Re: AW: Italy orders ISPs to block sites

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

--On March 7, 2006 8:12:59 AM -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore" 
<patrick () ianai net> 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: _bin
Description: