Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Privacy United States News

State of Kentucky Seizes Control of 141 Domain Names 505

Posted by timothy
from the when-the-state-is-an-avaricious-prig dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State of Kentucky Seizes Control of 141 Domain Names

Comments Filter:
  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:15PM (#25153721) Homepage Journal
    ICANN will be handed over to U.N., resulting in whole lot of mess.
    • by paradxum (67051) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:22PM (#25153835)
      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.
  • Chicken (Score:5, Funny)

    by 77Punker (673758) <spencr04&highpoint,edu> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:15PM (#25153725)

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

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by aztracker1 (702135) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:15PM (#25153731) Homepage
    window.location.replace('http://pwned.ky.us/');
  • Interestin'.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UncleTogie (1004853) * on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:16PM (#25153749) Homepage Journal

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

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

    • WTO Ruiling (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:45PM (#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.

  • Rule of 3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zerth (26112) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:16PM (#25153755)

    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)

      by Pollardito (781263) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:16PM (#25154689)

      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.

  • Thanks! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:16PM (#25153761) Journal
    [sarcasm] for posting a link to gambling911 in the article. Not like anyone reads Slashdot at work or anything. [/sarcasm]
  • Confirm? (Score:5, Informative)

    by jonnythan (79727) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:17PM (#25153767) Homepage

    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)

      by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:19PM (#25153799) Journal

      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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ashmodai9 (644800) <spamtrap&ashmodai,com> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:24PM (#25153881) Homepage

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 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 po

      • Re:Confirm? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Cow Jones (615566) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:48PM (#25154273)

        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!

        ... [quotedb.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Bryansix (761547)
        Quick everybody call that number!
      • Re:Confirm? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by The Cisco Kid (31490) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:02PM (#25154485)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dog-Cow (21281)

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

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by The Cisco Kid (31490)

            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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Bobfrankly1 (1043848)

        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!

      • 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 damag

    • by electrogeist (1345919) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:49PM (#25154281)

      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

  • Jurisdiction? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oqnet (159295) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:17PM (#25153771)

    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 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? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Oqnet (159295) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:28PM (#25153959)

        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? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by corsec67 (627446) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:43PM (#25154179) Homepage Journal

        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? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:02PM (#25154483) Journal

        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....

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by number11 (129686)

        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by orclevegam (940336)
      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? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Verteiron (224042) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:12PM (#25154625) Homepage

      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?

  • Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doctor_nation (924358) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:17PM (#25153777)

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kabocox (199019)

      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 terr

      • Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kesuki (321456) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:33PM (#25154943) Journal

        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. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by einer (459199) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:54PM (#25154365) Journal

      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. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nicklott (533496) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @03:58PM (#25156247)
        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. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by X0563511 (793323) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:03PM (#25154497) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Obyron (615547)
      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 divorc
  • 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.

  • 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?

  • by MosesJones (55544) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:20PM (#25153813) Homepage

    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?

    • by spire3661 (1038968) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:24PM (#25153879) Journal
      One word. Taxes.
    • by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:27PM (#25153945) Journal

      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 night_flyer (453866) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:28PM (#25153961) Homepage

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098)

      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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:36PM (#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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:58PM (#25154423)

        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.

    • 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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by erlenic (95003)

      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.

    • 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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Technician (215283)

      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

  • by mr_mischief (456295) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:26PM (#25153919) Journal

    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)

    by Biff Stu (654099) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:34PM (#25154067)

    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)

    by mweather (1089505) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:36PM (#25154083)
    Next we'll see China seize 141 illegal democracy websites, such as whitehouse.gov.
  • by maz2331 (1104901) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:44PM (#25154197)

    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.

    • Probably Temporary (Score:3, Interesting)

      by maz2331 (1104901)

      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.

  • by MSTCrow5429 (642744) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:44PM (#25154199)
    Um, where's the link to the court ruling??? If there isn't yet one published, the parent needs to say so.
  • pot, kettle... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scotsghost (1125495) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:47PM (#25154251) Journal

    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??

  • Proper Procedure? (Score:3, Informative)

    by failedtoinit (994448) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:50PM (#25154305)
    #1 Link for us who are at work Try Here [kypost.com] #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.
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @01:58PM (#25154413) Homepage

    "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.

  • Luck failing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by just_another_sean (919159) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:02PM (#25154479) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Kentucky (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ohio Calvinist (895750) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:08PM (#25154555)
    In other news; Kentucky has computers now! Disclaimer: I am an Appalachian-American so it is ok. Seriously. :)
  • by rahlquist (558509) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:39PM (#25155021) Homepage

    All your base belong to kentuckeeeeeeeeeee

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

  • Justice (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @02:53PM (#25155271)

    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?

A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.

Working...