Speaking of common sense, I see that the Pennsylvania legislature has joined the bandwagon to prohibit a phenomenon known as "Internet Hunting." Some history via the last link:

Underwood, an estimator for a San Antonio, Texas auto body shop, has invested $10,000 to build a platform for a rifle and camera that can be remotely aimed on his 330-acre (133-hectare) southwest Texas ranch by anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world.

The idea came last year while viewing another Web site on which cameras posted in the wild are used to snap photos of animals.

“We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said ’If you just had a gun for that.’ A little light bulb went off in my head,” he said.

Internet hunting could be popular with disabled hunters unable to get out in the woods or distant hunters who cannot afford a trip to Texas, Underwood said.

Berger said state law only covers “regulated animals” such as native deer and birds and cannot prevent Underwood from offering Internet hunts of “unregulated” animals such as non-native deer that many ranchers have imported and wild pigs.

He has proposed a rule that will come up for public discussion in January that anyone hunting animals covered by state law must be physically on site when they shoot.

Berger expressed reservations about remote control hunting, but noted that humans have always adopted new technologies to hunt.

“First it was rocks and clubs, then we sharpened it and put it on a stick. Then there was the bow and arrow, black powder, smokeless power and optics,” Berger said. “Maybe this is the next technological step out there.”

Because of interstate commerce issues, Gergley thinks his bill, likely to become law, cannot stop someone in Pennsylvania from shooting an animal in another state where Internet hunting is legal. However:

"This will ban the opportunity of someone to use an Internet set-up to hunt animals in Pennsylvania. They can do that still in other states, but they cannot hunt the animals in our state."

Support for the bill included diverse groups such as the Humane Society and the NRA.

But if we want to get theoretically extravagant, what about Internet fishing? Has anyone thought of that?

Remote animal slaughter?

With a remote camera, operating almost any remote device is theoretically possible, and common sense is no bar to the human imagination (which often includes sadistic impulses). Why, I could see totalitarian governments like those of China or North Korea selling rights to remotely execute already-condemned criminals as a way to make money. Hell, they already harvest their body parts while some of the prisoners are still alive. It's not much of a step, if you think about it. Massive firing squads could remotely activate guns or injection equipment. They could either sell the rights to be part of a cyber firing squad, or allow online mobs to send the "fire" signal, which could activate the triggers (or send poison into injectors) as soon as software recognized the requisite number of "votes."

Psychotic governments like Iran's might allow remote casting of stones at the condemned in cases of death by stoning. A cyber remote lashing machine could also be designed to encourage more public involvement in lashings. Cyber choppers could also cut off hands! (Shouldn't mullahs be encouraged to practice their religious activities online without being limited by Western scruples?)

Online mob action is a lot more imaginative than shooting a few deer.