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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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 [wikipedia.org]). 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....
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?
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?
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.
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?
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."
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday September 25 2008, @12:36PM (#25154087)
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.
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.
"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.
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??
"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 [enom.com] 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 [wikipedia.org] over similar issues.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday September 25 2008, @12:45PM (#25154219)
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.
A few of these morons and (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A few of these morons and (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:no. just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:General Assembly is worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:no. just imagine (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:no. just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
dont talk without having a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:A few of these morons and (Score:5, Funny)
Alaskan politicians are good at understanding the internet
Parent
Re:A few of these morons and (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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
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?
Parent
Chicken (Score:5, Funny)
What I'd really like to gain control of are those 11 secret herbs and spices.
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Parent
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Funny)
That would be the number 6 he left out...
Parent
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Funny)
We can see number 6 here. Are you in Kentucky?
Parent
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Informative)
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 [razzledazzlerecipes.com]
Enjoy.
Parent
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Funny)
beakless, clawless ... with enormous breasts.
Funny, that's exactly how I like my women.
Parent
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Funny)
And the secret to their state jelly! It's kind of bland but the tube makes it so easy to spread on the bread!
Parent
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Rule of 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Confirm? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Confirm? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Confirm? (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Parent
Re:Confirm? (Score:5, Interesting)
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. ;)
Parent
many are back but see dates of last update (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:many are back but see dates of last update (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't answer how Kentucky has jurisdiction.
That should be the federal governments jurisdiction, since that really is interstate (or international) commerce.
Parent
Re:Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]). 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....
Parent
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
the most important question: (Score:5, Funny)
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?
What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Parent
Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
have you been paying attention to the global markets lately? It wasnt people investing that caused the meltdown but unadulterated gambling...
Parent
Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Of course there are registrars in Kentucky. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Lovely precedent (Score:4, Interesting)
So does this mean that the state of Alabama could seize the domains names of all vendors of on-line sex toys?
What next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What next? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
VERY Interesting Line In Order.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
pot, kettle... (Score:5, Insightful)
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??
Kentucky only has some of the domains. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 [enom.com] 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 [wikipedia.org] over similar issues.
WTO Ruiling (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Parent Missing Major Component (Score:5, Informative)
Here [thedomains.com] you go, sir, the court order.
Parent