AW: Italy orders ISPs to block sites
owen at delong.com
Tue Mar 7 13:31:27 UTC 2006
--On March 7, 2006 8:12:59 AM -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore"
<patrick at 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
>>> 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 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
>> 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.
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
> 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.
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the NANOG