North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: AW: Italy orders ISPs to block sites

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Tue Mar 07 08:35:12 2006



--On March 7, 2006 8:12:59 AM -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

I understand, that from an American point of view this kind of
restriction
looks strange and is against your act of freedom, however here in
Europe
gambling is a state controlled business that supports the state
economy
and in most European countries gambling outside state controlled
casinos
is simply illegal and forbidden by law.
Even in the US, this is true.  Gambling in California is illegal
(except
indian casions, long story), because Nevada has a powerful lobby in
California.
That's an interesting comment.

The largest cardroom in the world is in California (Commerce  Casino).
And there are plenty of places to play poker.

The difference is that California has decided (properly, IMHO) that
poker is a game of _skill_, not chance.  And there are other games  you
can play at these cardrooms, but you play them against other  players,
not the house.  And most online gambling sites either allow  poker or
sports betting.  I guess you could call sports begging  "gambling", but
there is skill involved there too.

Not that things like "facts" matter to politicians, or even  lawyers....
:-)

Actually, it's not so much skill vs. luck, but, the fact that CA has
certain exceptions for "mutual benefits" betting which is a fancy
term for the house gets a fixed percentage no matter who wins.  This
allows for card rooms and horse tracks.


I don't question the validity of the law.  That's between the
Italians and
their government.  I question the practicality of enforcing the law
because
the way the internet and the international economies work, it is
virtually
impossible to enforce this short of something like the great firewall
of China (which still allows SSH through for the most part, so...).
Bringing this back to Operational Content <gasp>, this is the big  point.
I honestly do no believe you can stop people from getting to  sites they
want to see without stopping Internet access as a whole.   Even the Great
Firewall Of China is essentially swiss cheese to  anyone who wants to get
around it.  Fear of "meat-space" punishment  is probably more important
than the technology used.

You'd be surprised how effective the GFOC can be.  The Chinese government
doesn't hesitate to walk in and literally cut the power to a datacenter
if they so desire.

Yes, most people use their ISP's recursive NS, but that's 'cause  they're
lazy.  When it stops working, they'll use something else.   Block
$DEFAULT_PORT for filesharing, they'll find another.  So unless  you
proxy 100% of the traffic (possible, but difficult), and watch  for
proxies outside your proxy (nearly impossible), people will get  through.

Not even possible to proxy 100% of traffic unless you block all SSL and
prevent SSH.

Seeing governments try to legislate around technology they do not
understand is ... amusing.  If they want to stop this activity,  making a
law regarding routers or servers is not the way to do it.

Certainly not the effective way to do it.

Owen


--
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.

Attachment: pgp00018.pgp
Description: PGP signature