The Looming Battle Over Online Gambling

Kadin2048 writes "According to an recent Ars Technica article, the US is headed on a 'collision course' with the WTO over off-shore Internet gambling, if a bill currently in the House of Representatives passes. The 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' (PDF) which updates the 'Wire Act' to prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, is in direct contravention of a WTO ruling. Proponents of the bill claim that it was narrowly defeated in previous incarnations due to the influence of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. However it seems as though some of Abramoff's biggest clients -- brick and mortar casinos -- are really the big winners from passage of this bill, since it does not prohibit gambling in person, only online."

Comments

What?

[voice_of_all_reason]

The 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' (PDF) which updates the 'Wire Act' to prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, is in direct contravention of a WTO ruling.

I think this act violating some funny acronym takes a backseat to the idea of every nation's own soverignity.

Re:What?

[jfruhlinger]

Yeah, except that our elected govt. signed the treaty and now has to play by the rules we agreed to. We could always pull out ... the WTO can't make us play by their rules, but they can kick us out of the club if we don't.

Which would be bad, since we benefit from being in the WTO in about a kajillion ways, mostly involving telling other countries how to run their economies. Or does your idea of "national sovreignty" only apply to the US?

jf

Re:What?

[ClamIAm]

Not to be an idiot or anything, but the US basically *is* the WTO. We can break whatever rules we want with limited consequence.

Not really. Remember when the US wanted to ban tuna that might have the nasty side effect of killing off dolphins? Under the current WTO rules, you can't ban a product on the grounds of how it's produced. This means that you can't ban something because child labor was used to make it, or slave labor, or anything else.

What the WTO does do is act as a LEGALLY ENFORCABLE arm of the most powerful people and corporations in the world. If your nation pulls out of the WTO, all other WTO countries can be required to stop trading with you. There's little to no oversight, and those who represent their countries are nearly always appointed by those in power.

Also, the WTO, World Bank and IMF have a pretty incestuous relationship. They often require poor countries who request aid to allow WTO-style outside investment and promises to not give much power to unions and other organizations. If you've ever wondered about the reality of a board of shadowy figures that are in charge of everything, try looking at these guys.

Gimme a break!

[gasmonso]

This is sponsored by US casinos that are losing business to online ones. Instead of pushing through bs legislation, they should have to compete by making their own casinos online. Yet another example of "bought" legislation that serves only the good of corporations.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:Gimme a break!

[mrchaotica]

Instead of pushing through bs legislation, they should have to compete by making their own casinos online.

Apparently, though, they can't because they're located in the US and it's already illegal for them to do it (that's what that "Wire Act" thing is). This new bill is about making it illegal to gamble at online casinos located outside the US, which only levels the playing field.

I think the best solution, though, is just to repeal the laws against gambling here, along with all the other laws that try to protect people against themselves. If they want to do something stupid, I say we let them!

Re:Gimme a break!

[zulux]

If they want to do something stupid, I say we let them!

I agree! But unfortunatly, the same people that would gamble their future away are the same types of people that won't accept responsibility for their own actions.

I'd be all for legalizing gambeling, drugs and protitution --- if the people who engaged in such behaviour diden't keep asking for goverment handouts.

Re:Gimme a break!

[jafiwam]

Actually, one of my major reasons for NOT gambling online is the offshore nature of the servers.

If it were some American casino online, I might do it. Just because if they get hacked/defraud me there would be at least SOME recourse.

Whereas I will never ever go to Vegas to gamble in person because well... that would be admitting I want to. I would spend $5 here and there online, but don't want to go to Vegas for it.

So they'd win if they could do online versions legally in the US.

Of course, that stupid puritan ideal cropping it's ugly head up puts a stop to that....

Re:Gimme a break!

[Tweekster]

Give me a break, this legislation is stupid, but come on, do you honestly beleive a Casino is losing out to the online version... right. and apparently you have never been to vegas. The casino experience isnt about gambling.

Re:Gimme a break!

[Jason1729]

That won't end well.

Go to Wikipedia and look up "French Revolution" to see some prior art for your idea.

solution.

[blue_adept]

prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it

Obviously this only applies to corporations and businesses incorporated in the US. Solution? Online gambling companies will simply incorporate on whatever island their servers are hosted, and shut down their US branches.

You don't have to be a US company to take US money.

30 MILLION dollars to fight gambling?

[acaben]

That's the real kicker in this proposed bill. They want to spend $30 Million over the next 3 years to fight gambling. Great, add that to the DOJ's war on porn, and perhaps sometime in the next 20 or 30 years we can go back to looking for Osama Bin Laden. Once all that porn and gambling is stopped. Priorities, people, prioties.

And, even though I'm disgusted by the money they want to spend on this, I'm more disgusted that the "personal responsibility" party (repubs) and "keep your government out of my bedroom" party (dems) both think that gambling is something they have the right to regulate. Do some (dumb) people become addicted to gambling and spend their life savings? Yes, and they deserve to lose that money. Just because there are a few people unable to think logically about their actions doesn't mean we should prevent the tens of millions of people who enjoy the thrill of a weekend in Vegas or Party Poker from doing so responsibly.

Re:30 MILLION dollars to fight gambling?

[TopShelf]

I'm amazed the federal government would want to "fight gambling". If they succeeded, what would all the states do that rely on lottery income???

This is beyond stupid, it's blatant pandering to a lobby at the expense of, oh, just about everyone else. Far better would be to legalize, legitimize, and tax online gambling and turn the US into a provider of those services instead of a consumer. In the increasingly global marketplace, an international online casino operated out of the US would, in economic terms, be considered an export industry. Instead of writing a law that completely violates WTO guidelines, why not take advantage of the new world order and actually strike a blow to help restore a balance of trade.

To put it another way: we all know the real winner in the gambling industry is the casino. We also know that Internet gambling is a huge and booming industry. Does the US want to be on the winning side of that development, or not?

Re:RE

[TubeSteak]

Okay Mr. Cynical, what you don't seem to comprehend is that while yes, the United States can blow off the WTO, there will eventually be consequences.

The WTO will probably pick out an important U.S. export industry and apply some trade sanctions to it.

It works.

The United States has backed down to the WTo before and they'll do it again. So, while "the wto-is-only-good-when-its-convenient", they also have means to enforce their will.

They will never learn.

[BigZaphod]

Personally, I think gambling is a waste of time - but that should always be the choice of the person doing the gambling. Sure, it can ruin lives and mess up families - but dammit, that's THEIR problem! I should be free to spend $2.00 online gambling every now and then if I were into that sort of thing. The more the government attempts to baby the public the weaker we become. Our society is going through a massive pussification and I just can't see it ending well.

Over-protection

[RyoShin]

Protect me from murder.

Protect me from rape, from robbery, from bodily assault.

Protect me from corporations swindling me.

Protect me from bodily damage from others.

But, please, stop protecting me from myself. I can protect me from myself just fine without the government jumping in with a few choice words.

If you're so concerned about those too incompetent to protect themselves from themselves, find a way to either educate them or allow them to continue down their self-destructive path without taking out others along the way.

It's good that you care for those types. (Someone has to.) However, restricting me because a small minority can't restrict themselves is not right.

And if you're doing this because of some moral high ground, go jump off a bridge.

Re:Over-protection

[pyro101]

The problem is that when people go and lose their life's savings/house due to an addiction we have a choice of either letting them die in gutter in a puddle of their own urin or supporting them by some means whether it be private or state funded either way it hurts society. In our free nation we allow most obnoxious and destructive behavior until it begins to cost society instead of just the stupid individual. ie you can buy a large chunck of land build a bridge and jump off it but you can't go to a public on and jump off. Or if you would rather jump off somebody else's bridge they are held liable for your injuries.

Re:Over-protection

[UnanimousCoward]

It's not as black-and-white as you paint it. There's a reason gambling is restricted in this country to a few designated places and it's PRECISELY to protect you from murder, rape, bodily assault, etc. YOU might be smart enough to to gamble away your life savings, but the government is trying to protect you from those that will and then resort to desperate measures.

And if you think it's cheaper to educate than restrict (AND assume the educating will work), you're living in some fantasy society.

Re:Over-protection

[radish]

It's not as black-and-white as you paint it. There's a reason gambling is restricted in this country to a few designated places and it's PRECISELY to protect you from murder, rape, bodily assault, etc. YOU might be smart enough to to gamble away your life savings, but the government is trying to protect you from those that will and then resort to desperate measures.

Which would make perfect sense if the other countries of the world in which gambling is legal (hint: most of them) were more violent and dangerous than the US (hint: most are not). Even taking the US example, it would make sense if Atlantic City and Vegas were super dangerous violent places compared to cities with no gambling like LA, Detroit and Miami (hint: they're not).

I see no evidence for a causal relationship between gambling and widespread violent crime.

Gambling is for Suckers

[Braxton_the_Covenant]

I understand why a government might illegalize casinos, lotteries, and betting, since it is a pernicious vice that many men are drawn into, wasting incalculable amounts of their personal savings in a futile effort to beat the house advantage. So that's fine with me. However this US law is written by the casino special interests and does not have as its end the illegalization of gambling en toto, but merely the prevention of foreign competition in the 'industry'. What outstanding hypocrisy. The world trade body is right to condemn this blatant protectionism by the Americans.

Obligatory Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade

The big casinos want a monopoly in exploitation.

[Futurepower(R)]

It is not about regulating morality. It's about money and government corruption. The big casinos want a 100% monopoly in exploiting the human weakness that causes people to gamble.

Gambling casinos don't gamble. If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose.

If you play enough, there is no chance in casino games of chance. If you play enough, the end result is ALWAYS 100% determined. You will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage the casino decides you will lose.

--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

Regulation? How about Open Source instead

[imgunby]

Not to sound too paranoid, but I care a helluva lot more about the accuracy of the software than I do about if it's legal or not (same could be said for any number of vices, but I'll stick to this one). At least in the physical world, there are a lot of physical mechanisms in place to prevent being [too] taken by the house. Can the same truely be said of the online casinos?

Re:Online Gambling

[ackthpt]

I prefer to go a few miles up the road to the local Native American casino. I figure it's the least I can do since my ancestors killed off most of their ancestors.

That's an interesting idea.

I have given this considerable thought over the years, since they enabled native american-run casinos in Michigan. If run with care, the proprietors could use the procedes to BUY back land which had been taken from them.

When all else fails, use the invader's rules against him.

Re:The big casinos want a monopoly in exploitation

[Best ID Ever!]

assuming all players being equally likely to win

This will almost always be an incorrect assumption in a game of poker.