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!

cancel ×

272 comments

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

This just in (4, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452863)

Congress upholds right of DHS to confiscate your stuff for 24 hours.

I know, but is anyone surprised. Really, gambling is in that same circle as cigarettes and alcohol. Somehow the states have held on to their rights to exclusive domain over them within their borders whereas they lost about every other regulatory ability to the feds.

WTO maybe? Some world body should laugh them off.

Ground troops and the state's ability to enforce (5, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453059)

Some world body should laugh them off.

Ha! At the end of the day your internet connection does have to come to your house and somebody has to install it and the ISPs router in that state. Either the installation company (e.g. Qwest, SBC, Comcast) or the ISP if different have people paid on salary working in your state.

As a condition of doing bussiness the State can have it block or re-route IP addresses as a condition of the ISP doing bussiness in the state.

One can quibble about how the ISPs will be able to block dynamic changes in host IPs, but look if each hour the ISP does a DNS lookup on the domain name then blocks the resolved IP it wil be plenty effective.

That leaves the gambling sites to rely on Proxies, TOR, or constantly changing domain names, all of which will effectively gut their clientele.

The ultimate weapon for the state in this case is that state can legally declare all gambling debts unenforcable. If they allow cost recovery from VISA or Paypal, the gambling sites may not only find they can't do bussiness in Kentucky but that from VISA's point of view they can't do bussiness at all with VISA.

Given the latter death threat I suspect there's going to be cooperation on this at some level.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453173)

So if the state doesn't approve of a radio station can they shut down the transmitter in another state or demand that the station modify all radios to not receive their signal? This falls under violating interstate commerce and KentUHky will likely find itself being forced to reverse by the feds.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453419)

Isn't the US currently under sanctions from the WTO for its discrimination against foreign based gambling sites, while allowing a select few US based ones?

I can't imagine this case will help matters any...

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25454097)

I know it is hard for some to grasp, but the powers of the US Government are limited. It has no authority to comply with the WTO order.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (2, Funny)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454345)

The more I learn about the United States Govenment the more it seems that aside from being able to blow the world off the face of the universe it has very little real power.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (4, Funny)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453413)

The ultimate weapon for the state in this case is that state can legally declare all gambling debts unenforcable.

The state declaring it won't make it so. Gambling debts will still be enforced by large men in very nice suits, who carry heavy objects and know a great deal about the anatomy of the human knee.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (2, Funny)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453615)

That's why we have large men in not-so-fancy uniforms who carry guns.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454113)

Who says they're different people?

Everyone has a price.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (4, Funny)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454243)

Who will show up after you've already been injured, fail to locate those who did it, and fine you for breaking the state's anti-gambling laws in the first place.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454273)

The general public have uniforms?

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (4, Funny)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454059)

I really don't think the RIAA need to get involved in this one.

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (4, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453683)

But that's not what they're doing.
They're not rerouting traffic in the state.
They just took the domain names.
As in they can send joe blogs in japan to their own servers when he looks up one of those sites.

Imagine that you ran a mail order buisness, your "domain name" is your postal address.
You live and run your buisness from Iceland say or China.
A judge in an american state decides that you are competing with local buisnesses and signs an order taking your postal address and from then on any post sent from anywhere be it America, Europe or elsewhere will not be sent to you but rather to the judge.

The basis of course being that your postal address is an item required to do illegal buisness with people in an american state.

Clear enough for everyone?

The best solution would be for any registrars outside this juristiction to simply list the correct ownership information for the domains .

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453887)

I didn't quite understand that. Mind putting it in car terms for me?

Re:Ground troops and the state's ability to enforc (5, Funny)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453921)

OK:
The judge runs over your puppy and laughs while pissing out the window on your head.

Bring on the lawsuits! (1)

zaren (204877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452865)

I can't WAIT to see the flood of suits in a friendly Kentucky court for and against all the domain squatters now, based on this ruling. What a mess.

Re:Bring on the lawsuits! (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454077)

Fun one to try: find some european law which a few of the big US companies are breaking and try the same trick. Wouldn't it be fun to own www.microsoft.com or www.google.com

Not entirely accurate (5, Informative)

lrsach01 (181713) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452871)

Basically the judge didn't throw the case out. He is letting it proceed. It's not the wholesale grab of domain names some people want you to believe.

Re:Not entirely accurate (5, Interesting)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453013)

It's still a bad move. Basically, the judge should have thrown the case out because it's a piece of shit (or whatever the legal term is). If any of the gambling sites had corporate sites in Kentucky or web-hosting in Kentucky, then the suit has some legal basis.

But since they don't, it's setting a bad precedent of "Well, it's illegal here, so our laws apply to the website no matter where it's located".

Hang on tight, kids, it's a slippery slope coming up!

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453067)

The flood of gambling proxies being set up in
3...
2...
1...

-x... profit

Re:Not entirely accurate (4, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453265)

the judge should have thrown the case out because it's a piece of shit (or whatever the legal term is).

I believe the legal term is P.O.S.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453355)

Do you have pictures of women with their entire faces visible on your web site? Congratulations! You've just won an all-expense paid trip to the Middle East, and a complimentary beheading!

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453971)

a complimentary beheading

Hey, effendi, that hairstyle really suits you!

*slash*

Or rather it did.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453761)

Yep. Even though the lawyers argued Kentucky lacked jurisdiction, he ruled against them. Interestingly they also argued that a domain name being part of a contracted service as opposed to a property that they owned, the judge also dismissed that argument too.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454169)

Best comparison: you run a mail order buisness in europe which competes with Kentuky buisnesses.
Kentuky judge confiscates your postal address(it of course being your property) and has all your mail sent to whoever he choses.

sounds reasonable.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454213)

business not buisness
Kentucky not Kentuky
chooses not choses

The spelling is weak with me today.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453817)

The threat of seizure is bogus, but the real intent I think is fair... they are simply asking the sites to control where they offer their business... when you access these sites you are physically gambling within Ken-tuck state lines. If you argue against that you are complicating idiot.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453943)

I think this is probably going to be a good thing in the long run. This case should move past the state level, as a federal decision on this would set national precedent. The question might even have to go to the SCOTUS, since it's not really clear how states interact with the Internet, and this might get surreal enough to touch on things like foreign relations and the ability for the executive branch to make treaties.

Re:Not entirely accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25454291)

Slippery slopes are encountered by accident. Oppression is carefully planned and implemented one step at a time.

Considering the steady, continuous expansion of the US government over the past 100 years, both in revenue and power over the people, it should be obvious that we're being attacked by planned oppression, not a slippery slope. Who benefits from oppression? The power elite at the top of the power pyramid, of course.

Re:Not entirely accurate (4, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453081)

It's not the wholesale grab of domain names some people want you to believe.

The issue is not whether it's a "wholesale grab" or not. The issue is that if Kentucky has authority to seize a domain name used for gambling, any state has authority to seize a domain name used for anything in state law, and the net is quickly reduced to the lowest common denominator.

(Indeed, seems to me - though IANAL - that if this nutcase theory of jurisdiction holds, any country hostile to free speech can seize domain names left and right. Germany can seize "HolocaustDeniers.org", Russian can seize "PutinSucks.com".)

Re:Not entirely accurate (2, Insightful)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453223)

Can a Kentucky court force someone in another state to do something? Another country? They can ban it all they like, but if they can't actually compel the person who runs the servers to turn them off it's just legal masturbation.

Re:Not entirely accurate (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453697)

The best scenario I could see is to have all the ISPs in Kentucky state to block access to the domain names/IPs of said gambling sites.

Otherwise that judge is just asking for an interstate and international mess.

DNS (5, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452881)

So is it time to update the DNS servers to ignore Kentucky?

Re:DNS (4, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452913)

Both Domains? or do you want to change the core routers to just ignore their state's entire /24 subnet?

Re:DNS (2, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453991)

Can't you just cut the telegraph line?

Re:DNS (5, Funny)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454381)

Hey! HEY! Speaking as a Kentuckian there are many things we are proud of. Especially our invention of the toothbrush which if it had happened anywhere else would've been called teethbrush.

I'll be here all week enjoy the squirrel stew and bourbon.

Apologies to the Simpsons (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453357)

Lisa Simpson: But Grandpa, this flag only has 49 stars.
Grandpa: I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I acknowledge Kentucky!

Re:Apologies to the Simpsons (1)

bonkeydcow (1186443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454241)

Good quote but wasn't it "recognize Missoura"[sic]

Re:Apologies to the Simpsons (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454287)

It was but like I said: "Apologies to the Simpsons"

I guilty of gambling in Kentucky (1)

Centurix (249778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452885)

Fried Chicken by scratching a lottery ticket and winning $2. I know it's not the same thing, but I felt twice as guilty as normal.

Hang on, don't start yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25452907)

I have some popcorn in the Microwave.

So... (2, Interesting)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452911)

...is Kentucky now responsible for the casino-spam flooding my inbox? Where can i sue'em?

A man can dream...can't he?

The law is so far behind the internet it hurts (5, Insightful)

G0rAk (809217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452923)

The book Blown to Bits we previously discussed [slashdot.org] goes into this in some detail but there is a clear, and increasing, problem that legislatures are very far behind the curve on the global nature of the internet. Not only can district courts in the US have a say, potentially, on the content hosted on a server in another country - let alone another state - but it also creates a pressure to host your servers in the country with the most lax laws around content control.
The application of laws designed to deal with print or broadcast media being applied to the internet - where ISPs are neither publishers nor distributors, from a strict legal perspective - is fraught with difficulty.
The application of social laws, like restricting your citizens access to gambling, also has an inherent problem when the social sphere in question is virtual. The law givers reaction often seems to be to target the technology when the social problem is what the law is meant to address.

If they were doing this to spammers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453361)

...the slashdot collective would be cheering.

The puckered-assed lefties around here want the net as dead as the puckered-ass righties.

Re:If they were doing this to spammers... (1)

G0rAk (809217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454297)

Yes I remember, why it seems like only last week [slashdot.org] .

No, wait, it was last week.

Isn't the US supposed to be land of the free? (5, Insightful)

Jason Quinn (1281884) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452929)

What a lie! Freedom so long as it is granted by the state is more like it. I should be able to have a domain name regardless of what it says. And on internet gambling in general, my money is my money, so I should be allowed to gamble with it if I so choose. If the government did its job and was there to protect the people rather to limit them, they would investigate online casinos for fairness and punish those that aren't playing square or if they are offshores, warn consumers about their practices.

differant registrar? (1)

wud (709053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452931)

Why don't these companies just move their domains to a registrar that doesn't have to follow US law?

It's too late (2, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453009)

The initial court orders effectively prevent the name from being released from the previous registrar.

The operations in question can, however, create new domains using offshore registrars, but changing a domain name is not a cheap operation.

Re:differant registrar? (2, Interesting)

G0rAk (809217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453027)

Why don't these companies just move their domains to a registrar that doesn't have to follow US law?

And that would stop this judgement how exactly? Apparently the law of the state of Kentucky is applicable to any server on the internet, regardless of country of origin.

Re:differant registrar? (1)

wud (709053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453133)

Well the only reason the registrars complied is because they're bound by us law.

Re:differant registrar? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453425)

Apparently the law of the state of Kentucky is applicable to any server on the internet, regardless of country of origin.

It's only servers that are doing business in Kentucky that are at risk. If a server was selling drugs, child porn, or violating other vice laws, I'd expect the same reaction. It's not like the owners of the server thought it was legal or it's some gray area. Gambling is heavily regulated in the US. You can't just use the phone or the internet to get around the law.

Re:differant registrar? (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453499)

Apparently the law of the state of Kentucky is applicable to any server on the internet, regardless of country of origin.

The law of the state of Kentucky, like the laws of any nation or locality, is applicable only where the authorities of that nation or locality can send people with guns, or convince the locals to point guns on their behalf.

So the trick is to host your servers and register your domain in a country where a court order from Kentucky is going to be recycled as toilet paper.

Of course, Kentucky may then try to firewall that nation to keep its citizens from accessing your site. But if China can't do it very effectively, I doubt Kentucky can either.

Poorly Written (3, Insightful)

autocracy (192714) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452939)

Including by The Register. The judge is upholding his own ruling now that the companies that lost their domains get a chance to object. The loss of domains was done under a sealed order.

I can't find any legitimate reason for this to have been done under a sealed order (what were they going to do... hide the domain names), or before arguments were made. Here's hoping this gets fixed when it is actually appealed.

As for the circuit judge, Wingate (heh... like the old proxy software...), I think he's either making a political play to his career, or has a heck of a power complex. Next up, watch him issue an order that takes away my /. account for criticizing him. -.-

Power (5, Interesting)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452949)

Every day there's news here about Government trying to control the Internet. China with their great firewall, the UK and their laws, Australia and their version of internet control. Government gets crazy when they sense there's something they can't control. Judges, Senators, Presidents, the whole system.

What makes me sad is that I always thought it'd be harder to 'control' the internet, but it seems they'll do it sooner or later.

the good thing is (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453715)

that attempting to control the internet also destroys much that is good about the internet. you can't turn the internet into a controlled medium like television without also making it essentially useless for the things that made it useful in the first place

the point is, you really can't warp the internet, you can only kill it. and the absence of the internet is not something people will accept once they get a taste of it

Re:Power (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453745)

For those that think it's hard for 'them' (whoever you think 'them' is) to control the Internet, try finding the Saturday Night Live Clinton/Obama debate skit portion where the moderators offered Obama a pillow.

Every place I can find has that part of the 'debate' edited out even though it was the funniest part.

Somebody needs to stop this judge (2, Interesting)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452975)

Isn't Kentucky where tobacco comes from? Why doesn't a judge in, say, New York state order the seizure of the name Kentucky for poisoning the good people of New York?

It probablyt doesn't really matter. The judge is going to leave office soon and seek a more public office, probably running for the Senate or state governor (this can't be anything but a publicity stunt) and the order will get overturned on appeal.

Re:Somebody needs to stop this judge (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454129)

Isn't Kentucky where tobacco comes from?

Also, I think my blood is poisoned by Kentucky Fry Chicken.

Re:Somebody needs to stop this judge (1)

kipin (981566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454367)

North Carolina and Virginia are generally considered the "tobacco states".

I think Kentucky's chief exports are bad laws and regulation.

Motion to remove to the Federal courts in (4, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452977)

...5...4...3...2...1 A state judge rules that state officials have the right to take domain names registered elsewhere and belonging to organizations based elsewhere? This one is not staying in the state courts.

Follow the Money... (5, Insightful)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 5 years ago | (#25452995)

"Among other things, the state says online gambling drains the state of money by undermining horse racing, a key tourism industry for the state."

Re:Follow the Money... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453255)

So rather than go to Kentucky to bet on the horses, people will go to Kentucky and log on to PokerMad.com and gamble there instead?

Re:Follow the Money... (2, Interesting)

Calydor (739835) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453307)

Which, in fact, is a complete mock-up of how things work. Are you going to stop going on ski trips because you can visit an ice skating rink? Are you going to stop taking a week at Mallorca because you can go to the solarium? As he says, horse racing is a Key Tourism Industry. People go to WATCH, to experience it. Being able to place bets on the net is not going to satisfy that desire. It's like saying, "Oh, I got this CD of my favorite band, so now I don't have to go to their concert." It just doesn't work that way. If something attracts people, it'll attract people, end of story.

block kentucky (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453063)

All sites should block all of Kentucky. I'm writing a script that will give a "403 - Kentucky, unstable jurisdiction" error for their IPs.

What we need is for a complete blackout of Kentucky in order to cause that judge's world to cave in.

kentucky (-1, Troll)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453069)

Why is anyone surprised at this? This is, after all, the state that decreed by law that PI be equal to exactly 3.

I'm wondering how their statehouse dome got constructed...

Re:kentucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453245)

that was Indiana...

Re:kentucky (4, Funny)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453463)

Indiana House Bill #246

The most famous -- and only known â" case of a state legislature in the US attempting to create by law a new value for pi was that of Indiana in 1897; it has become legendary, and the basis of myth and hoax. Although it has come to represent the occasional ignorance of innumerate legislators, it was not so obviously a bad idea at the time.

The bill was introduced to the house by legislator Mr. Record, but it was reported that "Mr. Record knows nothing of the bill with the exception that he introduced it by request of Dr. Edwin Goodwin of Posey County, who is the author of the demonstration."[3] The bill began in the Committee on Canals (aka the Committee on Swamp Lands), whose chairman tried unsuccessfully to send it to the Committee on Education.

Redefining the value of pi seems not to have been its principal goal, but a side effect. In fact, the bill seems to have offered four different, new values for pi. Rather, the bill was aimed at benefiting its author, who claimed to have patented a new method for "squaring the circle", which he proposed to let the state of Indiana use free of charge if they would pass his bill! Its opening statement is clear:

A bill for an act introducing a new mathematical truth and offered as a contribution to education to be used only by the State of Indiana free of cost by paying any royalties whatever on the same, provided it is accepted and adopted by the official action of the legislature of 1897.

To lend credibility to his claim, Dr. Goodwin gave these credentials:

Section 3. In further proof of the value of the author's proposed contribution to education, and offered as a gift to the State of Indiana, is the fact of his solutions of the trisection of the angle, duplication of the cube and quadrature having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly, the leading exponent of mathematical thought in this country. And be it remembered that these noted problems had been long since given up by scientific bodies as unsolvable mysteries and above man's ability to comprehend.

It seems that Dr. Goodwin had already solved two of the great unsolvable problems of ancient geometry and claimed to have solved a third with his method of squaring the circle.

The bill made it through three readings and votes in the House, and its first reading in the Senate. It was evidently seen as of economical benefit, since Indiana would save royalties on the patent, and the legislators proclaimed themselves unfit to comprehend the details of the bill anyway. The finale was dramatic and down to the wire:[4]

That the bill was killed appears to be a matter of dumb luck rather than the superior education or wisdom of the Senate. It is true that the bill was widely ridiculed in Indiana and other states, but what actually brought about the defeat of the bill is recorded by Prof. C.A. Waldo in an article he wrote for the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science in 1916. The reason he knows is that he happened to be at the State Capitol lobbying for the appropriation of the Indiana Academy of Science, on the day the Housed passed House Bill 246. ... The roll was then called and the bill passed its third and final reading in the lower house. A member then showed the writer [i.e. Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He declined the courtesy with thanks remarking that he was acquainted with as many crazy people as he cared to know. That evening the senators were properly coached and shortly thereafter as it came to its final reading in the upper house they threw out with much merriment the epoch making discovery of the Wise Man from the Pocket.

There will be a time (0, Troll)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453151)

The time will come when the evil of gambling will be prohibited world-wide in a centralized manner, but right now the attempts to fight internet gambling on the scale of Kentukky look heroic, but naive at best.

Re:There will be a time (3, Interesting)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453253)

What are you smoking & where can I get some?

Re:There will be a time (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453407)

My money, my choice to be stupid or not.Nothing wrong with gambling as long as people are fully aware that the house always makes the profit in the end. I worked in a dog track for 2 years and on more than a few occasions someone got pissed off after losing and started shouting about how it was a big scam!... seemed to take the wind out of them when I somply agrees with them than yes it was a big scam, what did they think paid for all the nice things there. For the majority it's simply entertainment, they pet a little and lose a little. Just because the occasional fool makes foolish choices doesn't mean it should be banned.

Re:There will be a time (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453919)

Agreed. However, when some fool gambles his life savings, his house, his car, and loses it all and now the tax payer has to pay welfare for his family, I tend to get a bit irritated about it.

Re:There will be a time (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454047)

Which is exactly why I like seeing casinos run by the government!
Stupid people lose money, the tax payers win.

Re:There will be a time (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453589)

Being as the WTO is already annoyed with the US (for all the results it will get) in regards to other online gambling stuff, I do not see that happening anytime soon.

can i get the over/under (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453835)

on whether gambling will be successfully outlawed worldwide?

and what website can i go to to place a wager on that occurence?

Well in that case.. (ignore the pun) (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453155)

So based on that ruling. I am living in the UK but I can not just sue random domains because i can reach them via a domain name.. Sweet.

*nips off to see his lawyer about lawsuits*

Re:Well in that case.. (ignore the pun) (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453235)

what does *nips mean?

Re:Well in that case.. (ignore the pun) (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453423)

Well, I suspect he means one of the following;

1)Nips - racist language used to describe people of Japanese/Asian descent

2)Nips - Nipples. I hope I don't need to explain that one.

3)Nips - to leave, or go somewhere in an abrupt or rapid fashion.

I'd imagine he means #3, unless his lawyer is either Japanese, or buxom. (Maybe both. That would be nice.)

Re:Well in that case.. (ignore the pun) (1)

Forge27 (1360011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453903)

Don't forget: Nips - A cheese flavored cracker, excellent for late night coding

Re:Well in that case.. (ignore the pun) (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454095)

Root vegetables.

Utah (3, Interesting)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453237)

So what happens when Utah starts doing the same thing to your porn sites or issuing warrants for people drinking on their *public* MySpace / Facebook pages?

Re:Utah (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453983)

Or countries which ban criticisms of their government start grabbing domains of american hosted sites which break those laws.

Re:Utah (3, Interesting)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454079)

So what happens when Utah starts doing the same thing to your porn sites..?

Available bandwidth would increase by a factor of 100.

Not Surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453241)

...considering the judge is the guy on the front of the ATV [youtube.com] .

Why not go after the real casinos (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453273)

The banks is where most of the gambling takes place and that not even with their own money, but other peoples money.

How Long (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453285)

Before Kentucky is sanctioned by the WTO?

Hypocrisy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453327)

And this from the Governor who campaigned on legalizing casino gambling.

Gambling is illegal here in alabama (4, Funny)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453331)

So I think alabama should sieze these domains from those bastards in kentucky.

So when does our freedom end? (0)

mindmaster064 (690036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453367)

I really feel this is just typical of the socialist doctrine that has inundated our country and violated ever tenant this country was created upon. Gambling in all cases is a victimless crime as you have lost only what you have wagered. I'm American and I don't need someone when to tell me to go to bed, what to eat, where to stand, or whether or not I decide to gamble. All of these "notions" of legislation are really the tools of slow-witted bible-thumping scum that would have us give up every freedom we enjoy for THEIR version of right and wrong. I'm sorry, but that's not what this country is about and if you don't like it LEAVE. This country was founded on tolerance and the right to do as you chose provided you aren't harming anyone else. Who am I or anyone else to tell anyone what to do? Where does someone else get that right verses someone else? Screw that judged! I don't care where those domains are located what he's talking about is theft approved by the government and I can't stand by it. Everyone supports the idea of "home rule" in relation to states, but stupid rulings like that make me reconsider someone needs to keep this crap in check. Remember that every ruling like this has a potential to set a precedent and become the basis of federal laws. Honestly, what they are doing is completely unconstitutional; the government has no right to anything of yours regardless of the circumstances unless it is in the case of public use and then you must be properly compensated.

Re:So when does our freedom end? (4, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453777)

This isn't about preventing people from gambling. This is about preventing people from gambling when they're not giving the state of Kentucky their cut.

Re:So when does our freedom end? (1)

rilian4 (591569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454249)

...Gambling in all cases is a victimless crime as you have lost only what you have wagered...

Until you blow your rent/mortgage money, food money, life savings and your house...then it directly affects the gambler's family. Not so victimless anymore is it?

For the record, I am against this ruling. Kentucky has no business taking away domain names from someone way the heck outside their jurisdiction but gambling is known to be addictive and has caused massive problems for many, including losing money, houses, jobs and marriages. That said, instead of seizing domain names and outlawing gambling, the government should be warning people about the dangers of it.

Against international WTO agreements (4, Informative)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453383)

If this goes far enough, there will be threats of action regarding a blatant disregard of international commerce treaties. Seems to me that point came up before when the US tried to shutdown off-shore gambling.

Ah, found it:

http://news.cnet.com/WTO-slams-U.S.-Net-gambling-ban/2100-1030_3-5658636.html [cnet.com]

Ban CNN ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25453587)

What if some judge in Iran rules that any websites showing pictures of women without a veil are illegal, and should be taken off the internet ? Would this judge agree to take CNN offline ?

Methinks he is exceeding jurisdiction!

The ruling commonwealth (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453611)

Kentucky has jurisdiction over the global internet. Who knew? Always the guys you least expect, huh?

I guess now I'm glad I moved out here for a job. We can build our own tech sector by just ruling that everybody's computers have to be over here.

surely no one gambles at the Kentucky Derby (1)

mzs (595629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453633)

Oh wait, so it is not about some southern Christian social conservative right wing kind of thing to keep people from sin, but all about political pandering and "online gambling drains the state of money by undermining horse racing." ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10052137-38.html [cnet.com] )

Hmmm, as far as the rest of the world goes . . . (1)

bogidu (300637) | more than 5 years ago | (#25453857)

It seems more like a Denial Of Service attack to me.

Makes Sense (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454015)

This makes sense in a way. I mean, really, if the government can't tax it... it's probably illegal.

Wait wait wait (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454125)

I'm still confused. When did they get on the Internet in Kentucky. Isn't Kentucky like the boonies where hillbillies and gay cowboys live?

Virtual presence? (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454151)

Truly amazing. By that same argument, Calling me on my cell phone from Kentucky makes me virtually present in Kentucky as well.

I hope it won't be long before a higher court calls him an idiot.

Full Faith and Credit and the Commerce Clause (2, Informative)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454183)

By seizing the domain name, the State now owns or controls the domain name. It owns or controls it in the home state, and by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, it owns or controls it in all the states. This is part one--the acquisition of the right.

Part two--the enforcement of the right--will be very interesting. Destruction of the domain's ability to do business in the home State appears to be a trivial problem. Destruction of the ability to do business in each of the other states is a tedious process, but thanks to the full faith and credit clause, a doable thing.

The dormant Commerce Clause, however, looms over all of this as the big Green Monster looms over Fenway. In short, the several states can't go writing laws that straightjacket interstate commerce. But addressing that question is probably too much trouble for to take for the two or three people that will read this post.

They would have moved it to Federal Court sooner (2, Funny)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25454319)

But at first no one believed there were Internets in Kentucky. Well their pipes are in trouble now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>