Bad analogy KY!
The big problem I see with the State of Kentucky's recent attempt to grab 140ish gambling domains is that they have a bad understanding of what they are dealing with. At first blush it seems clear that they are way outside their jurisdictional boundaries; some, likely most, of the domains are admin'ed thousands of miles from the Kentucky borders.
The law they are relying on gives them the legal right to seize gambling devices, and they are apparently using the opinion that a set of numbers known as an IP address, are a device.
They are just flat wrong. The IP address/domain name is to the gambling activity that they are trying to curtail a great deal more like the Post Office is to a mail order house. To get a web site to deliver it's gambling application to you via the web, you have to request that delivery in some way. Whether you type in a domain name, find it in an email or link to it from another site, search it out on google or just start randomly typing in words until you find a relevant web site, the consumer has to do something to get there.
Similarly, if I want to buy something that is illegal or just embarrassing from an out of state supplier, I have to do something like respond to an ad in the back of a dirty magazine or call a number that my illicit contact gave me, and order it to be delivered, probably by the USPS.
If my state's attorney general doesn't approve of that, they have the recourse to go after me, possibly they can petition their counterpart in whatever community the whatever I am consuming they disapprove of is produced for reciprocity of some sort to shut the place down, but they probably won't go after the United States Postal Service.
Personally, I think the State of Kentucky should not be heard based on the simple fact that they are trying to shutter businesses that are nowhere near being in their jurisdiction. If they want to close those businesses within their own boundaries, then they have a Herculean task in front of them, but it can be done. The government of China might be able to give them some pointers if they can't find anyone local. The sites can be blocked based on the various IP addresses registered to Kentucky based ISP's, and eventually they will be able to say "Not in MY state, by gum!*" Better be careful you don't block people in the next state over, though - that's gonna have the potential to bring a world of First Amendment hurt down on you.
Trying to seize someone's property that you don't have either any right to, nor any realistic prayer of actually obtaining, is silly, counterproductive, and in the current climate, wasteful of precious economic resources that could be better dedicated to something that won't make you an international laughing stock.
If you really want to do it, hire me and I will coordinate the blocking. It will be expensive, but I guess it's worth it to you.
* P.S. This seems to me like it is an absolutely insane proposition, and I would recommend adjusting your goals instead, but if you really want to dedicate the resources, you could do it. Is China really the role model you want to be emulating?
The law they are relying on gives them the legal right to seize gambling devices, and they are apparently using the opinion that a set of numbers known as an IP address, are a device.
They are just flat wrong. The IP address/domain name is to the gambling activity that they are trying to curtail a great deal more like the Post Office is to a mail order house. To get a web site to deliver it's gambling application to you via the web, you have to request that delivery in some way. Whether you type in a domain name, find it in an email or link to it from another site, search it out on google or just start randomly typing in words until you find a relevant web site, the consumer has to do something to get there.
Similarly, if I want to buy something that is illegal or just embarrassing from an out of state supplier, I have to do something like respond to an ad in the back of a dirty magazine or call a number that my illicit contact gave me, and order it to be delivered, probably by the USPS.
If my state's attorney general doesn't approve of that, they have the recourse to go after me, possibly they can petition their counterpart in whatever community the whatever I am consuming they disapprove of is produced for reciprocity of some sort to shut the place down, but they probably won't go after the United States Postal Service.
Personally, I think the State of Kentucky should not be heard based on the simple fact that they are trying to shutter businesses that are nowhere near being in their jurisdiction. If they want to close those businesses within their own boundaries, then they have a Herculean task in front of them, but it can be done. The government of China might be able to give them some pointers if they can't find anyone local. The sites can be blocked based on the various IP addresses registered to Kentucky based ISP's, and eventually they will be able to say "Not in MY state, by gum!*" Better be careful you don't block people in the next state over, though - that's gonna have the potential to bring a world of First Amendment hurt down on you.
Trying to seize someone's property that you don't have either any right to, nor any realistic prayer of actually obtaining, is silly, counterproductive, and in the current climate, wasteful of precious economic resources that could be better dedicated to something that won't make you an international laughing stock.
If you really want to do it, hire me and I will coordinate the blocking. It will be expensive, but I guess it's worth it to you.
* P.S. This seems to me like it is an absolutely insane proposition, and I would recommend adjusting your goals instead, but if you really want to dedicate the resources, you could do it. Is China really the role model you want to be emulating?
posted by Fuzzy2k at 2/05/2009 04:40:00 PM
0 comments
links to this post
