re:Hand it over to AU

[syousef]

We invented koalas and Crocodile Dundee. What better credentials could you ask for?

Oh the irony! I live in Sydney.

amalgamation

[davidsyes]

I was hoping there is already a database of spices before and after cooking/melting...

Re:no. just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia is not run by a mafia mob, it's run by the KGB old school. The Russian mafia is just one of many parties that would like to control the country however much like large portions of the military and the church. Russia has a lot of factions vying for control but the KGB is the current trophy holder.

I'm sure you were just referring to the current KGB elite in control as being like a mafia, but it seemed worth pointing out that there is also an actual Russian mafia who aren't in control but would like to be.

Re:no. just imagine

[Venik]

Clinton administration "gave us free internet?" I don't know about you, but I am still paying for mine. Or are you talking about Al Gore inventing the Internet? :-) Russia's recovery is in part due to oil and natural gas prices, but - and I am sure you know this and just trying to be dramatic - there is much more to it. Eight years of Bush's presidency gave Russia a breather and many Russians, while still anti-American, sometimes quietly thank Dubya and his entourage of political misfits. While Bush was busy wasting the unique advantage the US gained with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Putin was quite happy to offer his help to most crackpot ideas emerging from the White House and watch oil prices grow and American economy fall apart.

Yes but...

[Xest]

When has the US ever listened to the WTO other than when it benefits them?

It would be more appropriately named The US Control Of World Trade Organisation.

Lunacy!

[xenobyte]

When do governments learn that the Internet is WAY outside their jurisdiction?!?! - As it should be!

Wait.

[mkcmkc]

It gives me no joy to say that sooner or later you will slam into reality and see the error of what you are saying.

Re:Ethically wrong? Exploitation of the weak...

[mkcmkc]

because it causes considerable suffering to a small minority of people

Actually, smoking ends up causing considerable suffering to a lot of people. The other things you mention may (and probably do) as well, though I'm less aware of the situation there...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion