<<  <  >  >>

Page 8

piece separately to the same address.  The recipient can

piece it together, but anyone snooping on your correspon-

dence has a tougher go of it.

Understanding Internet communications as akin to the

postal system clarifies why prohibition of Internet gam-

bling will not work.  Imagine telling the U.S. Postal

Service that it must henceforth crack down on all letters

conveying information used in illegal gambling.  It would

rightly object that it already has its hands full just

delivering the mail and that it lacks the equipment and

personnel to snoop through every letter.  Furthermore, it

cannot always tell which messages relate to illegal activ-

ities.  People use "bet" and "wager" in everyday conversa-

tions, whereas gamblers often speak in code.  Finally,

customers of the mail service would strongly object to

having the Postal Service paw through their correspondence.

Prohibitionists could not expect the Postal Service to

simply stop delivering mail to and from certain addresses

associated with illegal gambling.  The Postal Service

would again object to the burdens of implementing such a

program, and citizens would again object to law enforcement

officials' spying on private correspondence.  More impor-

tant, trying to cut off mail to certain addresses would

utterly fail to stop gambling: gamblers would rely on post

office boxes--which they could change at a moment's notice--

and drop off outgoing correspondence with no return address.

All of those considerations apply with equal or

greater force to Internet gambling.  The high volume of

traffic alone ensures that Internet service providers would

find it impossible to discriminate between illicit gaming

information and other Internet traffic.47   It is easier to

encrypt messages, to change addresses, and to send and

receive messages anonymously over the Internet than through

the postal system.48   The inherently private nature of the

Internet would also stymie prohibitionists.  In contrast

to the quasi-public and monolithic postal system, the

Internet relies on thousands of separate and wholly pri-

vate service providers to carry out its deliveries.  All

of them would stridently object to the burdens of enforc-

ing a ban on Internet traffic.  More than a few would sim-

ply refuse to cooperate.

Does that sound like a pessimistic account?  To the

contrary, it merely describes the current situation.  As

technological innovation continues to drive the development

of Internet communications, law enforcement officials will

fall further and further behind the tricks used by illegal

gamblers.