|
Title: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: Bongo on September 26, 2008, 10:46:18 AM Quote The state of Kentucky has seized control of some of the world's most popular gambling domain names courtesy of a state judge who issued a secret ruling last week ordering registrars to transfer 141 internet addresses to the state's top law enforcement official. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/26/gambling_domain_seizure/ Sites include full tilt, stars, absolute, ultimate bet, microgaming. Not really sure what to say, you'd hope they would have no hope of getting this through, but it seems they already have! Title: Re: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: lazaroonie on September 26, 2008, 12:49:41 PM that really deserves a "wow". i am thinking about the ramifications of this for any online business.
- could the irish government seize control of any domain which advertises private abortions ? - could the saudi goverment seize control of any domain that shows women in anything but islamic dress ? -could <insert any country here where sports betting is illegal> seize control of ladbrokes.com ? the quesiton comes down to whose responsibility is it to see that geographic based laws are upheld. so should full tilt block access to any website from a US ip address ? or should the ISP block access, or is it down to the government. this really is massive. think of all the silly little things which might be considered "illegal" in one country or another, and consider its availability on the internet. Title: Re: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: Bongo on September 26, 2008, 06:44:06 PM I think it's only the US that would be able to exercise this power over .com (probably .net, .org), and they would probably tell a foreign entity where to stick it if they tried (in the name of free speech).
Others tlds would be at the mercy of that country's registry, so we should be ok with .uk, unless it involves an arms deal or something. Also agree that it could have some pretty big ramifications - but think we've been here before with wikileaks (that one worked well for the courts). Worrying times! I wonder what colour tighty would have turned if blondepoker.com was on the list! Title: Re: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: Rookie (Rodney) on September 26, 2008, 06:45:06 PM Its a tough one tbh.
Cant I just have both KFC And PokeR? Title: Re: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: Claw75 on September 26, 2008, 06:45:42 PM I thought this was going to be a 'should I get fried chicken or play online poker tonight' thread.
edit: bloody rooks beat me too it again! Title: Re: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: Rookie (Rodney) on September 26, 2008, 06:49:16 PM I thought this was going to be a 'should I get fried chicken or play online poker tonight' thread. edit: bloody rooks beat me too it again! You're Rubbish. Title: Re: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: Bongo on October 20, 2008, 11:12:43 PM Seems this ruling has been upheld, with exemptions for those who use geographic filtering to stop kentucky residents getting online.
GG Kentucky. Title: Re: Kentucky v Online Poker Post by: K9sixtwo on October 21, 2008, 02:40:21 PM Ahhh... The land of the free ??
|