As you may recall, in a move that was blatantly designed to protect local gambling interests (no one denies this particular point), Kentucky passed a law allowing the governor to declare any gambling related website (even parked domains) "illegal gambling devices" and then to seize those domains. The governor moved to do so on over 100 domains -- none of which had anything to do with Kentucky whatsoever. Amazingly, a judge agreed that the governor had every right to seize these domain names, despite the lack of a Kentucky connection. It's not hard to see how problematic a ruling this is from a jurisdictional standpoint. Thankfully, the state's appeals court overturned the lower court ruling. Separately, a UK court ruled that Kentucky had no right to seize UK-based domains.

The state appealed the ruling in the appeals court, and many assumed that the Kentucky Supreme Court would agree with the basic logic of the appeals court. Instead Ragaboo alerts us to the news that the Kentucky Supreme Court has overturned the appeals court ruling, effectively allowing the state to seize the domain names again. The ruling focused on a technicality, rather than on the merits -- arguing that the Interactive Media and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), two gaming associations who brought the lawsuit in the first place, had no standing in the case and could not bring the case in question.

"Instead of owners, operators, or registrants of the website domain names, the lawyers opposing the Commonwealth claimed to represent two types of entities: (1) the domain names themselves and (2) gaming trade association who profess to include as members registrants of the seized domains, though they have yet to reveal any of their identities."

The court even acknowledged that the lawyers on behalf of the associations made "numerous, compelling arguments endorsing the grant of the writ of prohibition," but that "(a)lthough all such arguments may have merit, none can even be considered unless presented by a party with standing."

Of course, it seems rather ironic that the issue here is standing, when you could just as easily ask what sort of standing the state of Kentucky has to seize a domain name based elsewhere? In the meantime, if any of the actual domain owners is willing to step forward, the case may be reheard -- and hopefully the Kentucky Supreme Court will rule against the state on the merits and the simple fact that seizing domain names that have nothing to do with Kentucky sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

We've covered the bizarre legal battle in Kentucky, where the governor tried to have a long list of gambling-related domain names (none of which had anything to do with the state of Kentucky) declared "illegal gambling devices" so that the state could seize the domain names. The governor has been pretty open that this has nothing to do with any moral issue over online gambling, but is a blatant attempt to help protect local gambling establishments in the state. Of course, it's ridiculous to think that a state governor could claim the right to seize domain names that are not based in Kentucky at all, and after a lower court (that didn't seem to understand the issue) sided with the governor, an appeal court overturned that ruling. Rather than recognize how silly this campaign is, the case is going to the state Supreme Court.

But, apparently the lawsuits aren't just happening in Kentucky. Michael Scott points us to the news that one of the companies targeted by Kentucky brought a lawsuit both against Kentucky and its own registrar in the UK to get a ruling that it is not subject to the whims of Kentucky politicians. The state of Kentucky ignored the proceedings, which resulted in the court agreeing that Kentucky has no right to seize the domain name. Of course, the state of Kentucky probably couldn't care much less about what a court in England thinks (which explains why it didn't even bother to respond), so the victory may be somewhat meaningless. However, at the very least, if Kentucky somehow wins its case in the US, perhaps the registrars in the UK can point to this ruling to refuse handing over the domain names.

A year ago, we were surprised to hear that Kentucky's governor was trying to seize the domain names of a long list of over 100 sites that had something to do with gambling. The governor was basing this on a Kentucky law that let the government seize "devices" used for gambling, even though none of the sites in question were based in Kentucky. The governor -- who many say did this to protect local Kentucky gambling operations -- compared these website to "a virtual home invasion." While a judge originally was going to allow the seizure, the state appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that it was clear that a domain name is not a gambling device.

Rather than back down, the governor pushed ahead and is using taxpayer money to appeal the ruling. Ragaboo alerts us to the news that the Kentucky Supreme Court is getting set to hear the case. It's difficult to see how the governor has much of a leg to stand on here. He's trying to seize the domain names of businesses operated entirely outside the state. Allowing such a seizure of domain names would set a horrendous precedent and create all sorts of problems. Hopefully the Kentucky Supreme Court sees this, and Governor Steven Beshear realizes it's best to give up this dangerous crusade.

The bizarre story of Connected Nation continues. While the telco-backed broadband mapping organization that politicians all seem gaga over has been able to sweep politicians in Minnesota and Florida off their feet, despite dubious qualifications and/or reviews, Connected Nation has apparently decided to bail out on bidding for the broadband mapping opportunity in Kentucky. This is significant, because Connected Nation is from Kentucky. It was originally Connect Kentucky, and it was the group's supposed "success" in mapping broadband deployments in Kentucky that led to the formation of Connected Nation. In other words, not only does Connected Nation actually have experience in Kentucky (unlike those other states), it should already have the maps. And yet it's suddenly claiming that it can't meet the deadlines laid out in the proposal? Art Brodsky questions the claim:

Is the deadline issue what chased Connected Nation out of Kentucky? Perhaps. There may be other factors at play, including that the Commonwealth wanted the vendor to work with all providers, and two of those significant sectors -- cable and municipals -- are not happy with the telephone-dominated nature of Connected Nation. It's also worth noting that the Kentucky state government, aware of the criticism of Connect Kentucky's efforts, was planning a very strict follow-up procedure for the stimulus mapping program. The Request for Proposals mentioned there would be a third-party verification of "any and all data at any location." That condition would seem to conflict with the general Connect philosophy of controlling access to the information. But we digress.

Given all this, it's worth asking: does the state of Kentucky have the broadband mapping data that Connect Kentucky did for it earlier? Can it give that data to other providers? Or must those providers start from scratch as Connect Kentucky takes its data and goes home?

It's seemed like a foregone conclusion that the US gov't was going to hand over lots and lots of cash to Connected Nation -- a group favored by the telcos -- to handle all of the "broadband mapping" needed for a better national broadband plan. There have been plenty of concerns about Connected Nation's close relationship with the telcos, as well as its proposal which wouldn't give a very fair or accurate picture of actual broadband offerings around the US. But a funny thing just happened. Connected Nation is really based on Connect Kentucky, where this experiment was first run, and the cable companies there have suddenly stood up to oppose Connect Kentucky, questioning its ability to accurately map broadband in the state. Looks like maybe the telcos should have cut the cablecos in on the deal before backing Connected Nation.

While there have been plenty of conspiracy theories over the years concerning e-voting machines, none have been particularly compelling. The evidence looked like plenty of incompetence, with buggy machines that had huge security flaws that could be exploited -- but we hadn't heard of any cases of anyone actually being caught tampering with or trying to tamper with votes. That isn't to say it didn't happen. It's possible that it happened and the perpetrators weren't caught -- but it's a big leap from it "could" happen, to it "did" happen. So, most of our coverage here has been very much on the bugs and the flaws, rather than any of the conspiracy theories that floated around.

However, it appears that a group of Kentucky election officials, the circuit court judge and the county clerk, were arrested for changing votes in various elections between 2002 and 2006 on e-voting machines. The details suggest that there were two parts to the vote changing. First, there was traditional vote buying -- where they paid people to vote in a certain way. However, the second involved actually changing voters' votes on ES&S e-voting machines.

It didn't involve any hacking or direct security flaws -- but the elections officials made use of the confusing user interface and process of the e-voting machines to trick voters into leaving before their votes had been cast. That's because there's a "vote" button, that some people (silly them!) assumed meant they actually voted. Nope. It turns out that just gets you to a page to review your vote and then confirm it. However, these elections officials told people that once they hit vote they had voted -- and were then able to go in and change the actual votes.

Back in September, the state of Kentucky tried to seize over 100 domain names, claiming they violated a local state law against "gambling devices." None of the domains were run or hosted in the state of Kentucky, which made this quite a stretch in legal terms. While many of the domain names were for gambling websites, some were merely parked domains. The politicians who ordered the seizure were quite open that this was an attempt to "protect" local gambling interests -- but it seems like an incredible legal reach to claim that because of local protectionist laws, the state somehow has the right to seize domain names from around the world. The domain owners complained, but a local Kentucky state court ruled in favor of the government. However, an appeals court quickly told the state to hold off seizing the domains until it could review the case.

That court has now overturned the lower court ruling saying that a domain name is clearly not a gambling device, and is not covered by the law. However, this does potentially leave the door open for Kentucky politicians to change the law to include domain names... at which point we'll need to go through this whole silly legal battle all over again.

While a lower court in Kentucky had agreed to allow the state to seize 141 domain names as being "illegal gambling devices" despite having nothing to do with the state of Kentucky, other than being available on internet connections there (and everywhere else), an appeals court has now issued an injunction to stop the state from seizing the domains until the appeal can be heard. While we still have to wait for the full appeal, at least damage won't be done in the interim.

There's one other interesting note in the article, which is that Kentucky's Attorney General appears to be trying to distance himself from the case. Even though most state actions are normally taken by the AGs office, in this case, the lawsuit was filed by the state's Secretary of Justice and Public Safety (there's some question if it's legal for this person to bring the suit). Either way, the AG's name was on the case, but he's now specifically asked to have his name removed from the case. That seems like quite a statement. When even the Attorney General of the state wants nothing to do with the lawsuit, perhaps it's time for the state to admit it overstepped some legal bounds.

You may recall that a judge recently allowed Kentucky's governor to seize a bunch of domain names that were related to gambling -- even if neither the owners nor the servers were based in Kentucky -- setting a terrible precedent. That's why it's good to see the EFF, the ACLU and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) team up yet again to ask an appeals court to overturn this decision. Hopefully the appeals court recognizes how truly awful the original decision was, and notes how it seems to violate multiple clauses of the Constitution.

Last month, we wrote about a judge allowing Kentucky's governor to seize 141 domain names that were somehow associated with gambling sites under a bizarre interpretation of Kentucky law. Pretty much everyone involved admits that this is just Kentucky's governor protecting local gambling establishments who supported him in the election. No one is even hiding the fact that this is purely about protecting the governor's political supporters from any sort of competition.

However, what's scary is in how the seizure is incredibly broad and far-reaching. None of the sites are based in Kentucky. Many of the sites are nothing more than holding pages, rather than actual online casinos. And, the law itself interprets these sites as "illegal gambling devices" which seems like a big stretch. There was some pushback, as people explained to the judge what an incredibly bad precedent this ruling would set -- as it would effectively allow any local law to be used to take possession of any website.

Apparently, the judge doesn't care. Late last week, the judge upheld the original ruling, giving one small out to the various sites. If they implement filters that block access to any IP address in Kentucky, they can keep their domain names. That's backwards. It shouldn't be the responsibility of a website that is just online to use geocoding techniques to comply with every single local law. If that were the case, the internet would ground to a halt, as any website would face so many different liabilities from so many different jurisdictions to make it impossible to comply -- and in each lack of compliance, face a potential seizure of the domain name. This is a bad ruling by any stretch of the imagination, made even more bizarre by the judge's unilateral ruling before a hearing was even held. The whole thing sounds quite questionable, and hopefully will be dumped on appeal.