Slashdot Mirror
Kentucky Judge Upholds State's Gambling-Domain Grab
JohnHegarty writes "A Kentucky judge has upheld that state's seizure of some of the world's most popular online casino domain names, ruling they constitute a 'gambling device' that is subject to Kentucky's anti-gambling laws." Wasn't it surreal enough on the first round?
The book Blown to Bits we previously discussed goes into this in some detail but there is a clear, and increasing, problem that legislatures are very far behind the curve on the global nature of the internet. Not only can district courts in the US have a say, potentially, on the content hosted on a server in another country - let alone another state - but it also creates a pressure to host your servers in the country with the most lax laws around content control.
The application of laws designed to deal with print or broadcast media being applied to the internet - where ISPs are neither publishers nor distributors, from a strict legal perspective - is fraught with difficulty.
The application of social laws, like restricting your citizens access to gambling, also has an inherent problem when the social sphere in question is virtual. The law givers reaction often seems to be to target the technology when the social problem is what the law is meant to address.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
What a lie! Freedom so long as it is granted by the state is more like it. I should be able to have a domain name regardless of what it says. And on internet gambling in general, my money is my money, so I should be allowed to gamble with it if I so choose. If the government did its job and was there to protect the people rather to limit them, they would investigate online casinos for fairness and punish those that aren't playing square or if they are offshores, warn consumers about their practices.
Including by The Register. The judge is upholding his own ruling now that the companies that lost their domains get a chance to object. The loss of domains was done under a sealed order.
I can't find any legitimate reason for this to have been done under a sealed order (what were they going to do... hide the domain names), or before arguments were made. Here's hoping this gets fixed when it is actually appealed.
As for the circuit judge, Wingate (heh... like the old proxy software...), I think he's either making a political play to his career, or has a heck of a power complex. Next up, watch him issue an order that takes away my /. account for criticizing him. -.-
SIG: HUP
"Among other things, the state says online gambling drains the state of money by undermining horse racing, a key tourism industry for the state."
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Some world body should laugh them off.
Ha! At the end of the day your internet connection does have to come to your house and somebody has to install it and the ISPs router in that state. Either the installation company (e.g. Qwest, SBC, Comcast) or the ISP if different have people paid on salary working in your state.
As a condition of doing bussiness the State can have it block or re-route IP addresses as a condition of the ISP doing bussiness in the state.
One can quibble about how the ISPs will be able to block dynamic changes in host IPs, but look if each hour the ISP does a DNS lookup on the domain name then blocks the resolved IP it wil be plenty effective.
That leaves the gambling sites to rely on Proxies, TOR, or constantly changing domain names, all of which will effectively gut their clientele.
The ultimate weapon for the state in this case is that state can legally declare all gambling debts unenforcable. If they allow cost recovery from VISA or Paypal, the gambling sites may not only find they can't do bussiness in Kentucky but that from VISA's point of view they can't do bussiness at all with VISA.
Given the latter death threat I suspect there's going to be cooperation on this at some level.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So if the state doesn't approve of a radio station can they shut down the transmitter in another state or demand that the station modify all radios to not receive their signal? This falls under violating interstate commerce and KentUHky will likely find itself being forced to reverse by the feds.
Can a Kentucky court force someone in another state to do something? Another country? They can ban it all they like, but if they can't actually compel the person who runs the servers to turn them off it's just legal masturbation.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
The banks is where most of the gambling takes place and that not even with their own money, but other peoples money.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Do you have pictures of women with their entire faces visible on your web site? Congratulations! You've just won an all-expense paid trip to the Middle East, and a complimentary beheading!
I can't imagine this case will help matters any...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The law of the state of Kentucky, like the laws of any nation or locality, is applicable only where the authorities of that nation or locality can send people with guns, or convince the locals to point guns on their behalf.
So the trick is to host your servers and register your domain in a country where a court order from Kentucky is going to be recycled as toilet paper.
Of course, Kentucky may then try to firewall that nation to keep its citizens from accessing your site. But if China can't do it very effectively, I doubt Kentucky can either.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The best scenario I could see is to have all the ISPs in Kentucky state to block access to the domain names/IPs of said gambling sites.
Otherwise that judge is just asking for an interstate and international mess.
This isn't about preventing people from gambling. This is about preventing people from gambling when they're not giving the state of Kentucky their cut.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Or countries which ban criticisms of their government start grabbing domains of american hosted sites which break those laws.
Who says they're different people?
Everyone has a price.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Not so victimless anymore is it?
If you take that view then glutony comes under the same catagory when you clog up your heart...then it directly affects the gluttons's family.
Not so victimless now is it?
If you take that view then dangerous sports comes under the same catagory when you smash your head off a rock while river rafting... then it directly affects your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
Alcohol - alhoclol, drunken beating, affects your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
Stock trading, loseing it all in a stock crash: affects your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
Lighting scented candels: burns down your house and kills you and your family.
Not so victimless now is it?
The "It affects the persons family" argument is bullshit because it covers everything and anything. Everything has a chance to hurt your family and even if you don't have a family you get covered by the same crap laws.
Stock trading, loseing it all in a stock crash: affects your family.
Weren't we already talking about gambling?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
"Health care is not hand holding, it's a basic human right."
No, its not. A human right is not something given to you its something all people have by right of their existence. The freedom to voice your own mind (freedom of speech) is not something that is provided to you as all people have that ability (in one form or another).
Socialized health care is an entitlement just like public education and social security. Entitlements are not a bad thing but they are not to be treated as rights. The bill of rights does not 'give rights' it restricts the government from taking away rights people are naturally endowed with.
"Maybe where you (and Sarah Palin) are from treatment for a broken bone or chronic illness is "hand holding" but here in Montana its considered a basic necessity."
And maybe you (and Joe Biden) decides the desirable ends of an entielment merit destroying the purity and uniqueness of human rights by calling every good thing to be given a 'right' but here in reality rights and entitlements are different things.
Personally I am all for socialized Medicine *at the state level* I am also for free college education *at the state level* and Living wage enforcement *at the state level*. The more local the government the more they should be the ones who I have to interact with on a day to day level.
"Education is much the same way, though everyone around here does think that's a government function (though no one wants to pay the teachers...)"
Are there no private schools in Montana? What? there are... Seems to me people think its an entitlement the state can provide but its not solely the states job.
"And having social programs doesn't inherently increase the power of the state. It's poor implementation that does that."
It does over those benefiting from the programs (and those paying for them). Federal health care is a way for folks from California or South Carolina to have a voice in what conditions I have to meet to get care at a hospital. My Grandfather had little say over what treatment he was allowed to get for cancer in a socialized system.
"Socialized health care should be handed off to a team of highly skilled and respected health care providers."
Right because that's what our experience with the ever growing role of the federal government in K12 has demonstrated... The government will hand off that roll to a team of skilled and respected providers... Its not like they have a history of growing bureaucracies that are outperformed by private institutions (Private Schools / Charter schools) and self service people (home schoolers) spending far less money to do the same job.
"The government just foots the bill. Maybe you take issue with that last part."
Nobody, not you, not me, and most certainly not the government foots a bill without having a major say in how the money is used. I don't mind paying my taxes one bit, and if there is a real need I don't mind them going up. Personally I would rather send 7% of my check to DC and 28% to St. Paul (not counting SS, Medicare, ..., ...) but its not the money coming out I mind.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari