Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

State of Kentucky Seizes Control of 141 Domain Names

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the when-the-state-is-an-avaricious-prig dept.

The Courts 505

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."

cancel ×

505 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A few of these morons and (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153721)

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

Re:A few of these morons and (5, Insightful)

paradxum (67051) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

no. just imagine (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154043)

u.n..... iran, n. korea. china. a lot of other radical islamist countries.

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

does that look like a nice picture ?

Re:no. just imagine (4, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154277)

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.

Re:no. just imagine (5, Interesting)

nick.ian.k (987094) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154283)

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.

Re:A few of these morons and (0)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154149)

But I don't think any 1 country should control this resource for exactly reasons like this.

Who, then? The UN? No thanks.

Re:A few of these morons and (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154187)

At least they're not a bunch of puritanical hypocrites.

Re:A few of these morons and (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154373)

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

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

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

Chicken (5, Funny)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153725)

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

Re:Chicken (1)

sabre3999 (1143017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153829)

And now for the ever present movie reference...

Move over Colonel, here comes the General!

Re:Chicken (5, Funny)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153885)

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

Don't tell anyone!

Re:Chicken (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153999)

You left out the beaks and claws.

Re:Chicken (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154393)

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

Re:Chicken (4, Funny)

Icarium (1109647) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154411)

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

Re:Chicken (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154097)

A fellow I know that worked at KFC told me he also added his own secret ingredient (special sauce).

Re:Chicken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154151)

2. rodent excreta

According to FDA bulletins, anything less than an average of 9 mg. of rodent excreta per kilogram (36 oz.) is allowed in wheat

Re:Chicken (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154171)

Chicken, grease, salt!

Re:Chicken (5, Informative)

josh61980 (1025498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154185)

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

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

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

Enjoy.

Re:Chicken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154265)

hahahahaha! and me without mod points...

Re:Chicken (4, Funny)

beacher (82033) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154223)

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

Re:Chicken (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154343)

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

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

Re:Chicken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154227)

( 1) 2 Tbl paprika
( 2) 1 Tbl onion salt
( 3) 1 tsp celery salt
( 4) 1 tsp rubbed sage
( 5) 1 tsp garlic powder
( 6) 1 tsp allspice powder
( 7) 1 tsp powdered oregano
( 8) 1 tsp chili powder
( 9) 1 tsp black pepper
(10) 1 tsp sweet basil leaves
(11) 1 tsp marjoram leaves crushed fine

Add that to some flour and you've got KFC.

Given its about American people... (0, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153727)

I'm not surprise to hear about them stealing... but if it's from other Americans, I guess it's poetic justice...

Well... (4, Funny)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153731)

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

Re:Well... (1, Funny)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153781)

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

out of curiousity (0, Redundant)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153747)

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

Re:out of curiousity (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153867)

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

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

Re:out of curiousity (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153873)

Here ya go: linkage [holdemradio.com]

Interestin'.... (2, Insightful)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153749)

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 (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (4, Interesting)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154235)

Do business in a fourth?

Thanks! (3, Informative)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153761)

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

NSFW (2, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153863)

Websense blocks it.

Re:NSFW (0, Offtopic)

myvirtualid (851756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154301)

WHO0O0O0O0O0O0SH!

Confirm? (5, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153767)

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? (5, Funny)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153799)

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? (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153847)

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

Re:Confirm? (5, Informative)

ashmodai9 (644800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153881)

Domain Name: GOLDENCASINO.COM

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

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

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

Re:Confirm? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154213)

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

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

Re:Confirm? (3, Funny)

Cow Jones (615566) | more than 5 years ago | (#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]

many are back but see dates of last update (5, Informative)

electrogeist (1345919) | more than 5 years ago | (#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

Re:many are back but see dates of last update (4, Interesting)

ashmodai9 (644800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154321)

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.

Jurisdiction? (5, Insightful)

Oqnet (159295) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Jurisdiction? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153841)

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? (5, Insightful)

Oqnet (159295) | more than 5 years ago | (#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? (3, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154179)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153857)

federal district court is the united states govt.

Re:Jurisdiction? (3, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153893)

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.

Time warp (0, Redundant)

bucky0 (229117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153773)

This was posted already, come on admins. At least try to act like you know what's going on.

Wow. (5, Insightful)

doctor_nation (924358) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Wow. (1)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154333)

Wait for the appeal.

Re:Wow. (3, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154347)

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

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

This applies equally to everyone.

Re:Wow. (4, Insightful)

einer (459199) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154365)

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. (1)

joeyspqr (629639) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154405)

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

WTF??? (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153793)

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

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

the most important question: (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153809)

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?

nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153811)

No, these domains are not owned by Kentucky. If your ISP has decent name servers and sane network routing, you get the correct results, not the retarded ones this article is blathering on about.

I even fail to see how you SHOULD get the incorrect results, unless your infrastructure is run by idiots.

What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (5, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153813)

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? (5, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153879)

One word. Taxes.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153925)

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

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

But that's me.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153937)

Just as with gun ownership, NOTHING is wrong with gambling. We just have a few (well, many) unfortunate crackpots in positions of power that are deluded into thinking there is a problem with it.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (4, Interesting)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153945)

What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?

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

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

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (5, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153961)

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

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (2, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154049)

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

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

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154073)

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

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

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (1)

Shaleh (1050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154111)

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

Corrections (2, Informative)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154119)

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

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

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

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

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

don't blame the US for its beliefs (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154143)

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:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154163)

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

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

Re:What is so dangerous about gambling anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154279)

Online gambling competes with Las Vegas. Vegas casinos bought the law, pure and simple.

I submitted this two days ago. (1)

TREETOP (614689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153861)

I submitted this two days back and it's still in "pending". Somehow, I got on Cmdr Taco's s***list, and there I remain.

Change the tags please (1)

vimm (1300813) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153913)

From "privacy" to "piracy"

Of course there are registrars in Kentucky. (3, Insightful)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153919)

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

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

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

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

Re:Of course there are registrars in Kentucky. (2, Funny)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154189)

and not all white men are rich or powerful

There goes my dating chances...

So may knee-jerk reactions.... (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153943)

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

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

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

Re:So may knee-jerk reactions.... (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154229)

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

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

Re:So may knee-jerk reactions.... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154263)

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

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

I live in Ky (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154013)

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

And they'll sieze domins outside the US how? (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154019)

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

Lovely precedent (3, Interesting)

Biff Stu (654099) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154067)

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

Re:Lovely precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154353)

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

What next? (4, Funny)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154083)

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

Re:What next? (1)

DeadManCoding (961283) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154169)

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

whos making the changes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154137)

completely do not understand this at all, where is the rest of the story? there must be something that explains how the registration is getting changed. Are the site owners also in kentucky and cooperating? Is that registrar in kentucky? Why is anyone even complying. Why can't iran just declare all christian domains be handed over for the exact same list of offenses kentucky listed against gambling?

Re:whos making the changes? (1)

ashmodai9 (644800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154209)

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

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

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

Re:whos making the changes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154259)

"While the lawsuit has generated plenty of buzz, it's unlikely that the order will hold up to federal scrutiny, says Buffalo State business law professor Joe Kelly. "If a state can do this, it would create chaos," Kelly said. "Can you imagine if some province in South Africa asked for seizure if they didn't like violence? Here's an American company putting on a show and allowing South Africans access to it, but because it's against the province's law, they'd ask for the same remedy as Kentucky."

Why is anyone outside of Kentucky obeying this? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154159)

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

VERY Interesting Line In Order.... (5, Informative)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Parent Missing Major Component (2, Interesting)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154199)

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

Re:Parent Missing Major Component (5, Informative)

ashmodai9 (644800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154239)

Here [thedomains.com] you go, sir, the court order.

Next... (1)

trailerparkcassanova (469342) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154231)

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

pot, kettle... (5, Insightful)

scotsghost (1125495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154251)

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? (3, Informative)

failedtoinit (994448) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Counter-workaround: Find a friendly court (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154319)

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

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

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

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

So what *is* 'dem Kentucky Judges drinkin'? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154355)

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

Seize them from Kentucky (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154363)

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

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

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

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

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

Has it been decided? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154369)

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

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

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

Kentucky only has some of the domains. (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154413)

"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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>