KY Appeals Court Nixes Seizure of Gambling-Linked Domains

davidwr writes "A state appeals court in Kentucky ruled that the state courts cannot seize domain names as 'gambling devices.' The court ruled that 'it's up to the General Assembly — not the courts nor the state Justice Cabinet — to bring domain names into the definition of illegal gambling devices.'"

Comments

Kentucky

[samriel]

I can hear the banjos floating over them thar internets now, clogging up the tubes...

a network not a jurisdiction

[drewzhrodague]

IANAL, but the Internet is a network, not a jurisdiction. I can't imagine they'd be able to do anything, other than block the site at the borders of the state, which is ridiculous.

Sure, there is gambling on the Internet. Sure, they may not like it. Could they prevent Citizens from using those websites?

Re:a network not a jurisdiction

[internerdj]

The great firewall of Kentucky...

Re:a network not a jurisdiction

[Hatta]

You can be bigoted over more things than race. When you believe your race is better than all others, that's racism. When you believe your country is better than all others, that's patriotism. In each case, you only support a group because you happen to be a member of it.

Great...

[CmdrPorno]

I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...

Re:Great...

[Chris Mattern]

If it passed, the law would get struck down in the Federal courts as unconstitutional. States don't get to interfere in interstate commerce, and that includes trying to regulate internet domain names.

Re:Great...

[Translation Error]

That's the court's job. When disallow something in a ruling, they tell why they did so; they don't say, "You can't do this, but we're not going to tell you why."

What??

[imamac]

It's not the job of the judicial branch to make law? Who knew?

Re:What??

[LandDolphin]

No, they don't make law. However, they do invalidate unconsitutional laws.

KY?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this article was about something else entirely. Sure, Kentucky makes more sense, but its much less ... appealing.

I'm disappointed. Disappointed and dry.

KY

[MyLongNickName]

I saw KY, and thought it was some elaborate goatse troll.

What prerogative does KY act under...

[Snotman]

when grabbing domain names owned by some other entity in the World? If any entity can just claim that a domain name is illegal, then what prevents me from grabbing KY domain names? Why would a state entity have a greater authority than any other political entity or individual? Who holds KY responsible for acting without a prerogative for this power? For instance, why don't the island nations hosting gambling companies grab all KY GOV domains just to be malicious? I would.

It *IS* just a name after all

[dmomo]

I'm not making a statement for or against this action. But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain. The site can still be up, it just cannot be referred to by the name anymore. It won't stop the the gambling, it will simply make it more difficult to describe (or find in this case). They cannot confiscate the IP address or shut down the machines if those sites are off shore.

I guess this is the equivalent of keeping people away from a location by erasing it from their map.

The ruling was obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Things don't sieze up when you lube up with KY.

What is kentucky to do?

[jambarama]

Ignoring for the moment that bans on gambling are stupid & this was a purely protectionist move, what should kentucky have done instead? Lets pretend this law was a good one that we wanted to see enforced, how can a state enforce it?

KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.

I agree this was a stupid stupid order that violated due process, free speech, and commons sense. But if the websites & owners in Antigua (or wherever they're based) were selling US credit card numbers & the accompanying data, from servers in Antigua at http://identity-theft.ag/ for purposes of fraud - what could a state do to enforce anti-fraud laws? (assuming this was a state question) What could the feds do, apart from file a claim with the WTO? (which they have regarding gambling in antigua I believe).

Re:What is kentucky to do?

[Dhalka226]

What are they to do? Nothing. What should they have done? Not passed laws they can't enforce, or tried to enforce them in ways that are clearly not legal.

Politicians simply need to stop thinking they can control the world or get everything they (personally) find morally objectable. It's silly enough when the federal government tries to enforce its morality on the Internet, but it's twice as silly when an individual state purports to have any authority over the rest of the world.

Bad Stuff(tm) will always be on the Internet, and that's just a fact of life. They don't have to like it, but they need to get behind it. They can save a lot of money and trouble for a lot of people simply by coming to that revelation. (And all of this ignores the questions about whether or not it is right to enforce personal moral standards on others, much less others not in your jurisdiction.)

If they really want to help with things, they need to educate people in their jurisdiction to the risks or help those who have already gotten in trouble. EG, if identity-theft.ag really did exist, they should help the people whose identities were stolen to begin rectifying the situation. They're perfectly free to contact legal authorities where the crime is taking place, of course, and see if that leads anywhere. Just assuming they have some sort of authority to stop it independent of that... urgh.

And this differes from other countries how?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

Re:And this differes from other countries how?

[Red Flayer]

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

That's a gross oversimplification. Many of the people who contributed to the Constitution were in favor of a strong Federal government (hence the term 'Federalist' used to describe them). While some were vociferously against a strong Federal government, it is mistaken to say that the United States was intended to be a federation like those you mention -- the original intent, as ratified by each of the states, was to be a much stronger union than any of those federations.

I will not disagree that the federal government has subsumed much of the authority of the states; I will, however, point out that the original States were not considered to be independent countries, otherwise foreign relations would not have been assigned to the federal government.

As for Indian tribes, they truly are more like sovereign nations, but there are entanglements that make them not quite independent.

To get back to the meat of your post, though -- states do have certain sovereign rights, and while sometimes they act without considering the impact of their actions on other states, this is one reason why we have a federal government -- to mediate disputes. It is a valid point that the OP makes, that it's somewhat screwy for a state or country to make unilateral proclamations that affect the rest of the country (or world). It's a very provincial attitude that pisses other people off.

Re:And this differes from other countries how?

[AuMatar]

No, states in the US are *not* separate countries. That was true under the Articles of Confederation, but the states gave up their sovereign status by ratifying the Constitution. The states are now semi-autonomous legislative districts with delineated responsibilities under the nation the United States. Far closer to the Scottish parliament and the UK than to the EU, UN, etc.

Re:And this differes from other countries how?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Looks like someone flunked american history or government. The states aren't countries. The commonwealths like Mass or VA aren't countries either.

As originally envisioned, the states were supposed to do most of the governing, except for things that are international or inter-state, but the states are not countries.

I agree that someone flunked but I doubt it was yours truly.

Note that the first 13 states PREDATE both the Continental Congress and the Federal Government which succeeded it (though "staged a coup on it" is arguably a valid description). So they clearly were sovereign entities which eventually surrendered certain functions to the federation they formed.

Later states were sometimes formed from territories controlled by the federation (Michigan, Ohio, ...) and sometimes (Texas, Hawaii ...) independent (for some value of independent) countries admitted by treaty. However: All later states are admitted on equal basis with the original states. So if they weren't independent countries that joined a federation BEFORE they became member states they became such BY BECOMING member states. (Note that they have to be republics to be members and that one of the Constitutional functions of the Fed is to insure that they continue to be republics internally.)

No it's not. It's an entry in a database.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain.

"What's in a name?"

In this case it's NOT just a name. It's an entry in a publicly-accessible and trusted database, mapping the name to a set of servers.

THAT's what the state of Kentucky seized.

And it's very valuable. I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue resulting from the disruption of their business (along with damage to their trademark) caused by Kentucky's successful appropriation of their domain records.

Information wants to be free

[mangu]

Lets pretend this law was a good one that we wanted to see enforced, how can a state enforce it?

Short answer: it cannot. It would be unconstitutional in at least two counts: if considered as commerce, states cannot interfere in interstate commerce. If not considered as commerce then it's equivalent to speech, and would violate the First Amendment.

A state can prohibit gambling, for instance betting on horse races. But it cannot prohibit anyone to publish horse race results. What could the state of Kentucky do if someone phones a bookmaker in Las Vegas placing a bet on a horse?

if the websites & owners in Antigua (or wherever they're based) were selling US credit card numbers & the accompanying data, from servers in Antigua at http://identity-theft.ag/ for purposes of fraud - what could a state do to enforce anti-fraud laws?

Go after the buyers. Who uses that data for committing fraud? That's where the actual harm is perpetrated.

GoDaddy in this case was a Wimp

[CuteSteveJobs]

What sucked in this case was that GoDaddy handed over all those domains without a fight, but Network Solutions fought the suit for their customers and won. Network Soluions > GoDaddy.

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/kudos-network-solutions-standing-online-gambling-sites-100708.html