AW: Italy orders ISPs to block sites
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Tue Mar 7 13:12:59 UTC 2006
On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I understand, that from an American point of view this kind of
>> looks strange and is against your act of freedom, however here in
>> gambling is a state controlled business that supports the state
>> and in most European countries gambling outside state controlled
>> is simply illegal and forbidden by law.
> Even in the US, this is true. Gambling in California is illegal
> indian casions, long story), because Nevada has a powerful lobby in
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
> 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
> the way the internet and the international economies work, it is
> 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.
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
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.
IMHO, of course.
More information about the NANOG