U.S. House Clears Anti-Internet Gambling Bill

matr0x_x writes "The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites when the US House of Representatives cleared an anti-Internet gambling bill yesterday. The bill is against a World Trade Organization ruling last August that stated the US must not block online gambling sites based overseas." From the article: " The bill, cleared by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions. Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites, for example, and any other online wager made or received in a place where such a bet is illegal under federal or state law."

Comments

How it's written is what matters

[JehCt]

There's a big difference between blocking sites, and making it illegal for those sites to use the US financial system to collect illegal wagers from within US jurisdiction. So long as the bill is written correctly, there should be no problem with WTO, and no problem with enforcement.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[networkBoy]

It's still a stupid law though.
-nB

Re:How it's written is what matters

[DagdaMor]

The problem is they are making Foreign based companies responsible for the Actions of US citizens. They are effectively legislating against foreign business. If the legislation was to make it illegal to gamble online in the states where it is illegal, then that would make more sense, but would be highly unpopular as it looks like it is aimed at the US Citizen. This way they can say, well its the companies that won't accept your credit card.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Tweekster]

Yeah I didnt exactly get this blocking thing either... hell the US doesnt block blatantly bad things like child porn...however it is illegal and can be prosecuted. I personally dont see a problem with gambling online and dont see a need for the law, but the WTO shouldnt be able to stop a debateably bad thing (whether or not it is is immaterial) Making something illegal and blocking things are different. Blocking anything is bad in my opinion, making something illegal is okay in certain extremely limited circumstances (ie child porn)

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifty bucks says it's doesn't pass House debate

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Gorm the DBA]

For someone with more accounting/legal background...would anything keep me from opening, say a Bank of England account, funding that account via legal methods, using said account for various normal activities (ie debiting my groceries, etc) then when I want to fund a poker account using the funds from that account to do so?

I wouldn't be using the US financial system to fund the account, it would be my British (where this is legal, regulated, and presumably taxed) account, transferring money to a British online casino (pokerstars, for example). I would be using US wires to notify them to do this, but I'm not notifying them to do anything illegal (under their laws), so not running afoul of wire statutes...

Would this work? If so, I can see a huge business opportunity for overseas banking for the little guy, as opposed to the big corporation which uses a similar dodge to avoid taxes.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[HappyDrgn]

Fold...

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Alioth]

How is it going to be enforced? Now, say I'm a company in Timbuktoo, and I accept a US credit card as payment for a wager (which is entirely legal in Timbuktoo). How is the US going to prosecute my Timbuktoo company?

Re:How it's written is what matters

[TheScottishGuy]

nothing really to stop you, except the difficulty involved in actually opening a british bank account, I had to spend almost 2 years in the uk recently and the hassle involved in opening an account is insane, and that's for someone with a UK passport who can walk into the branch. I was getting an apartment at the same time and the number of times i heard "well we can't hook up electricity until you have a bank account" or "we need a utility bill to open an account" was just nuts.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[rewinn]

The article says: "By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering..." so jurisdiction would be based on the customer, not the financial system.

Governments jealously guard their right to regulate the behavior of their citizens. Whether or not they should is a whole 'nother question, but they will.

Your idea, however clever, sounds like a whole new level of gambling, with the prize being a taxpayer-funded vacation in an orange jumpsuit, alas!

Re:How it's written is what matters

[rewinn]

>How is the US going to prosecute my Timbuktoo company?

Same as it does with any other defendant located outside the USA. It first asks the foreign gov't to hand over the defendant for trial, and then, if refused, applies pressure. The pressure varies, depending on many diplomatic factors.

When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[joe545]

British banks generally require proof of residence (council tax or utility bills) to open a UK bank account so as to make life harder for money launderers, so this method won't be as easy as you think it is. Perhaps other countries (tax havens perhaps) have more lax banking laws which would make offshore gambling accounts feasable for the masses.

Also, members of the public are not normally eligible for an account with the Bank of England as it is more of a national financial institution (like the Federal Reserve in the USA) controlling national interest rates etc rather than a normal bank.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Narcissus]

Agreed.

The easiest way it seems to get a bank account in England is to come in from overseas with a work visa and jobs lined up through employment agents.

A friend of mine went there as a teacher and the employment agent set her up not only a bank account but also a company in one of those tax havens so that she didn't have to worry about income tax either.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[drummer21]

Unfortunately, IRS will also stick its nose into this. New regulations REQUIRE disclosure of foreign bank accounts on your tax return EACH YEAR, if various conditions are met, which I believe would probably include this scenario. Then add in the fine print from the Patriot Act and other nefarious bills passed and suddenly you've been brought in for questioning and a body cavity search just because you thought you should be allowed to played penny ante poker on-line. Gosh it's so nice to move about minding your own business in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." "Ja, Herr Kernel, I have my identification card and travel pass right here for your inspection."

Re:How it's written is what matters

[extremescholar]

Numbered Swiss Bank Account

Re:How it's written is what matters

[stinerman]

All joking aside, TFA says that Barney Frank opposes it. If there has ever been a rule of thumb in congress, its if Barney Frank opposes it, it will soon be law.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[GundamFan]

Q-tips lots of Q-tips...

or fold a paper towel in to quarters around some kind of card and use it to scrape.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[kennygraham]

... anyone know how to get cream cheese out from between the keys?

You're on /.

You should already know how to get sticky white substances out from between they keys.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Lloyds TSB has a worldwide services account. I got one when I visited England as a tourist.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Have you heard about the RIM patent case? RIM violated US patents, entirely outside the US, but that didn't stop the judge.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[an_unknown_soldier]

And you can't open an account with the Bank of England as a normal citizen as its not a regular bank with branches on every High Street. Even the Queen doesn't bank with the Bank of England. She uses Coutts Private Bank.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[zymano]

This opens up 'new' business for other credit card companies.

This will just shoot US companies.

This is definitely right wing Republican legislation.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were rich enough to know, you'd realize that offshore banks are far more careful about who they open accounts for than UK banks are ;)

Money-laundering is an onshore activity, generally. New York and London.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[hotdiggitydawg]

British banks do require proof of address, but the degree of hoops you have to jump through depends on what sort of account you want. The first account I got when I arrived in the UK was a simple debit card account - you get a card, and internet banking, but no overdraft, no chequebook, etc. Quite limited but enough for the grandparent's needs. And All I had to do was get some fella staying at the same youth hostel to write a letter saying the address of the hostel was my permanent address. Dead simple.

They say they require a permanent address to crack down on terrorists funding their activities by fraud. Well, it's pretty easy to bypass, as the example above shows. And ironically, the only reason I was trying to get a bank account was so I could get a permanent address (you can't rent a flat from most agencies without a bank account), but I couldn't open a bank account without having proof of a permanent address (like having my name on the bills/lease for the flat). Nice catch-22 with extra hoops for legitimate citizens, and a really limp defence against the less-legitimate. Government restrictions at their finest!

Re:How it's written is what matters

[maccalvin5]

you have to soak it in the bathtub for an hour or so. throw it in the dryer afterwards. good as new.

if it works, let me know

Re:How it's written is what matters

[gmack]

The same way it is enforced now. They will put pressure on the banks and creditcard companies to refuse those transactions.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[harshmanrob]

I agree...most of America's allies have been bullied to write their banking laws to make it more difficult for Americans to operate outside the US.

The reason for this is the US taxes income based on CITIZENSHIP, not if you reside in the US or not. Which is really bogus. Under this reasoning, the IRS seems to think if I am working in a foreign country, the US is still entitled to a share. A tax lawyer may want to come behind me and vouch this, but this is what I was always told.

Also, what is to stop me from opening an account in Iran, Syria, or Cuba? Just because the US doesn't like those countries does not mean I should dislike them. Loyality to one's country is so 19th century. :)

Re:How it's written is what matters

[cayenne8]

Geez....why write the thing at ALL???

When oh when will we be able to get people in govt. that will understand that if you're 18/21, you are a freaking ADULT, and can decide for yourself matters like these?

I am so fscking tired of the government trying to legislate morality and behavior.....

Re:How it's written is what matters

[nigelc]

Well, assuming you are not trolling (last line makes me wonder...)

Yup, the US demands that you declare income earned even while you are not resident in the US of A (for citizens, resident aliens (green card), people with work-permits). It's like a sexually transmitted disease but you have less fun catching it.

Extra gotcha. Money you earn overseas and pay taxes on overseas (overseas in this case means outside the USA) is also liable to US taxation. But they will credit some percentage of the money you paid to the local country for taxes. So if I spend six months in Bavaria working and being paid in Germany, I'll be paying taxes to the Germans on the money I earn. Uncle Sam will then give me a tax credit against my US taxes to the same amount (up to my US tax obligation).
But if I earn the money working for six months in a country the US does not approve of (Iran, Cuba, ?possibly North Korea?), then I'll pay local country taxes and US taxes -- Uncle Sam will give no tax credit for money earned under "unapproved countries".

Disclaimer: This is certainly how it worked 6 years ago -- may have changed in a Post 9/11 world with the Global War on Terror

Re:How it's written is what matters

[terrymr]

I believe that under international tax treaties, income tax is based on residence not citizenship. The big but here is how much time you still spend in the USA. From memory if you reside in another country for > 50% of the tax year and all your income arises in that country then that's where you pay your taxes. In any case taxes paid in one country are deductable from your taxes in the other if you're considered a resident of both.

I am not a tax attorney or any kind of attorney buy I know a fair number of people that work overseas for long periods of time.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[mindstrm]

Except offshore gambling is *already* illegal according to current interpretation of US law, and the offshore gambling operations are operating largely legally and licensed in their various jurisdictions.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[terrymr]

ok - so the us tax rule .. pro-rates the foreign earned income based on the number of days you were resident in the other country ... so if you're there for 365 days out of the year the deduction is 100% up to
$80,000 ... then you can deduct housing costs too. According to http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc853.html

Re:How it's written is what matters

[terrymr]

Countries dont (generally) hand extradite citizens for something that is not a crime in their own country. Particularly in this case where the US is making something that the person does in their own country a crime. Thats plain nonsensical.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[mindstrm]

Thank god I'm Canadian, and as long as I'm a non-resident for tax purposes, none of my income is taxable by Canada whatsoever (unless that income comes from Canadian sources)

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Tatsh]

Personally I think it would suck a lot to have to pay a lost bet on credit. If I had a credit card company, I would already enforce not allowing gambling transactions on the cards. I feel like anyone who loses money this way would be less likely to pay the bill.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is when you make any BETS online from within the US, using those funds or not.
THATs the problem here in Minnesota where online gambling is ok, just as long as you dont place a cash bet online from here, lol, thus defeating the purpose.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry about legislating to block sites, just write a law that says the US will not stand behind collection of debts which result as losses from such sites. I believe if those hosting (what is considered to be) illegal activities knew they had no teeth in collecting losses they would not allows US citizens to gamble on their sites.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As you say, ID is generally required to open an account in the UK. In fact, the money laundering regulations have been tightened up considerably in recent years: IIRC it is now illegal for banks to accept the kind of casual identification they often used to on accounts that don't involve overdrafts, loans, credit cards or similar. I've switched personal accounts and been involved with several accounts for non-profit clubs and the like in recent years, and the rules and paperwork have been heavier each time (and strictly followed, which they often weren't before).

Re:How it's written is what matters

[gmack]

And that's why gambling sites have such high chargeback rates. Personally it would bother me to gamble on my credit card.. gambling with money I don't have is not a good thing.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Fooby]

No, no, no. It won't stop Timbuktu companies from accepting U.S. credit cards payments for online wagers. But it will stop U.S. credit card companies from approving payments for online wagers. So your the transaction will be declined regardless. Likewise for U.S. credit card processors, even if you have a foreign credit card. If you use a foreign card with a foreign company, then it won't apply.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Fooby]

Such legislation would be completely redundant. It is already and always has been the case that illegal contracts are unenforceable. Nor will courts grant restitution for money paid on an illegal contract. So if you owe money on an illegal gambling debt (which all online gambling debts are), you don't have to pay it. And if the person you owe is dumb enough to take you to court, they will always be thrown out. On the same token, if you've already paid, then you can't sue to get your money back (although courts have sometimes allowed this, it is contrary to the doctrine of illegality and so will ordinarily fail).

Credit card debt is just debt, so if you funded your online gambling account with your credit card (and haven't paid it off), then you can contact your card company, tell them it's payment for illegal online gambling and ask for a charge-back. If they hassle you, you can take them to court (subject to your contract, which may require arbitration). Of course you would be confessing to criminal conduct yourself which could be used to convict you of illegal gambling, but this is unlikely to happen. This is a more complicated situation than dealing directly with the site operator though. If the credit card company itself lost money due to your transaction they might be entitled to it, and there could be other stuff in your contract regarding customer's illegal use of the card, so if you're in a situation like this you should talk to a lawyer.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[PPH]

The British may have some restrictions on foreigners opening bank accounts, but its interesting to note that many of the notorious tax havens are British territories. Open an account in the Cayman Islands.

That extereme may not be necessary. Other EU countries are less restrictive about account ownership (banking, brokerage, etc.), more protective of their customers privacy and have more liberal attitudes toward gambling and other activities.

Moving funds overseas is no problem. You just have to report the transaction and have paid income taxes on them.

Open an account in The Netherlands. Gambling is legal and you'll be covered if the ladies in the Red Light District adopt a 'local checks only' policy. ;-)

Re:How it's written is what matters

[greenrd]

I've been able to get a special Post Office account with out any proof of address (it's how you get a proof of address if you don't have any other proof of address), but this can only be used for paying social security benefits into and drawing out that money, so it's useless for gambling.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[greenrd]

No, in this case, it would apply pressure onto the credit card processors (Visa and Mastercard and American Express) to audit their processors, and their sub-processors, etc. (sorry I don't know the correct technical terms). A similar thing is happening to try and stamp out payment processing for child pornography. Ultimately, the big credit card brands have operations in the US, and therefore they can be pressured to put pressure on their processors. That's the right way to do it, in my opinion, if you want to stamp out an illegal practice.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[mysterystevenson]

IT's Not Written like the Constitution !

Re:How it's written is what matters

[douglaid]

Do I hear Rousseau speaking? This isn't the Garden of Eden.

Being an Adult gives you the power to choose. To choose to watch violent movies. To choose to break the law. A guy wanted me to represent him for smoking cannabis. He wanted me to submit that the law was against human rights.

An emotional and moral adult can choose. Others can't. Terrorists are adults. They may have been brain-washed, but they are adults with the right to choose. But they don't have the POWER to choose, and that makes all the difference.

Responsible gaming is no problem. But addictive gaming leads to theft, company embezzlement and broken marriages. One child here died in an overheated car while its parent gambled. There is now a warning at each gaming venue not to do this. These people need to be protected from themselves.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[scaryjohn]

It's not about moralism. Last time this came up, the consesus was it was about protecting brick & mortar casinos in the U.S., who can't open online operations without forcing a re-write of U.S. banking and wire-transfer laws.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Cobralisk]

Only if you have a Model-M.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[Tatsh]

I feel the exact same way about it. I wonder how many people have "lost money" or rather lost available credit, especially those who have maxed out cards this way. It's really bad.

The only problem is, how do you do online transactions without a credit card? Even if it's PayPal, someone could just take some cash off a credit card. PayPal as far as I know does not separate credit money from money taken from a savings account.

And checks are not reliable because it could bounce. Cash is definitely not an option as a person could just not send the money owed. You can't jail people for not paying. Of course you can sue, but even those end up where the plaintiff gets no money anyway.

Anonymity is a problem also. People always want it on the Internet, even me. So what I just said would be the result of someone wanting to be anonymous and thinking they'll never get caught not sending the money. On top of that, if it's illegal in their state, what's the point of going after other than getting them arrested?

I'm against this bill, but there's gotta be a better way to pay. The best would be a system exactly the same as PayPal with no option for credit card, so all money is from personal savings accounts. Also helps because most people are not going to put their entire savings up for bets.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[gmack]

For the record I'm not much of a gambler.. I think I've blown a grand total $45 CDN in my entire life on casino. I just don't see the point of banning it. Your getting exactly what they are advertising.. a system where the house allways wins

Paypal doesn't allow gambling transactions anyways.. your only real option these days is Neteller since it's Canadaian and the american's can't really do much to them.

As for not telling a credit transaction from something from your bank.. It comes down to personal responsability. I realise that's a dirty word in this day and age but there it is.. It's no more the casino's problem if the money was on credit as it is the shoe store's

Re:How it's written is what matters

[StevoJ]

Apparently you need $250,000 to open one if you're not Swiss though.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[cayenne8]

"There is now a warning at each gaming venue not to do this. These people need to be protected from themselves."

Well, in that case...we'd better make alcohol illegal. Plenty of people out there that abuse it, and need to be protected from it, so let's ruin the fun for everyone.

People can and will overdo and get addicted to most anything...I imagine there is out there someone who is a cool whip junkie....

It should not be up to the nanny state to protect me from myself. If I'm too stupid to act like a responsible adult, well, then let Darwin's ideas take effect then, and let people weed themselves out of the gene pool.

Link Dead

[C10H14N2]

...after one comment. :/

Well...

[ReidMaynard]

I bet this passes

Re:Well...

[Urusai]

I believe gambling is supposed to apply to games of chance, not inevitable certainties.

The way I see it

[matr0x_x]

When the US doesn't directly profit from the gambling (national lottery, Las Vegas economy, etc.) they try to get rid of it stating it is "immoral".

Re:The way I see it

[MindStalker]

Funny site.. quoted from the end..
Lots of Linux users want to play Linux casino games but simply do not know where to play. With the Linux Online Casino (888) you can play Linux slots, Linux blackjack, Linux Black Jack, Linux video poker and other Linux casino games. We are commited to Linux online poker players who want to play Linux Internet poker. We provide the best no download linux poker software. The sites listed on this page are the best places to play online poker for Mac where people can receive generous Linux poker bonuses!

Way too many uses of the word Linux, and the find/replaced screwed up once and left Mac in there.

Re:The way I see it

[argoff]

IMHO, this bill has nothing to do with gambling. It has to do with controlling the flow of offshore funds and gambling is just a nice sounding excuse sorta like terrorisim and the war on drugs. The real fear of the government is that people will protect their rights because it is so easy to move money and funds offshore outside IRS controll. In the old days, the war on drugs was enough to hold most average people in check, but now with the information age they need to resort to more desperate measures.

Re:The way I see it

[matr0x_x]

It is done for SEO: higher keyword density equals higher search results. The Mac keyword was put in their intentially (a lot of people looking to play poker on Linux search for Mac poker since Mac users have to use the same browser based java applets) but I just removed it since apparently some people think it is out of place (understandably).

Re:The way I see it

[Baseball_Fan]

When the US doesn't directly profit from the gambling (national lottery, Las Vegas economy, etc.) they try to get rid of it stating it is "immoral".

The state run lottery is supposed to fund education. Where does the profits from privare gambling go? I am not saying I'm for state run lottery, just that the proceeds go to something most people would like to see funded better.

For those who are addicted to gambling, I doubt they get the same high playing lotto as they do betting on college basketball games. That might be a second reason to ban internet gambling.

And if I'm going to be taxed buying a book at Amazon, why shouldn't people be taxed who want to gamble in off-shore sites?

Re:The way I see it

[Richard Steiner]

What national lottery?

I'm not sure that the feds profit all that much from the dozens of casinos on Native American reservations, either. Or maybe they do...?

Re:The way I see it

[bigpat]

The state run lottery is supposed to fund education. Where does the profits from privare gambling go? I am not saying I'm for state run lottery, just that the proceeds go to something most people would like to see funded better.

Well, if it was legal in the US then a percentage of the profits would be collected as income taxes, rather than being forced overseas, and could be used for government purposes such as education or blowing up things or whatever floats your boat.

Casinos generate a lot of taxes for State and Federal governments, this legislation strikes me as mis guided morality crossed with protectionism of the casinos and State lotteries.

Re:The way I see it

[Raven_Stark]

I don't gamble. However the control freaks in D.C. have gone beyond pissing me off with this crap and all the other loads of bull. I've been toying with the idea of becoming a citizen of another country. I seem to get a little more serious about it every day.

Am I the only one thinking along those lines? Can anyone recommend a country? My ideal country wouldn't be hot, reasonable taxes, lowish cost of living, lots of freedom, easy immigration laws.

Re:The way I see it

[Best ID Ever!]

For those who are addicted to gambling, I doubt they get the same high playing lotto as they do betting on college basketball games. That might be a second reason to ban internet gambling.

Many state governments make money from horse racing, including bets placed over the internet. Not surprisingly, online horse racing is excluded from the ban.

And if I'm going to be taxed buying a book at Amazon, why shouldn't people be taxed who want to gamble in off-shore sites?

Gambling income is already taxed, no matter where the site is.

Re:The way I see it

[Baseball_Fan]

Well, if it was legal in the US then a percentage of the profits would be collected as income taxes, rather than being forced overseas, and could be used for government purposes such as education or blowing up things or whatever floats your boat.

I get that. But what has a higher income to the state? Collecting 100% of the funds, minus payouts, OR collecting a small tax on a private gambling site?

My true feeling is gambling is bad, and it causes harm to many people. I don't think it is good for government to be the site of gambling, but at least there is more control than when it's a private entity.

Re:The way I see it

[maccalvin5]

Wait - protect whose rights? Which rights are you referring to? Our right to not be taxed on income? I don't think that's a right...

Re:The way I see it

[zippthorne]

somalia. you forgot to specify "high standard of living"

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq: Anarchy is very accommodating.

In all seriousness, check out the EU. Good currency, and you can jump from country to country depending on which freedom you would like to enjoy.

Re:The way I see it

[BridgeBum]

Full Tilt Poker now has a full Mac client. My wife and I both use it frequently, it works fine.

Re:The way I see it

[extremescholar]

I think it's more money laundering. Two people "play" head to head poker. Money goes from one to the other. One Big loser a day, one big winner a day. Takes a step towards legitimizing the funds. Poker is big business these days. Whose to say it's all legitimate.

Re:The way I see it

[the_doctor_23]

In all seriousness, check out the EU. Good currency, and you can jump from country to country depending on which freedom you would like to enjoy.

I live in the EU (Germany) and would like to leave because the EU appears to be rather heading towards a dictatorship then to be a democracy (e.g. data retention, EU Parliament cannot initiate legislation etc.)
Watch We lost the war, a speach healt at last year's Chaos Communication Congress to get a picture of the situation (of course not without bias).

-t_d

Re:The way I see it

[KilobyteKnight]

Full Tilt Poker now has a full Mac client. My wife and I both use it frequently, it works fine.

PokerStars works fine under Wine on Linux. It even installs and does updates without a hitch. I hear Party Poker does also but have not tried it personally.

Re:The way I see it

[Impotent_Emperor]

The issue of gambling is one of States' Rights. Each State determines whether or not it will allow gambling. The reason internet gambling is illegal is because it would circumvent States' Rights. Nevada has determined it wants gambling, so it is legal. Other States have legalized gambling to varying degrees.

State Lotteries are a little different in that they are basically replacing the mob run numbers gang. The reasoning is that if the State does not have a lottery, it will just be run illegally anyway.

Re:The way I see it

[cayenne8]

"And if I'm going to be taxed buying a book at Amazon..."

When the hell did Amazon.com ever tax you on a purchase of a book or anything else??

I've never been charged taxes by Amazon...and if you get stuff over $25....free shipping.

I rarely buy local anymore unless I can't get it off the 'net...or need it immediately.

Re:The way I see it

[mcpkaaos]

Very well said!

Re:The way I see it

[toad3k]

While I disagree with the law, I can kind of see the government's point of view.

1) A trillion dollars flowing straight out of the US, with zero benefit to any US citizen, no taxes, nada. At least a Las Vegas casino owner will employ people.

2) Makes it very very easy to launder money and engage in bribery. All money is untraceable. A person could fund a terrorist simply by meeting him at a poker table and losing a few thousand dollars in 20 minutes and have complete plausible deniability.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/4685 12/ref=br_ca_/002-7889068-1177637

Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the states of Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, or Washington are subject to tax.

Re:The way I see it

[MyNameIsEarl]

I only play poker online for fun, I don't trust the other players, but I love Full Tilt Poker on my iBook now when I'm bored and sitting on the deck with a good stogie. On my Windows machine I preferred Party Poker, but Full Tilt has me now, even though they will never see a dime of my money.

Re:The way I see it

[metallic]

Well, more importantly, how would the US regulate the online gaming sites to ensure that no fraud is occurring? That's the big difference between online gambling and the more traditional gambling that is already established here.

Re:The way I see it

[Stripe7]

Nothing to do with immorality, it is just that they do not get any of the tax revenue from that gambling. I would not be too surprised to find the big gambling syndicates in the US are sponsors of the bill. They were the ones trying to stop the Indian casino's.

Re:The way I see it

[BgJonson79]

Why would you be taxed on a book from Amazon? Sales tax are for sucker states.

Re:The way I see it

[bigpat]

I get that. But what has a higher income to the state? Collecting 100% of the funds, minus payouts, OR collecting a small tax on a private gambling site?

Small tax? what country you live in? People are taxed on the winnings, the business would be taxed on any profit, often not very big, but then when the revenue money is payed out as salaries to online casino employees the State and Federal government would get their share, along with property and sales taxes that the employees would be paying. Really when it comes down to it, I doubt their would be a huge reduction in tax revenues if gambling was legal and it took away revenue from the lotteries and brick and mortar casinos, but it might be harder to tell the revenue was from gambling as there would be more indirect tax revenues.

Sure gambling isn't exactly productive for a society, but there are worse things that are allowed to go on.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet gambling is taxed regardless of where the player is depositing to. However, the internet casino doesn't have to announce wins to the IRS like land-based casinos do. (All wins over $5,000 must be announced to tge govt by the casino) as such punters can do what they want with their winnings.

Once again

[LordBodak]

Our wonderful government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Contact your Reps and tell them to kill this crap.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

How very Chinese of the US Government.

Why don't they just get the search engines to exclude non US sanctioned gambling sites from the results.....

Isn't this just a dumb idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not legalize it and tax the formerly lost revenues?

Re:Isn't this just a dumb idea?

[malchus842]

Because the "religious right" doesn't like gambling, and they are very much into snooping into other peoples' business to make sure nothing they don't approve of is going on.

Add to that the "do-gooders" on the left who think gambling is the root of all evil (well, at least this week, anyway) and people have to be protected from it, and only laws can do that (after all, it's worked so well with guns) and you have real trouble gettig a legalization bill passed.

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that "Land Of The Free" thing working out?
What? No drugs, no hookers and no gambling?

Still at least you get excellent TV shows ... oh? What? never mind.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, other coutries appear to have invented the "Nanny State", but we sure as hell seem to be perfecting it.

Re:Cool

[oudzeeman]

I take it you haven't been to Nevada

Re:Cool

[MBCook]

Reminds me of a joke. A man is about to walk into a bar and he sees a bum near the door asking for money. He goes up to the bum.

Man: If I give you $5, will you use it to get drunk?
Bum: No
Man: Will you use it to go gambling?
Bum: No
Man: Will you come home with me so I can show my wife what happens to people who don't drink and gamble?

In all seriousness, I don't care. I'd prefer that they just legalize gambling online, through US sites only. And can't this bill be challenged as overriding states rights (right to permit/outlaw gambling)?

Re:Cool

[Tiro]

Or watched the Colbert Report

Re:Cool

[Fallingcow]

The Congress can outlaw gambling across state and national borders.

That whole "interstate commerce" thing. Hell, they use it for everything else, and for once it actually kind of should apply, so I'm sure that it does.

FINALLY....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... Finally some news that I haven't already read about on digg.

Tribal Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much support (contributions/bribes) for this law come from Abramoff's tribal gaming buddies.

Bill actually clears the House Financial Services

[j_rhoden]

Not the the bill actually cleared the House Financial Services Committee, not the House as the headline says. This means that it will go before the full House for debate.

Meanwhile

[Rude Turnip]

The site, cbs.sportsline.com, is still up and running and is, in an indirect manner, being used to facilitate sports gambling all throughout the US. For those overseas, March is the month of the year when everyone turns a blind eye to betting on college basketball games.

Middle-Earth Bowl 2006

[Itninja]

The legislation carves out some exceptions, including wagering on horse races, governed under another U.S. law, and fantasy sports.

Gimme 10 G's on the Shire Hobbits in the 3rd [movie].

There's nothing in it for them--

[Tominva1045]

If the government could find a way to track it and then TAX it this would not be an issue.

This is already done with alcohol, tobacco, and tangible items.

Because they cannot capture the technology genie in a bottle they can't effectively tax it.

And there are plenty of lobbyists working for taxable gambling interests who have issue with the wild-west of internet gambling as well.

Re:There's nothing in it for them--

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they can't tax it, is that it's illegal to run a gambling site from within the U.S. A U.S.-based site would be taxed just like any other U.S. business.

Re:There's nothing in it for them--

[Politburo]

It is taxed -- as income, just like all other gambling winnings.

Of course, the casinos themselves are not taxed.

Re:There's nothing in it for them--

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just plain wrong. Most pro-online players report their income to the IRS. It is in their best interest since making many thousand dollar deposits to their bank accounts will certainly raise a flag at the IRS. This guarantees a one way ticket to a root-canal audit (a very painful procedure).

So taxation on the customer end is pretty much already covered (for non trivial amounts).

Taxation for companies is even simpler. They can demand logs of their hand database and calculate the total income with ease.

Online casinos are just as easy to tax as online banks.

Re:There's nothing in it for them--

[tshak]

If the government could find a way to track it and then TAX it this would not be an issue.


The thing is, they indirectly do tax internet gambling. If you win big and withdrawl that money there's an electronic trail. Sure, most people do not claim gambling winnings, but the IRS has 5 years to find that trail. Any significant amount of money will eventually be noticed. Sure, the government would like to tax it both ways (tax the business recieving the money, and the players who win the money), although I'm sure this bill started because of the concern about the "tearing the moral fibers of America" that online gambling causes.

Re:There's nothing in it for them--

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Winnings? I don't think that's what they're concerned about.

Re:There's nothing in it for them--

[drinkypoo]

Actually, I think the issue of the money leaving the country is a bigger one. Lobbying from the casino industry is likely the impetus behind this. If they aren't allowed to have a piece of it, then they'd like to stop it from having a piece of them.

Who wants to bet me this won't pass?

[Rhett]

We need to list some propositions for this on http://www.tradesports.com/ or some other similar site. In addition to the irony, I'd much rather use the value of that contract as an indicator over some news story or comment on the internet.

All forms of gambling?

[NiteShaed]

How does this affect the *really* big gambling sites, like NASDAQ and the NYSE?

Ohhhhhh, not *that* kind of gambling....silly me.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[Surt]

Gambling is a game of luck, NYSE is a game of skill. NASDAQ I guess would probably have to go though.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[geobeck]

How does this affect the *really* big gambling sites, like NASDAQ and the NYSE?

Hey mods... Funny? I think this deserves at least one "Insightful" point. For most of the people who play the market, there's little difference between a day on the 'DAQ and a day at the track.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[EvanED]

Gambling is a game of luck

Tell that to the people who play in the big poker competitions. See what they have to say about that.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[Narcissus]

Every company that's being traded could have problems that are unforeseen. It's still a bit of a gamble.

Then, on the other hand, you have people that see horse racing as a game of skill. Yes, there's always the possibility that unforeseen circumstances will hit a horse, but it can happen on the stock exchange too.

When you know people that own mansions on the beach, buy brand new BMWs each year, spend tens of thousands of dollars with you and still have over $100,000 to play with each year, you have to begin to doubt that all gambling is 'a game of luck'.

Even then, that's not just one person: I personally know 2 or 3 people that fit that category (although I was lucky enough to be closer to horse racing from the financial side of things than most people)...

Re:All forms of gambling?

[woolio]

I guess it's not gambling when the brokers (bookies) directly profit from the gamblers (traders) by playing with the bid/ask prices (odds) ....

Wait just a damn minute...

Re:All forms of gambling?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on which game you playing. Yes slot machines and roulette are pure luck, however Poker in particular requires a great amount of skill, both quantitative and psychological.

Trading is very similar (particularly to Poker). If there weren't some amount of luck involved, then why are price movements in products traded modeled using a "random walk" or normal distribution (unless you are Mandelbrot, but that really hasn't been used in practice)?

Re:All forms of gambling?

[geobeck]

"...and the best part is, no matter whether our clients win or lose, Duke & Duke gets the commission."

"Sounds like y'all is a couple of bookies."

"I think Mr. Valentine understands perfectly."

...or words to that effect.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[homerules]

You can have all the skill in the world, but if you don't get the right cards your out of luck.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[dwandy]

NYSE is a game of skill.

Your ideas are of interest to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[Irish_Samurai]

Gambling is a game of luck

Yeah, but betting is all skill.

I don't play online poker because I can't bluff people out, or read theirs. That makes it gambling, but in a casino or at a hall - it is recognized as a skill.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[bnenning]

Gambling is a game of luck, NYSE is a game of skill.

One could argue the reverse is true. In poker, skill is much more important than luck in the long term. And if you believe the efficient market hypothesis, stock markets are mostly luck. (Although with a positive expected value, unlike most forms of gambling).

Re:All forms of gambling?

[Shajenko42]

You can still win a hand with awful cards. Just convince the other guy that you have great cards.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[dtfinch]

Stock prices behave very much like unpredictably random motion. To reliably exploit the market you often have to know something the rest of the market doesn't know yet. But acting on insider (not public) knowledge like that is illegal because you're not supposed to cheat at gambling. :)

Re:All forms of gambling?

[Surt]

Well my post was mostly supposed to be a joke (comparing NASDAQ to NYSE) but since I think your response is actually interesting:

Acting on non-public knowledge is illegal insider trading, but acting on public knowledge that no one else bothers to know is not. That's why Warren Buffet is a very rich man, and not in jail.

Re:All forms of gambling?

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG AGAIN!!

Re:All forms of gambling?

[ranton]

Gambling is a game of luck

Sounds alot like someone who is horrible at gambling. While playing against "The House" is definetly mostly luck, playing against other gamblers is a game of skill. Luck exists, but that is true of anything. No one would accuse Michael Jordan of just being lucky since he didnt make 100% of his shots. No one said "that was just luck" whenever he made a jump shot.

--

Re:All forms of gambling?

[meringuoid]

Yes slot machines and roulette are pure luck

Roulette, yes, but slot machines have nothing at all to do with luck. Modern slot machines are computer-controlled and thoroughly rigged.

Suppose for instance that you are playing the 'higher / lower' feature that is common on slot machines. Numbers are selected in a range of 1 to 12 and you must guess whether the next one will be higher or lower than the current one. Very well... up comes a 4.

If this was about luck, you'd be wise to bet HIGHER. There are eight numbers higher, and only four lower. The odds favour you, right? But... no. The chip inside the machine has already decided whether you will win or lose, before you press the button. If the chip says you lose, then if you press HIGHER then up will come a 2. If you press LOWER then you'll get an 8.

Slot machines these days are computers, programmed to exploit the gambler's psychology. They're programmed to produce a lot of 'oh, so close...' results, where if that last reel had turned one place more you'd have won the jackpot. They're programmed to pay out a certain percentage of what goes in - and, at least in the UK, they're always labelled with a sticker near the slot, telling you what that percentage is. Typically something like 70 - 75%.

The way to win at a slot machine is to watch for a while. Look for someone who's putting in coin after coin, for a long time, and winning nothing. They leave in disgust having run out of change. Then you step in, and have very good odds of collecting 70% of the money that the previous gambler put in, when the computer inside decides it's time for someone to win something...

Needless to say, this sort of behaviour is likely to get you thrown out of the casino :-)

Re:All forms of gambling?

[sesshomaru]

According to Harry Anderson, there are slots in Vegas that never payout, ever. These are usually located in convenience stores or other non-casino venues. You could put a million dollars worth of quarters in one and get nothing back. It was in his Games You Can't Lose book.

The funny bits

[Billosaur]

Major professional sports organizations supported the legislation, including the National Football League and Major League Baseball, saying in a joint statement that sports betting "threatens the integrity of our respective sports."

Buhwahahaha!! Can you say steroids?!? Can you say overblown contracts?!? There can't be a threat to something they don't have.

A group called the Poker Players Alliance opposed the legislation as well.

The Poker Players Alliance - a stalwart group of poker-playing heroes, determined to defend truth, justice, and the right to draw to an inside straight!

Re:The funny bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Buhwahahaha!! Can you say steroids?!? Can you say overblown contracts?!?

ster-ummpff

ove-mffmmmfmmfff

DAMNIT! NO!

Re:The funny bits

[jtwJGuevara]

This is a troll and off-topic, but what exactly do "overblown" contracts have to do with sports integrity? The first word in "professional sports" is professional. Making as much money as you can in a profession is something every human being in an open market wishes to do (excluding entreprenuership). How do you make more money in professional sports - you play well and prove that to the organization you are playing for that you are worth the dollar amount that you are asking. How exactly does this effect the integrity of the sport they are playing?

Re:The funny bits

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Steroids may affect the integrity of the game, but I doubt that the outcome of a football or baseball game has been decided by whether or not a player is juiced. "Overblown" contracts have no impact whatsoever on the outcome of a game. As an aside, what does it matter to you how much athletes get paid? Sports gambling, on the other hand, can (and has) had an effect on the outcome of a game. That is what is meant by the integrity of the sport. Fans want to know that their team won or lost because of talent, not because somebody tanked on purpose to pay off a gambling debt.

Re:The funny bits

[nasch]

So you think all those players taking juice are mistaken in their belief that it will help them win?

Re:The funny bits

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fans want to know that their team won or lost because of talent, not because somebody tanked on purpose to pay off a gambling debt."

Imagine, it's game 7 of the World Series. Bottom of the 9th, bases loaded, 2 outs. The count is 3-0, and the batter has been given the green light to swing baby swing. He takes 3 called strikes, and the game is over. MLB investigates the player, and it is later revealed that he was asked by OMGBBQNIPZ421 in a yahoo chat room to throw the game, else he would lose everything he owned, and be forced to move back in with his parents.

{/SARCASM}

Re:The funny bits

[Billosaur]

Making as much money as you can in a profession is something every human being in an open market wishes to do (excluding entreprenuership).

That's fine as far as it goes. But tell me this: why should "professional" athletes get paid these millions when their college counterparts get paid nothing, for playing basically the same sport? Is a baseball player actually worth $20 million dollars simply because he's a good baseball player? If that's so, then why isn't a top-notch programmer worth a few million? Is it simply because there are so many programmers and so few "professional" athletes? Is the ability to play baseball or football worth more than the ability to program? Maybe it's apples and oranges to some, but you have to admit that professional sports figures have an opportunity to make money at the magnitude that we blue- and white-collar individuals can't even hope to match in a lifetime of work.

Re:The funny bits

[aevan]

The old 'love of the game' idea, of players giving it their all, etc.

Strikes and politics fly in the face of that.

Re:The funny bits

[Mr.123]

PPA is basically an organization funded by Party Poker. It serves as a way for an offshore entity to funnel money onshore and make it look like a grassroots organization for poker players.

When PPA first started, Party Poker gave every new member a $100 bonus. It cost $15 to join PPA (or $20 if you want a tshirt). PRTY is continuing to get players to join PPA by giving any new PPA members $25 in their account.

If the number of players from the US decrease dramatically b/c of this bill, PRTY is basically done. People won't stop gambling but they won't be doing it with offshore online poker operations.

Re:The funny bits

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Not exactly. I think that steroids may help an individual reach a higher level of play than he may have been capable of without them. So, it may help them personally achieve more, but in a team sport such as football or (to a lesser extent) baseball, I don't think it necessarily helps the team to win. If Barry Bonds did take steroids (and personally I think he did), I don't think it helped his teams success. The team would have found a power hitter somewhere else. The steroids just helped Barry become that player.

Baseball is probably not the best example, since it is heavily dependent on individual skills and raw strength will help you hit the ball further. One (or several) juiced up individual(s) (ie Bill Romanowski) on a football team, will not necessarily make a difference. There are too many skills outside of raw strength involved.

Re:The funny bits

[nasch]

It doesn't take much, though. Having a few players that are a little bit faster or a little bit stronger will give you that occasional opportunity such as a sack, a punt return, a long reception, etc that can be the difference between winning and losing. Not every week, but sometimes.

Besides, you don't need to determine that steroids affect the outcome of a game to decide whether they affect the sport's integrity. They're against the rules, and that by itself is enough. Beyond that, most fans want to see a contest of who can make the best plays, not who can take the best drugs. When players know this and lie about how they're acheiving their performance, I don't see how anybody can say that's not an issue of integrity, although that word gets thrown around way too much these days IMO.

Re:The funny bits

[DavidTC]

It is because there are so few "professional" athletes, but the reason for that is that there is an artifical monopoly on the number of positions, via a monopoly on the number of teams.

Re:The funny bits

[TubeSteak]

Sports Stars get their performance tracked in ways that would make a CEO wince.

No performance, no money next time your contract is up for renewal.

This creates an incentive to 'cheat'. Doesn't matter if it's steroids or what, but it takes away from the integrity of the game.

Re:The funny bits

[Cederic]

>> Making as much money as you can in a profession is something every human being in an open market wishes to do

I disagree entirely.

In my profession I could double my salary tomorrow - risk free. I could take a few risks and possibly end up a multi-millionaire in a couple of years.

I have the skills, I have the opportunity. I also have the choice.

I've chosen other things ahead of making money.

Re:The funny bits

[swb]

The expectation is that players are playing to win, not to maximize their financial outcomes.

Players may choose to execute safe plays that avoid injuries so they can maximize their pay vs. executing riskier plays that place them at greater injury risk but enhance their victory potential.

Players engage in self-centered behavior (eg, demanding to be traded, etc) vs team behavior that will contribute to victories.

Re:The funny bits

[AddictedToBeef]

If Barry Bonds did take steroids (and personally I think he did), I don't think it helped his teams success. The team would have found a power hitter somewhere else. The steroids just helped Barry become that player.

I don't necessarily buy this. Bonds didn't just become a power hitter (which he was already); he became the premier power-hitter in all of baseball, and his production was far greater than even the next-best players in the league. There was no way the Giants could have signed another player to get the same production, because that player did not exist.

Also, in baseball, a player has an extremely direct impact on his team's success due to the individual nature of offense in the sport. If a player is able to reach base more often and hit homeruns (the most efficient, predictable way to score runs) at an increased rate, which the steroids likely helped Bonds do (the increase in on-base percentage occurred because teams would intentionally walk him instead of risking that he would hit a homerun), he provides a demonstrable advantage to his team.

The Giants went to a World Series in 2002, and according to the recent book, Bonds began taking steroids in 1999. It would be interesting to see whether anyone in the statistical community has done any research into how the Giants would have likely finished had Bonds produced at his pre-steroid averages.

Re:The funny bits

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

OK, I did say that baseball wasn't the best example. I did some research though. Bonds had his best year in 2001, the year before they went to the world series (which they lost). Bonds actually had a better hitting year (in terms of number of extra base hits) in 1993 than he did in 2002. And he really only had that one great year in terms of home runs. Since he (allegedly) began taking steroids, his home run numbers are up, but not doubles and triples, he has been plagued by injuries and hasn't won a world series. Sammy Sosa is another supposed steroid user and he has a hard time getting a team to sign him. The trend in baseball seems to be that steroids might get you a couple of good years of power hitting and not much else.

Again, my main point is that had Barry Bonds been bought off due to gambling, he could have definitively changed the outcome of a game or season. It is still very debatable whether the steroids had that kind of effect.

Re:The funny bits

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read about the implications concerning the Carolina Panthers football team a few years back. Allegations are being stated that MANY players on the team where on steroids. Oh, btw, they went to the SuperBowl that year.

Re:The funny bits

[jtwJGuevara]

I can only defend football since that is a domain I'm familiar and I'm not fond of the other sports

But tell me this: why should "professional" athletes get paid these millions when their college counterparts get paid nothing.

College players are paid scholarships. Obviously this is vastly lower than pro sports pay, but they are getting one of the highest costs most of us incur in our young life subsidized or completely paid for by working 20 max hours a week (NCAA restriction). And I can tell you from personal experience that the number of players playing college football simply for scholarship is way more than any outsider would guess - for anectodal evidence I was one of them and am friends with many others. Football, in particular, is entirely too difficult to do for free (there are exceptions, like Jerry Rice for instance, who I think would really play for free if he could).

In the case of football, the average salary for an NFL player, is right at $1million dollars and an average NFL career is less than 3 years. Blockbuster deals and endosements signed by the superstars are the exception, not the rule. When you consider salary and length of career with a) earning income in this tax bracket results in major tax penalties b) 10% of contracts go to agents c) their is a high risk of career ending or altering injury d) there is an enormous wear on the body by playing even a short number of years - I believe that NFL players are actually underpaid.

If that's so, then why isn't a top-notch programmer worth a few million? Is it simply because there are so many programmers and so few "professional" athletes? Is the ability to play baseball or football worth more than the ability to program? Maybe it's apples and oranges to some, but you have to admit that professional sports figures have an opportunity to make money at the magnitude that we blue- and white-collar individuals can't even hope to match in a lifetime of work.

If top-notch programmers could fill 3-6 hour TV time slots on weekends to attract millions of viewers and fill 50,000-80,000 seat capacity stadiums, then they would paid this much too :) Unfortunately this isn't the case. But seriously, when you consider the length of a career of a professional athlete to a top-notch programmer over a long length of time, the programmer actually has the higher potential to make more money. Assuming moderate inflation, the ~$1.5 million the average NFL athlete netted is not going to be around by the time he is 50. The programmer however, can continue his trade for as long as his mind is able.

Legistlators gambling with their jobs...

[facehugger666]

I'm sure certain constituents aren't going to be happy. Here's to hoping the legislators who vote for this get their azzes voted out of office...

In my experience, people of every political persuasion like to gamble. Sounds like perhaps certain lobbying groups from NV and NJ made a nice contribution somewhere...

Re:Legistlators gambling with their jobs...

[Kagu]

Not true, the corporations that run the casinos in NV and NJ would love the exact opposite; to allow for gambling websites to be operated legally in the US.

Re:Legistlators gambling with their jobs...

[Politburo]

Gambling is way more widespread than NV and NJ these days. You've got casinos in NY, CT, MS, MO, and slot parlors in several other states (DE, SC?, likely coming to PA.. I'm sure there are some I missed).

Let me get this straight

[hackstraw]

The bill, cleared by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions. Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites, for example, and any other online wager made or received in a place where such a bet is illegal under federal or state law.

So, today, its legal to do money transfers for illegal gambling?

So, today, in my state, the government is the only legal gambling outfit? (lottery)

So, its illegal for me to do business in another country according to their laws?

I don't gamble beyond retirement funds, insurance, and whatnot.

Here is interesting, and typical situations from those that "win" the lottery: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/ Savemoney/P99649.asp

In the end, nothing will change. Offshore gambling will be no different.

Re:Let me get this straight

[ocbwilg]

I wouldn't say that these situations are "typical" necessarily, as there are probably just as many "instant millionaires" who manage their money properly and have a lot to show for it. But it's far more interesting to talk about the person who won the state lottery twice and squandered all of the money and now has to live in a trailer.

Of course, not everybody buys lottery tickets. I would suspect that a disproportionate percentage of lottery ticket buyers are people who don't have any money to begin with, and consequently don't have any money skills. If you (like many of these examples) are living hand to mouth to begin with, then the odds are that you will squander the money and continue to live hand to mouth. If you are a financially stable person who has savings, retirement funds, and some investments, then odds are you're going to come out way ahead if you win the lottery. But the problem isn't the money, it's the lack money skills.

At any rate, I'm not sure how you think this applies to online gambling. The majority of people who gamble online are either playing poker or placing sports bets. Odds are good that none of them will be winning instant millions.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Here is interesting, and typical situations from those that "win" the lottery: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/ Savemoney/P99649.asp

If the above link doesn't illustrate that poverty is a behavioral disorder, then I don't know what does.

There is an old thought experiment suggesting that were all the wealth taken from the wealthy (whatever that means) and distributed equally among all, that within a few years it would find its way right back to its original owners. Stories such as that at the end of the URL above make me believe this.

Re:Let me get this straight

[hackstraw]

There is an old thought experiment suggesting that were all the wealth taken from the wealthy (whatever that means) and distributed equally among all, that within a few years it would find its way right back to its original owners. Stories such as that at the end of the URL above make me believe this.

I believe that poverty is a state of mind, not behavioral, but splitting hairs there is unnecessary.

I know a couple that makes together more money than I do, but I have more "stuff", and they say "I have a good job", etc because I don't "think poor".

I smoke. I buy my cigarettes in a nearby county that has lower cigarette taxes, and buy them by the carton. Doing it this way gets me cigarettes at $2.10 to $2.50 a pack, so $21.00 to $25.00 a carton. My friend is "too poor" to pay $2.10 to $2.50 a pack, so he opts to buy them by the pack at a convenience store for $3.50 to almost $4 a pack, because he sees $3.50-$4.00 less than $21.00 or $25.00, but cannot see the big picture. He owes me $300, and has for over 1 year now.

I was watching a show on prostitution the other month or so, and I found it interesting how some prostitutes charged $50-$100 and others charged $300+. Wow, if that isn't a state of mind difference there, I don't know what is.

Don't bother...

[C3ntaur]

...Unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to make a bribe ("campaign contribution"). That's how it works these days. Better to contact your favorite online casinos and let them pay the bribe for you.

Re:Don't bother...

[maccalvin5]

we need nested voting threads to mod up the good ideas. like slashdot for presidential elections

Re:Don't bother...

[BrookHarty]

Yup, normal people can't buy their rights anymore.

Its the corporations or religous groups that pay to have them removed.

Did you bribe your congresscritter today?

Encouraging money laundering...

[tansey]

All this is going to do is encourage people to forgo using the direct deposit features most sites offer, opting for indirect funds deposits.

Right now, most sites offer the ability to write an e-check directly from a player's bank account to the poker site. However, virtually all sites also offer deposit via Neteller or Firepay. Since the latter method is not traceable since the 2 companies are not based in the US, players will just opt to use that method now.

So what this bill is effectively doing is encouraging people to launder how they cash in and out of poker sites. It will do nothing to stop people from actually playing.

Re:Encouraging money laundering...

[Politburo]

Neteller and Firepay are British, so it's not like they're in a haven.

RTFA

[kraada]

Doesn't the POSTER even RTFA these days? This bill cleared the committee. In fact, there's a line in the article which states:
"The bill now moves fo the House floor for consideration."

Not that it's impossible it will pass anyway, but please guys, get it right. It's not that hard.

LOL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give this bozo some kharma!!.. ^_^ ..
Although I dunno if I'd bet my basketball money on hobbits.. O_o

What happened to the state rights?

[njchick]

If the bill is written so that it can be enforced on the federal level, it can be enforced on the state level as well. Some states may prefer to tax gambling instead of prohibiting it. Why is a federal regulation needed?

Re:What happened to the state rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if the gambling site is not in the same state or same nation as the gambler, then it would fall under "Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States", and therefore even back when the constitution was more appropriately interpreted, under federal jurisdiction. (Section 8, Article I, US Constituion).

Re:What happened to the state rights?

[Sancho]

There is no good federal reason to legislte it... But when has that stopped the US?

Lovely interstate commerce clause, there.

Re:What happened to the state rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

How sweet! But my e-mail to you has bounced :-( Could you please write me? My address is tubgirl@redcoat.com

njchick

This is why Congress will be changing soon....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

There is way too much puritanical bullshit going on with Congress and their attempt to bring on their desired theocracy. Problem is they are trying to do it a little too fast. Bill passes, who gives a shit? It's not like the US controls the internet and it's a token gesture. If there were an organized online gaming lobby that could pay off Congressmen this would have never seen the light of day. The US has the best government that money can buy. They are so out of touch with the mainstream (Terri Schiavo anyone?) that a major realignment is going to happen hopefully with the 2006 elections.

Like the passage of the DMCA, it's just another example of a stupid congress that tries to legislate something that it knows nothing about.

Re:This is why Congress will be changing soon....

[RexRhino]

A major realignment in Congress? A major realignment to what? The chances of the Green Party or the Libertarian party don't seem that good.

If you are talking about a realignment to the Democrats, you will soon realize that the Democrats are as rabid nannie-state authoritarians as the Republics. If fact, placing restrictions on video games, websites, online gambling, etc., is one of those "centrist" issues that Democrats and Republicans usually join forces on.

No, the only thing that will happen next election will be the Dems and Repubs each promising to restrict more.

Re:This is why Congress will be changing soon....

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Like the passage of the DMCA, it's just another example of a stupid congress that tries to legislate something that it knows nothing about.

The DMCA was Fritz Hollings' baby. He was a Democrat senator. So it doesn't matter much anymore which of the major parties is in power, we the people are raped.

I wish people would wake up enough to vote for the minor parties. At least if a third party wins an electoral margin bigger than the shortfall of one of the major parties, the issues addressed by said small party will be granted much more attention.

Aw hell - I'm just dreaming. :-(

Re:This is why Congress will be changing soon....

[Kjella]

They are so out of touch with the mainstream that a major realignment is going to happen hopefully with the 2006 elections.

Like the passage of the DMCA, it's just another example of a stupid congress that tries to legislate something that it knows nothing about.

Actually, there they're perfectly aligned with the people. Trust me, if the congressmen know nothing about it, the average voter knows even less. I do hope there's a change but it won't undo anything, it'll only stop the downhill slide. Sure, the politicans can discuss back and forth about how much *services* they're going to render. But they are not going to give up all the *power* they've grabbed for themselves in the last years. That is not Democrat vs Republican, that is politicans vs people. And the people have carelessly given it away.

Re:This is why Congress will be changing soon....

[Burz]

That is not Democrat vs Republican, that is politicans vs people.

Agreed. But people put up with it because of brainwashing: Our mass media have become an anti-populist force who are in it with all the other wealthy corporations.

They don't just want our money; They prefer control because they are now so wealthy that they have everything in the world to lose.

We already live in a nation full of prisons. What else can politicians do to make the wealthy feel more secure except putting much of the population under effective house-arrest?

The Problem with internet gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

is that there are no lobbyists. Which proves that it can't be a legitimate business. If it were then Jack and Co. would
have been on this already. C'mon, kids it's pay to play here in the GOP USA. At least the Indians know that much.
Now we don't have a problem with you bankrupting our citizenry, just how am I gonna get re-elected?

From the summary...

[dtsazza]

The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites (my emphasis)

Really? This is another example of jurisdiction over the internet being called into question. My first though on reading the article was whether restrictions would apply to the casino, the gamblers or both. I'd imagine they'd almost certainly apply to the casinos - make it illegal for casinos based on servers in the US to accept electronic payment - but would it also be illegal for US citizens to place bets?

FTFA:

By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering, the legislation would impact offshore gambling Web sites used by many Americans to place bets.

I don't see how this works. If a casino is outside the U.S's jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to be held to any U.S. laws. Sure, you can outlaw this behaviour by making it illegal for a citizen to place a bet, or more likely by forbidding U.S. financial services (e.g. banks) from processing the request, but surely you can't affect those to whom U.S. laws don't apply?

Or perhaps I'm wrong, and you can - in which case, I'm worried about the precedent that would set. Is there a limit to the extent a country can create laws that affect those who are 'unaffected' by that country's laws? To a certain extent it's reasonable, but since this case involves two jurisdictions, with the casino outside the U.S.' jurisdiction and the gambler essentially going to the virtual casino to do business, it seems unreasonable. It's like the U.S. making it illegal for Mexican casinos to allow Americans to gamble there...

Re:From the summary...

[ari_j]

I think you're on the right track. The people complaining about the US going against the WTO on this matter (if the US actually did, which the article submitter's sensationalism makes it hard to tell without spending more time than I have reading about it right now) need to realize that, as well. The US is not, as far as I can tell, trying to legislate foreign behavior. It has the power to legislate behavior that crosses the national boundaries or involves internal "interstate" commerce, but that's about it. And the WTO has no real power to tell the US not to. That's the beauty of being a sovereign nation.

Re:From the summary...

[DavidTC]

You don't know much about the WTO.

The WTO specifically is to stop countries from regulating international commerce in certain ways. One of these ways is that countries can't regulate economic behavior of its own citizens in other countries. (Which has been a tradition of international law, anyway.)

However, no one's sure if this falls under what the WTO prohibits, or not. I don't know how much they have to do with banking regulations.

And, yes, the WTO can't enforce anything at all. It doesn't have to. The WTO has the ability to ask other countries to impose penalties on goods exported from countries that break the rules, and the other countries that signed the WTO already agreed to automatically follow whatever the WTO said.

It's all well and good to say 'The US is sovereign', but have fun explaining that to US companies that suddenly find themselves getting hit with a 10% tarrif to ship their goods to the UK or Japan. Yes, technically, the UK and Japan could simply decide not do this...and they would get blacklisted and hit with penalties by the WTO.

Alternately, we could simply leave it, but then we'd stop getting all the benefits, and countries would be free to impose whatever tarrifs they want on us, and avoiding that is the entire point of the WTO in the first place.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the WTO doesn't have any teeth.

Re:From the summary...

[Cederic]

Consider this scenario:
I move to America, to a state where gambling is illegal.
I connect to CasinoRouletteMillions.com (made up URL; may exist, I haven't checked)
I place a bet using my credit card, on the digit 0, for my full credit limit.
It doesn't come in.

I contact my card company and demand they charge back the amount, thus clearing my balance.

The casino can not challenge the charge back. The card is an American card; the transaction was under American laws. So either the casino accepts the charge back, or the card issuer, by permitting an illegal transaction, takes the hit.

Now, this is complicated. I'd potentially be liable for fraud. But in reality, the card issuers would refuse to permit card payments to the offshore casinos - they don't want to take that risk. They don't want the headaches. Or the casinos would refuse to take card based payments - they don't want that risk.

Either way, the ability for me, as a gambler, to access the gambling sites, and pay them, is horribly restricted.

That the sites are outside the jurisdiction of the US is irrelevant - the payment mechanisms they're using are not. Hence the bill targeting the payment mechanisms, not the websites.

The use of offshore banking alongside offshore casinos (as suggested in another response) is however a possible workaround.

I haven't explained this well, sorry. :(

Re:From the summary...

[Best ID Ever!]

if the US actually did, which the article submitter's sensationalism makes it hard to tell without spending more time than I have reading about it right now

The WTO did rule that the US couldn't prohibit online gambling, but it was later narrowed to only online horse racing, so the submitter is indeed wrong.

And the WTO has no real power to tell the US not to. That's the beauty of being a sovereign nation.

Here you are sorely mistaken. The WTO has the power to leverage punitive fines against the US if we don't abide by their rules, which they have done on several occasions.

Re:From the summary...

[ari_j]

The WTO certainly has teeth, but they are purely political - not legal. The United States cannot be taken to any real binding court for ignoring the WTO, in the sense that you or I can be haled into court for breaking our local jurisdictions' laws. The remedies you talk about surely are available, but one sentence you wrote perfectly embodies the teeth that the WTO has (at least in the US): "have fun explaining that to US companies that suddenly find themselves getting hit with a 10% tarrif to ship their goods to the UK or Japan." Since the US politicians who make the decision as to whether or not to abide by the WTO's regulations are the people who would have to explain it to US companies, and those companies are a substantial portion of how those politicians got elected in the first place, they tend to do what the WTO says.

I was merely saying that there is no legal repercussion to contra-WTO actions by US legislators. Like I said, "the WTO has no real power to tell the US" what to do. It does, however, have some (significant) indirect political power to penalize the US for doing something. More importantly, you have to look at US federalism to decide whether the federal government has the power to force pro- or anti-gambling laws on states on account of WTO regulations saying you can't ban internet gambling. It's a murky field, to be sure.

Re:From the summary...

[atomic_toaster]

If a casino is outside the U.S's jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to be held to any U.S. laws. Sure, you can outlaw this behaviour by making it illegal for a citizen to place a bet, or more likely by forbidding U.S. financial services (e.g. banks) from processing the request, but surely you can't affect those to whom U.S. laws don't apply?

There's really no way that American authorities could enforce their anti-gambling laws on other countries -- or would have the resources to even if they wanted to. Granted, it wouldn't be the first time that the States tried to force their morals and opinions on an unwilling international populace. Especially since gambling is legal in some states, I can't see there ever being a "War on Gambling".

I can see how the U.S. Govt. could make outlaw online casinos based in states in the U.S. where gambling is illegal. However, how could justify making it illegal to place a bet in a casino that's based where gambling is legal? As previous posters have pointed out, with all of the banks out there clamouring for your business, it can't be that hard to get an account or credit card from out-of-state, if not out-of-country. Really, how would that be any different from people living in one state to drive over the state line to go gambling? That sure as hell isn't illegal -- and you can bet that the brick-and-mortar casinos would raise hell if it became so.

Additionally, having banks not allow transactions to online casinos presents a logistical nightmare. They'd have to monitor every transaction that all of their customers make, 24 hours a day, to screen all the millions of ways that an online transaction could be a disguised casino transaction. I mean, think of how many companies that bill customers use "discreet" names already so that purchases don't cause you to get the evil eye from your wife... It would be a worse logistical nightmare than trying to track identity theft, because in some places it would be legal, and some places not, and if someone crossed the border to another country or state, the "criminal" purchases wouldn't be criminal anymore... For identity theft, too, to a certain degree banks count on the customers noticing something is up with their account, and reporting it to the bank -- which won't happen if people are trying to get away with something illegal. Wow, I can just see the administrative fees on bank accounts/credit cards soaring...

Another option is to try and censor the internet state-by-state... But as we've seen with the internet censorship in China, there's always ways to get around it.

Re:From the summary...

[robertjw]

Actually I think you explained your idea very well. Although I have not actually done any online gambling, I have heard that it can be difficult to get an account setup. This may be part of the reason. If a player commits fraud in a manner similar to what you outlined above I don't see how an offshore online casino would have any recourse.

Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like my bet that this would pass is going to pay off.

Im No Law Expert...

[beedle]

I can see how the US government has the lawful ability to effectively block online gambling sites within the US. However I am not really sure about how they plan to prosecute these online gambling companies in a court of law in the US if they are based in another country. Im sure some countries might bend over for the US and extradite the offending company officials to the US to face prosecution, but I just cant help but think that there are alot of countries out there that would just as soon give the big middle finger to the US instead.

Point being since the only world authority (WTO) has already passed a ruling that went against this new bill then there are effectively no international governing bodies that are willing to enforce this law. What is the US supposed to do, start barging into other countries and telling them to abide by US laws?

Oh wait....this is the US we're talking about here, of course that is what they will do. Oh well on another interesting note, doesnt it seem hypocritical to anyone that the US government can come down so hard on companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo for cooperating with the Chinese government in censoring the internet when this bill shows that they are essentially trying to do the same thing?

The bottom line is, if people want to gamble online they are going to find some way to do it, just like if the Chinese public wanted to "break" Google's filtering scheme or the Great Chinese firewall and see what the rest of the world sees on the web...rest assured they will do it.

Re:Im No Law Expert...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US intends to do no such thing. They won't be prosecuting, they will just be blocking all financial tranasctions between the US and said online gambling companies.

Ah, the Great Land of Freedom

[aphoenix]

The great land of freedom seems to be moving much more towards a "freedom from" instead of "freedom of". I am greatly saddened by this - what was once one of the best places to live in the world is becoming a place of limitations and loopholes. They have lost most of their credibility with the rest of the world because of their hypocritical stances; "freedoms" are claimed, but not often given, "peace" is desired, but war follows. Online gambling is becoming prohibited, but the most American city on the planet is Las Vegas, the city of excess.

This is the problem that happens when old men who are scared of anything new make decisions that affect other people. I am confident that the main problem with online gambling is that it is harder for the government to regulate than meatspace gambling. When the pie becomes virtual, it's harder for regulators to get their piece.

I'm not a proponent of online gambling (or gambling in general, though I do participate in the occasional poker tournament or hockey pool), but I think that this sort of regulation is a little ridiculous. Legislate elsewhere, O Government, where you can be beneficial to society. Why not start on the patent system? Why not figure out how to respond to natural disasters? Why not just about anything else?

The biggest problem here is that most of the politicans making decisions like this are old men that tend not to understand what they are making decisions about. The great hope for actual freedom in the USA is that, in time, the people will start to become more acclimatized to technology and will be able to make more informed decisions about the uses thereof.

Re:Ah, the Great Land of Freedom

[robertjw]

The biggest problem here is that most of the politicans making decisions like this are old men that tend not to understand what they are making decisions about.

I don't think that's the biggest problem here at all. I think there are two major problems with our government that are illustrated in this discussion.

1. Politicians are only out to please their constituents. The government officials in Washington have been elected by a constituency that thinks gambling is a sin, so they believe passing a law like this will get them re-elected.
2. There are people in this country, maybe even our lawmakers, that think things magically change when you pass a law. If drugs are outlawed we won't have a problem. If we have stronger hate laws we racial tension will go away. If we say online casinos are illegal, they just won't exist anymore. Nevermind that this is completely untrue and there are multitudes of laws on the books that are unenforcable, underfuned or just ignored.

You must be new here...

[moofdaddy]

Welcome!

jeez

[fooslacker]

How am I ever going to win back my drug money, now?

Crap! If this passes...

[snowwrestler]

Who will pay to interrupt the Olympic closing ceremonies or buy grilled cheese sandwiches that look like Jesus??

Re:Crap! If this passes...

[matr0x_x]

Hahahahaha. You make a good point :P

Good.

[Fooby]

It is absolutely ludicrous that an American citizen can become a billionaire running a gambling company that gets 70% of its revenues from Americans in America where this online gambling is illegal, and that this service is openly advertised all over the US media. The Partypoker founders should be extradited, charged, and their assets forfeited.

Do you think I would get away with it if I moved to Thailand and set up a website partypot.com, selling baggies of marijuana to Americans? This is no different.

Fed and States are hypocrites

[Typingsux]

If your state has a lottery, it shouldn't have any say or bust people for gambling. People are getting social poker games raided by police in New York state while lotteries persist.

"More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bill"

[Futurepower(R)]

The first step in considering any technically-oriented bill should be to post it on Slashdot, and have everyone find the ways in which it is stupid.

I'm guessing that the Internet Gambling bill is like the Internet Porn bill. After the Internet Porn bill passed, the only porn available in the U.S. on the internet was on Playboy's web site and on the web sites of other traditional porn sellers. It was not difficult to guess that porn magazines paid congress people for the bill, which was soon overturned.

Now brick-and-mortar gambling companies and maybe the lotteries run by states apparently want to restrict "gambling" to ways in which they can profit.

There is no gambling in "gambling" or "gaming". If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage they say you will lose. "Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics.

Bills should be named by some other group than those who sponsor them. Maybe the Internet Gambling bill should be named the "More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bill".

--
The movie Loose Change, 2nd Edition claims, basically, that the U.S. government was overthrown.

Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

You Americans are pathetic. There's no debate about this: the government has no right to do these things. But you just bend over and vote for more, more more. Enjoy your future.

Re:Bill actually clears the House Financial Servic

[geobeck]

...it will go before the full House for debate.

That's where DJ and Michelle will convince the others to vote it down because of Joey's poker addiction.

Lotto

[gatzke]

I wish we could go back to the days of mafia run numbers rackets. They usually had 80% + return when not fixed.

Current state lottos are 50% return best case and taxable as well.

And remember, that $5 NCAA tourney poool is technically illegal in most places, evildoer....

Bout time

[HangingChad]

We'll finally be able to send our glorious Justice Department commandos after those insurgent little old ladies playing Texas Holdum and otherwise not bothering a sole in the privacy of their own home. Without this law we would have never been able to move against the undesirable element in our society who keep to themselves, those bastards.

Once we have the bulk of the population under the regulatory oversight of the criminal justice system we'll be able to force those godless, indecent hoardes into our nice, Republican cookie-cutter mold of outward piety and ethical lip service.

Long live the Republican party! Long live the Justice Department!

Re:Bout time

[Bull999999]

Long live the Republican party! Long live the Justice Department!

Humm... I guess I could vote Democrats for next election and have them protect me against violent video games.

Re:Bout time

[HangingChad]

Yes, there's a wonderful justification for continuing to support a corrupt, hypocritical and incompetent party. They'll save the violent video games!

Whew, for a minute there I didn't think we were getting anything except SCREWED. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You are evil, and I hope you die.

[ClioCJS]

No, there isn't a big difference, and both should be legal. And both were, for a long, long time.

But at long as assholes like you purport to tell ME what to do with MY life, shitty regulations like this will continue to exist.

You can go to hell. I hope you burn forever. If it were legal, I would happily pull the trigger in the name of those of us who WANT freedom. If only that's what they were actually doing in Iraq...

Re:You are evil, and I hope you die.

[ChaosCube]

Well said.

Re:You are evil, and I hope you die.

[Fooby]

Thanks for the kind thoughts. Unfortunately for your babbling, neither is legal now. I'm not a fan of the war on drugs, and I think that possession and use of marijuana should probably be decriminalized at least. But the fact is these laws are on the books. The DoJ should not be throwing the book at people like Marc Emery and looking the other way when another American runs a multi-billion dollar corporation out of Gibraltar that violates the law just as flagrantly on a much larger scale. It is hypocrisy and it is immensely unfair to American citizens who work hard to make a living while abiding by the law.

VLTs

[heliosphan6666]

VLT's for everyone

What is the reasoning behind this law?

[Alphi1]

The thing that gets me, is we need to know what the reasoning behind this law is.

If it's a "gambling is bad, and therefore illegal" type of message, they are hypocrites because of "legal" gambling already there, such as lotteries, and even things like insurance policies and trading stocks.

If it's the idea that "many gambling sites are taking money and refusing to pay winnings", then that's a different idea altogether.

Re:What is the reasoning behind this law?

[veddermatic]

The reason behind the law: "People are having fun and we aren't taxing it, so we better make it illegal."

Since Prohibition worked so well...

[UttBuggly]

...this new legislation will certainly stop all that evil poker playing, won't it?

Most credit card companies quit processing direct transactions to PokerStars, Ultimate Bet, and Full Tilt in the last 12-18 months. I did find some local banks' debit cards will work on all 3 of those, but no majors like Visa and MasterCard.

And as some have pointed out, FirePay and other indirect transactions will not be affected.

The stupidity of this is that several major US casinos had on-line poker business plans in the works only to see the feds rain on their parade. If you had a choice to play online poker with a off-shore site or a "branded" U.S. site like Harrah's, which would you choose?

The casinos would almost certainly give incentives and freebies for on-line players to visit their brick and mortar (or plastic and neon, if you prefer) locations, helping local economies while raking in TAXABLE revenue from both.

This is a mostly useless law that will do little to impact on-line gaming in the U.S. (unless of course they contract the R.I.A.A. to kick in grandma's door while she's playing .5 / .10 cent No Limit on PartyPoker)

Re:Since Prohibition worked so well...

[hyfe]

Most credit card companies quit processing direct transactions to PokerStars, Ultimate Bet, and Full Tilt in the last 12-18 months. I did find some local banks' debit cards will work on all 3 of those, but no majors like Visa and MasterCard.

FYI VISA's working fine over here in Europe. Haven't heard of anybody having trouble ever, and I have quite a few poker-playing friends.

Does Gambling include E-bay?

[EaglesNest]

Every time I buy (or sell) something on E-bay I feel like I'm gambling on the true condition of the item, whether I'll even get it, and it the other party is going to conduct some sort of fraud against me. I hope this (ill-advised) bill doesn't kill online retail from small vendors and auctions.

Heck, even when I buy something online from anything but a Tier I retailer (e.g., Amazon, NewEgg), I feel like I'm gambling with my money.

When is enough enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

D0wn with G!

perhaps not fully

[Main Gauche]

Officially, Neteller is based in Isle of Man, which is a British crown dependency. Similarly, PartyPoker is in Gibralter. Tons of sportsbooks are based in the Carribean. IANAL, but I don't have to be to see that these guys planned ahead.

Re:perhaps not fully

[Politburo]

They're both publicly traded companies on the London market.. somehow I doubt they're fully outside the reach of British law.

Re:perhaps not fully

[Best ID Ever!]

The UK also recently passed a law stating that it was legal to accept bets from Americans. I don't think the US should expect much help from the British on this issue.

I call Bullshit

[XMilkProject]

So when China bans things that hurt their government from the internet, congress calls in Microsoft and Google to harrass them for doing buisness there.

But then when online gambling takes tax money away from the US Government, Congress immediately goes about making it illegal/impossible to access/use gambling sites on the internet.

I guess I can always mail cash to the gambling site in a large manila envelope. Until congress makes a law telling me that I'm not even allowed to mail my own money where I want to unless they get to take their Vig first.

Re:I call Bullshit

[Cederic]

I believe that one's already covered under money laundering laws.

command and control, create more chattle

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another example of the feeding and foraging behaviour of the political parasites...

The salivating whores running this country, both democraps and republiCON or neoCON, will do anything to sink their fangs into regulating access to internet content and services...it's about control...plus the non-internet gaming industry, and of course the corrupt state politicos who line their pockets with kickbacks from indian and state taxed casinos all lining up to feed from the trough by profiting from restricting access to anything fun or interesting, or mind altering....

Hate all politicians equally...Love free thinkers, kids, and small furry animals...devote yourself to yourself, your family and pets...not some political party or psycopathic fascist puppets who, when they're not stategerizing on how to more efficiently cluster bomb some brown people, like to get drunk, kill birds and shoot their friends in the face...

If internet gamblers' rights to access these offshore gaming services as sovereign individuals at their own risk, unmolested by government are not protected, the domino effect will begin to accelerate....

VOIP will be next, and if the parasites have their way, anonymous posting on the internet, etc. etc....

The Real Reason for this Legislation...

[ThinkFr33ly]

... is because of the strong brick and mortar casino lobby. Native American casinos and Vegas casinos have a very strong (and well funded) lobby that pushes for this legislation every year.

It just so happens that we have scummy enough politicians in power that are happy to make it happen.

With internet gambling shut down the only place people will be able to gamble are brick/mortar casinos, and, of course, state sponsored lotteries.

What you'll hear from these politicians is some baloney about gambling addiction, or maybe even the obligatory "what about the children!?" plea. I absolutely hate these people. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Re:"More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bi

[Slightly Askew]

There is no gambling in "gambling" or "gaming". If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage they say you will lose. "Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics.

You should probably qualify this with "Gambling against the house". Playing online poker against other players is not the same as pulling a virtual slot machine handle. I would liken it to other "games" such as golf, bowling, bridge, etc. Those who are skilled in the game have a decided advantage over those who are not. The only difference is that the score is kept in dollars instead of points.

I challenge anyone to explain the moral difference between paying an entry fee to play in a golf tournament where the prizes awarded are cash prizes, and paying an entry fee to play in a poker tournament where the prizes awarded are cash prizes.

Indians

[edfardos]

Native American Indians are better people than us and are allowed to operate above the law in this regard. I wonder if we'll see a boom in IT jobs for Indian online gambling?

big mamma taking care of us

[PokerAndroid]

Another example of big mamma taking care of us. The only way to get these bastards off our ass is a tax revolt. Working 4 months/year for this kind of crap. Give them a month maybe and they will be too preoccupied fighting over it to bother with this kinda waste. Let the states handle social matters. If you live in an idiot/superstitious/corrupt state, then get in the car and give another a try.

American Democracy = coke and pepsi parties using the citizens earnings to stay in power and enrich themselves by handing out our wealth to whoever will kick some money back to them so they can be reelected. Infinite loop of corruption.

What a scam the feds are running. Whatever they touch turns to shit and cost the taxpayers a fortune.

Already happening...

[Brent_Litzer]

Almost all reputable CC companies already do not allow transfers to poker sites or the clearing companies poker sites use(Firepay, etc).

Right now it's difficult for the novice to figure out an easy way to transfer the cash.

It's the novices that poker players want to have easy cash access. For sharks, online poker is much less appealing without the fish.

no, it's brilliant!

[slackaddict]

1) Pass a new law which prohibits [insert act/service/item/business]
2) Call up the people that do the [act/service/item/business] and set up some back room deals to overturn the law.
3) ???
4) Profit!

Lawmaking has become a very profitable occupation for our elected officials!

Re:"More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bi

[tshak]

"Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics.


Gambling is any behavior involving risking money or valuables on the outcome of a game, contest, or other event in which the outcome of that activity depends partially or totally upon chance or upon one's ability to do something. Those who do understand mathematics and probability are those who usually win. The state lottery, for example, is a tax on those who don't understand math. Casino's gamble just as much as their customers. But like already mentioned, there are games like poker in which you play another player. The better player offers gambles much like the casino offers gambles; they have a long term expectation (i.e. they make profitable gambles). The stock market is similar to this but more interesting because it's not simply zero sum like most gambling. It can be positive sum or negative sum which makes choosing what gambles to take a bit more complex.

Re:You're wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

....There is a perfectly possible way to tax it trough gaming licences. There are a zillion of big companies that would pay pretty much anything you want for the oppurtunity to expand on the US market. This however, will hurt the business interests of some states as whatever the online industry is, there are no sucker lotteries with impossible payout odds that are as good as donating cash to the state budget. I'm actively involved in the industry and both bills have been discussed at large.
Here is what happens:
1. Local bookies flourish again in the US, probably under control of organized crime, people are back to playing on credit as opposed to gambling with their own money, any person can gamble, there is no age verification.
2. Masses get scared, aunt Paulie can't play her 0.05/0.10 Satuday night poker game anymore. It's illegal. Gambling becomes a social tabu.
3. Gambling continues to expand. Profits grow. Gamblers grow. The world laughs @ the US.(won't be the first time).

Even if a lot of my US buddies believe that there is not even a remote chance of any of those bills passing, I'm firmly confident that they both will(Leach & Kyle) and that the public won't know untill one morning 600k americans try to log into Party Poker and find out a pop up from Party gaming saying that very unfortunately, they can't assist them in criminal acts.
Anyway, I'm just waiting to see when will the US go to war with the UK. I mean, all those people out there, there are certainly dangerous degenerate gamblers that represent a danger TO OUR KIDS......
Whatever. Us politicians have lost the plot on that subject a long, long time ago.

Just Think Like Tony Soprano

[geoffrobinson]

The boss needs to get his cut (taxes). You roll your bones up the food chain. If you don't cut the boss in with the action, you run into major problems. In this case, legislation.

It's HR 4777. Maybe.

[Animats]

First, this seems to be HR 4777, the "Internet Gambling Prohibition Act". There are some other bills related to Internet gambling, but this is the one that's in committee right now, and it has 130 cosponsors, so it's going to move forward, not be ignored. When posting a story about a bill, please list the bill number.

Second, the Congressional bill status system says that today's action so far is "Introductory remarks on measure" in the House Judiciary Committee. It's not shown as passed by that Committee yet. Nor is it shown as being referred to the House Financial Services Committee at all.

Third, the bill is notable for what it doesn't have. It doesn't, for example, make credit card debts for gambling unenforceable, or prohibit banks from cooperating in money transfers for that purpose. That would actually work, but the banks wouldn't like it.

Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php and their witty replies to DMCA notices sent to Swedish citizen. "Retractable baton" - that's just classic.. Or "As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America."

So much for personal freedom

[dtfinch]

Gambling is a mistake, but I should be allowed to choose to make my own mistakes.

I guess we'll have to stick to stock trading and gambling away our savings in the government's own lotteries.

Re:"More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bi

[nasch]

"There is no gambling in "gambling" or "gaming". If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage they say you will lose. "Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics. "

It depends who you play against. If you're playing against the house, then yes that's right (although playing "enough" == playing forever). If you're playing against other gamblers (ie poker) you can win money from them minus a rake for the house. Another exception is when a lottery jackpot is big enough. As the number of times you play for a big enough pot approaches infinity, your chance of coming out ahead approaces one. Big enough means the expected returns exceed the cost of a ticket.

Hobbits as jockeys?

[tepples]

Article: "The legislation carves out some exceptions, including wagering on horse races, governed under another U.S. law, and fantasy sports."

AC: "Although I dunno if I'd bet my basketball money on hobbits.. O_o"

That's why you re-earmark your basketball money for horse racing. Wouldn't a hobbit make a better jockey? Then you can take advantage of both exceptions.

Wheel of Fortune

[Doc Ruby]

Jack Abramoff's casino clients pay "Christian" Republican politicians to write laws cutting out competition. Internet gambling is a big threat to their innumeracy scams, so of course there's a law against it.

Re:Wheel of Fortune

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, plus not only casinos benifit but also GOP friendly Horseracing tracks etc... Check out this excerpt from a horse racing industry article to prove your point "The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (HR 4411) on Wednesday passed out of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee. Due largely to efforts by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the language of the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), protects Internet and account wagering on horse racing. "We're pleased that HR 4411 passed through the Financial Services Committee, and we look forward to working with Congress on issues related to Internet wagering," said NTRA chief" American Quarter Horse racing, Internet Gaming Bill Passes Out Of Committee, 15 March 2006

Most profitable new net business of 2007...

[harvardslacker]

...is a proxy server set up in Nevada.

Greg
---
http://www.gregwestin.com/

mmmmmkay

[Soothh]

First they take half my money per paycheck, now they say what i can and cant do with it?
Moving to another country does really sound better all the time.

About Prohibition...

[Anonymous Coward]

How long did it take for the US per capita alcohol consumption to match that in 1910? (I know that Prohibition was enacted in 1920, but the movement was reacting to pre-1920 behaviors).

How about an article?
Or maybe a chart?

So, 1970?

I'm not arguing that the law didn't have other repercussions, but it seems to me that Prohibition did work in reducing the per capita consumption of alcohol.

The marketing forces (there were MANY business interests involved) that championed the repeal were effective enough to sway even future generations (us).

Re:About Prohibition...

[robertjw]

The post-war spike in the graph you linked to is close to the pre-prohibition levels. The data could be interepreted in any number of ways. The depression ran from 1929 to the late 30's. By the time the amendment was repealed many people didn't have money to by alcohol. After that many young men, a demographic I would imagine is responsible for large amounts of alcohol consumption, were out of the country - many of whom were killed in action. It doesn't appear that consumption increased again until the baby boomer generation started to grow up in the late 60's/early 70's.

Also looked at the article you linked to and didn't see much support for ongoing effects of prohibition on consumption. Unless you have a more substantial analysis of this data to link to I'm going to have a difficult time believing your statement that Prohibition reduced the long term per capita consumption of alcohol.

Wording

[3.14159265]

"The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites" hosted in the U.S., right?

Gambling bans said to fight poverty-related crime

[tepples]

I'm sure this bill started because of the concern about the "tearing the moral fibers of America" that online gambling causes.

"Tearing the moral fibers of America" in this case isn't just some conservatofascist ideal. Bans on gambling are marketed to legislators as a way to fight poverty-related crime. Gambling is more popular among people who are less numerate than the median, and numeracy tends to be lower among people with lower incomes, who think gambling actually works as a way to MAKE.MONEY.FAST rather than the form of entertainment that it is. Advocates of gambling regulation assert that gambling makes poor people more poor and more likely to turn to crime or public assistance to satisfy their needs for survival or their gambling habits.

Slashdotted; coralized link

[harvardslacker]

The article was 'unavailable' when I tried to access it directly, but the coralized link works:

http://today.reuters.com.nyud.net:8080/investing/f inanceArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-03- 15T174222Z_01_N15403811_RTRIDST_0_CONGRESS-FINANCI AL-GAMBLING.XML

Greg
---
http://www.gregwestin.com/

This doesn't change much...

[Astin]

Most credit cards won't accept a transfer request from an online gambling site. Ditto with most banks. The risk of fraud, laundering, etc., is too great.

So what most sites do is offer the ability to transfer money from an online holding/escrow service (think PayPal, Firepay, etc.). I don't think this bill would affect that much. They couldn't ban you from using these services because they serve an actual purpose. Could you imagine if people were no longer allowed to transfer money from their bank/credit card to PayPal?

Go, Marc, Go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think I would get away with it if I moved to Thailand and set up a website partypot.com, selling baggies of marijuana to Americans? This is no different.

Dude, his name is Marc Emery.

Re:Go, Marc, Go!

[Fooby]

Yes, and he was arrested more than half a year ago, and the U.S. is trying to arrest him.

Folding

[tepples]

but if you don't get the right cards your out of luck.

Let me correct that: "but if you don't get the right cards your[sic] out only the ante." In competitive poker, those around the table play several hands in succession, and if you have bad cards, you can make an obviously bad hand count less for you by folding before any community cards are dealt, and you can save your credits for the next hand.

Re:"More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bi

[typical]

"Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics.

While I agree with you in the general case, I can think of hypothetical situations in which gambling is worthwhile -- where your valuation function becomes very non-linear. For example, suppose you were going to be shot in the head in twenty-four hours unless you could come up with one million dollars.

Re:Bill actually clears the House Financial Servic

[Best ID Ever!]

Not to mention the WTO ruling that was mentioned was later narrowed to only online horse racing, i.e. since the US allows online horse racing, it can't block other countries from offering it to Americans. The US is still free to block everthing else.

Most US citizens are conservative Christians

[typical]

A major realignment in Congress? A major realignment to what? The chances of the Green Party or the Libertarian party don't seem that good.

If there was going to be a major realignment in government, it would have happened in 2004.

Most people in the US like what's going on right now. They're Christian, don't like gays, and are (relative to Slashdot) socially conservative.

Re:Most US citizens are conservative Christians

[RexRhino]

I live in Canada, and I can tell you that people are not conservative Christians, but are just as rabid for the nannie state (banning smoking, gambling, alchol is only allowed to be sold in highly regulated government outlets where I live, all movies, TV, or video games sold must be approved by the government)... and Canada and the U.S. are nothing compared to what is happening in the U.K. (ALL cars will be computer tracked on the roads, it is illegal to say things that "offend religion", they have a new thing called something like "anti-social behavior orders" which allow your neighbors to have judges restrict you from legal behavior, without a trial or you being present, because they think it is "anti-social").

The whole nannie-state thing seems to be happening everywhere in Western World. The Christian thing is simply the U.S. flavor of totalitarianism.

Re:Most US citizens are conservative Christians

[Dillusionary]

Umm did you even watch the elections? The country was split in half. Half for Kerry and Half for Bush. It was a very close race. So when you say 'most', I hope you mean 50%.

Poker Players Alliance

[BridgeBum]

For those of you interested, there is a grass roots organization called the Poker Players Alliance which is attempting to lobby against this bill.

More information at http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/press.html

I'm confused how to root...

[Hosiah]

As a moral and intellectual being, I of course loathe gambling with a passion. But as a geek, I love Internet freedom with an equal passion. I'm kind of wavering, but I think the freedom card trumps.

Yes, I'll fight to the death for people's right to waste their lives in the most pathetic way possible. Gah, that sucked.

PS to our Australian readers: "root" here in the US has a meaning "cheer on, encourage, hope for", as in "rooting for the home team". I saw the funny comments to the title of this post coming a mile away.

Re:I'm confused how to root...

[drode]

I'm confused as to why anyone would "loathe" gambling of any type, but especially poker. I suspect it is the moral issue. Some small percentage of the population will develop a gambling problem just as some percentage of adults will become alcoholics. To believe that beer and poker cause this problem is like believing that Downs syndrome is caused by sex.

I don't drink or use drugs; I don't play blackjack or craps; I don't even buy lottery tickets. I do, however play poker whenever I can find the time. Poker is a game of skill where all of the players have the same odds of getting dealt the best hand. I see it as no different than football or auto racing. It's just than geeks do better poker players than linebackers :)

Re:I'm confused how to root...

[Hosiah]

but especially poker

OK, I wasn't talking about even-stakes gambling between two friends. (-: I am of course talking about "betting against the house" type gambling, where people waste their whole lives (I have two inlaws who have literally done this from childhood to their present 70's, they are working themselves into a grave because they still have nothing, but never miss a lottery ticket, a bingo game, or a dog race. They HATE me because I have a mind, even though that mind is going to be supporting them with it's paycheck before long. But I digress into my personal problems.) chasing the Big Win against the house odds set against them.

I don't know if you're going to parse this, but live in Las Vegas for awhile (as I did for career reasons) and you will soon grow sick of just how stupid a casino nearby makes people. Gambling teaches people to have no morals or standards and to strive for nothing, because the slot machine rewards the industrious and the slothful alike. Gambling - at least casino gambling - makes people dumb.

When you get good at math, you see how stupid it is and quit gambling, and the gambling industry hates that. So anywhere where there's a casino, you can bet schools will be closed down, libraries will be bulldozed, bars and strip clubs and more casinos will take their place, and the wage level will drop to burger-flipping levels even as the cost of living meets a Silicon Valley level. You think Microsoft is bad and it is, but you haven't seen FUD until a casino PR-guy talks to a local politician.

But poker games among friends are a different matter. That's just a skill game, and it may be convenient to keep score with money.

Re:I'm confused how to root...

[$criptah]

Hahahaha:

As a moral and intellectual being...

Dude, you crack me up. If you are intellectual you should understand that your moral values are what they are: They are yours. Not mine, not ours, not everybody's. They are simply your fucking values. If you do not like to gamble, then do not do it. Simple as that. Stand up for the 'nanny' state today and you will face the music tomorrow.

Your sin in my pleasure!

Re:I'm confused how to root...

[Hosiah]

They are yours. Not mine, not ours, not everybody's.

Well, let's stear clear of the obvious philosophical debate - I believe that there are such things as morals that exist universally. I believe that gambling, in and of itself (*casino* gambling, as opposed to you and your buddies at home playing cards with even stakes. Addictive gambling.) is deleterious to the human individual as well as to society. But then - surpri-i-ise! - those are MY beliefs, and not worth a tinker's cuss to you.

I already said the nanny state was the worst of the two evils (talk about deleterious to society!), you're with me there?

Creep of the Nanny State

[nurb432]

While i could care less about gambling, this slow progression of the "nanny state" here in the US is really making me ill.

Sweet! Would that Include MMORPGs?

[Greyfox]

After all MMORPG farmers pay a fixed monthly buy-in and rely on random events to win prizes that they can then sell on ebay for lots of money. It'd tickle my sense of fancy if the first company pursued under this law (Should it survive to the president's desk) were Blizzard...

For the most part I doubt it'll affect online poker players all that much. Most of them think that it's illegal now.

A big poker site's take on this

[kutuz_off]

Shamelessly stolen from a poker forum:

here's is a copy of an email i recieved from Full Tilt after asking them what they were doing to oppose this bill.

Hello,

Thank you for your email.

Your tenaciousness in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Fortunately, the bill in question, should it even be passed, will not be
in place until far in the future. The convenience of your online poker
is not threatened anytime soon!

Also, should the bill come to pass, we will still be able to operate, we
just won't be able to accept deposits via credit cards or Moneygrams.
As you are probably aware, we offer a myriad of other deposit options
through online payment processors.

I hope this brings things in perspective.

Thank you for contacting your representatives to help citizens like
ourselves keep our livelihood!

Best of luck on the tables, and if there's anything else we can help you
with, please let us know.

Regards,

Tesla
Team Full Tilt

Re:"More Profit for Las Vegas and Atlantic City Bi

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I had that problem.

Luckily the £200 on a nazi getting made pope came in just on time..

Re:It's HR 4777. Maybe.

[swampdust]

Thats right. HR 4777 is the Leach version (this is the identical version of Sen Kyl's bill. HR 4411 is the other house bill from Rep. Goodlatte which would also make online gambling illegal but do it in a different way. Both are poorly worded bills that would create costs in the way of who polices this new law, and of course both legislate morality and disrupt our rights online. Of course not like online gambling will ever stop - instead it will most likely benifit shady parties. Like prohobition helped the mob.

Why?

[tfcdesign]

I dont even understand why the US is blocking online gambling. Traditional gambling is banned due to the crime elements that come into a local community. However, if there is any criminal activity online - it does not translate to local crime problems.

This just seems unnecessary.

Re:Why?

[wizkid]

Because...

Lots of LasVegas Casinos contributed to alot of Congressional re-election campains. And they paid for alot of "Congress Reasearch Projects" on this subject.

IE
Our representitives were paid to protect us from those evil internet bookies, so the good kind Las Vegas Casino Operators would continue to have their monopoly.

Our Government is busy looking out for their intrests again.

Re:Why?

[tfcdesign]

While I believe what you say to be true, I dont think Internet and Vegas gamblers are the same breed.

incmoe is a property right

[argoff]

Wait - protect whose rights? Which rights are you referring to? Our right to not be taxed on income? I don't think that's a right...

But it is. That income is my property, and I worked honestly to get it. I earned it, not the government. I took risks to get it, not the government. It is free people like me doing hard work that make success and prosperity in society possible - government owes it to me to respect my rights - that's the vary justification for it's existence. I owe the government nothing.

Now perhaps I'm willing to let the government violate that right some if I feel the risk of being violated is greater from some external outside force that I have less controll over. But if it isn't, or if they're coercing my hard earned income to just give it away as a freebie to someone else, then all bets are off. It's amazing the good deeds you can proclaim to do when it is done with someone elses money.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that the right for people to secure their rights, is a right. That is what's driving wealth and income offshore, and a lack of respect of individual rights from the powers that be are what's driving government to try and crutail it. It is an escalating battle, and people who don't undersand that will eventually find themselves in a real bind when it's too late.

Re:incmoe is a property right

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an escalating battle, and people who don't undersand that will eventually find themselves in a real bind when it's too late.

Just as you'd find yourself in a bind if enough morons believed the same thing you do. When enough taxes go unpaid, the government isn't going to just let basic services like roads, military, agriculture, etc slip away. They'll institute taxes that you *can't* so easily avoid - e.g. more sales taxes, property taxes (which I don't agree with btw), taxes levied through non-cash purchases like your credit card, and whatnot.

If you want to live in a civilized society and benefit from government services that benefit ALL of us, then pay your damn taxes and quit bitching. Maybe you don't agree with what the government is spending your money on. Most of us don't 100%. So get your ass out and vote, and make some calls to your representatives.

Re:incmoe is a property right

[cyber-vandal]

The government uses that money for a lot of different things - social security is a fairly small part of it. Killing Ayrabs in a country that was no threat to the US for example.
Blaming indigenous welfare scroungers is so last century man, over here in the UK it's the alleged hordes from Eastern Europe that are to supposedly blame for all of society's ills even though the actual percentage of Eastern Europeans here legally or illegally is infinitesimal.
Anyway do you think that if welfare was done away with tomorrow, all those lazy scroungers would go get a job? No, some of them would take your money at gunpoint instead.

Re:incmoe is a property right

[argoff]

You're already assuming that the government isn't already doing the most that they can letitimately get away with to take away peoples economic freedoms. You are also assuming that the government *could* coerce more money if they applied themselves better. Well, the government is finite.

If you want to live in a civilized society and benefit from government services that benefit ALL of us, then pay your damn taxes and quit bitching. Maybe you don't agree with what the government is spending your money on. Most of us don't 100%. So get your ass out and vote, and make some calls to your representatives

That's bullshit. People have rights and the right to secure their rights wether they can effectively work the system or not. Rosa Parks not going to the back of the bus was civilized, Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad was civilized, Phil Zimmerman who releases PGP contrary to legal interperation at the time was civilized. Civilized societies come from individuals who work to secure their rights, not from being passive little good boys and girls who do things the way the system tells them to.

Re:incmoe is a property right

[argoff]

Anyway do you think that if welfare was done away with tomorrow, all those lazy scroungers would go get a job? No, some of them would take your money at gunpoint instead.

Well, that's a self correcting problem in a society where an individuals right to bear arms is respected. But in truth, there are billions of non violent people in the world who live in extreme poverty. It's pretty well understood that there do not exist coorelations between poverty and violence, but very strong ones between poverty and lack of freedoms.

Re:incmoe is a property right

[cyber-vandal]

It's pretty well understood that there do not exist coorelations between poverty and violence, but very strong ones between poverty and lack of freedoms.

Given the amount of food riots by starving people throughout human history, I hope you can show me some very convincing evidence of the above statement.

Well, that's a self correcting problem in a society where an individuals right to bear arms is respected.

Really? So how does the average gun-toting citizen get his gun out fast enough to nail the mugger before they get shot by the gun that is 2 inches from their face?
I'm not going to argue about gun control anyway, all I'll say on that matter is that banning guns outright or draconian gun control won't solve any problems, but being a bit careful about who you sell a lethal weapon to might be worth looking into.

Bill poorly written

[phat lady]

This bill is written to the detrement of small community banks, and others who be left footing the bill to monitor transactions and other police like activity. This in effect, will turn banks and other private agencies into defacto law enforcement agencies. Doesn't sound like a good bill to me, for that among a million other reasons.

The real reason for this awful bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Even faux news op-ed gets it. Check out the following excerpts. The bill "bans gambling for all but those gambling interests that have politically powerful allies in Congress. Which is exactly what Jack Abramoff wanted." This includes horse racing which suprise, has given to sponsors of these bills, including HR 4411 from Goodlatte which would also ban gambling like HR 4777 mentioned in this post. "the anti-gambling crusader Mr. Goodlatte, interestingly enough, has taken some $10,000 in campaign contributions from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association)." Not only would it exempt horse racing, it would actually ensure that the horseracing industry can bet online interstate legaly (something the DOJ and goverment does not believe is the case today). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188048,00.html

Great the article is slashdotted.

[terrymr]

Does the bill explicitly name poker as being gambling ? Because if not it doesn't matter, the feds already appealed a ruling that poker isn't gambling all the way to the supreme court and lost. So unless they define gambling as including poker it does not.

Hold 'em

[shmlco]

"If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage they say you will lose. "Gambling" is a tax on those who don't understand the mathematics of statistics."

While the odds on a game like blackjack or roulette are biased in favor of the house (usually the best you can do in BJ is 49%/51%), online games like Texas Hold'em are in fact "gambling". Unlike the other games where the odds are manipulated in the house's favor, in poker the house simply takes a rake (small percentage of each pot), or a fixed percentage of the buy-in, or a fixed ante during the game.

Poker is not simply a game of statistics, but strategy, tactics, skill, psychology, and observation. Play a great player and a bad player in enough games, and the great player will nearly always dominate the poorer one. Or in other words, both players will not, over time, statistically lose the same number (or fixed percentage) of games.

Workaround

[shummer_mc]

WORKAROUND: How about I offer a T-shirt for $50 that gets a bonus $45 in credit for our online casinos. I buy the T-shirt for $50 with an American credit card. Now, I have $45 to gamble.

End result: another stupid piece of big-brother legislation.

Also, I wonder how the companies that handle Indian Reservations credit card transactions will like this.... Was that gas, or was it online gaming? It's hard to tell given that there's only an authorization number, a customer, and a merchant....

About Overseas Banking Accounts

[TechForensics]

There is a principle in US law that says you may not do indirectly what you cannot do directly. There is also a Federal conspiracy statute that says you may not conspire to commit an unlawful act. Bottom line is, if they find out you're doing it, and they want to get you, they've got you. Of course, the law will probably be aimed not at individuals but at the financial institutions that enable circumvention; and in real terms, it would be almost impossible for the feds to catch you (but you'd have to lie on your tax returns about having signature authority over any foreign banking account).

It entirely depends on where you get taxed...

[charleste]

Well, based on my personal experience, you will get taxed somewhere (some government will take a portion of your money). However, most "Most Favored Nations" have a non-double jeopardy treaty with the U.S. So, for example, if you actually checked the IRS website, you'll find that if you paid taxes in the UK, you do not have to pay taxes in the US. BUT you must report that you earned the money and paid taxes in the UK. If you're trying to use the two countries to NOT pay taxes, then your SOL. Otherwise, unless you're trying to get on board with NHS in the UK, the taxes you pay in the US are cheaper.

Re:It entirely depends on where you get taxed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, unless you're trying to get on board with NHS in the UK, the taxes you pay in the US are cheaper.

I'm no expert on the UK-US agreement in particular, but in general you don't get to pick which is cheaper and pay only that. You get relief against the amount paid elsewhere and that's it. E.g. If your taxes in the US on the income are the equivalent of £10,000 and the taxes on the same income in the UK are £20,000 then you can offset taxes paid in the UK against the tax bill there and only pay the difference of £10,000 to the UK Government - but only once you've proved you've already paid the other £10,000 in the US.

Re:It entirely depends on where you get taxed...

[grahamsz]

It depends on the situation. I was able to get the UK IR to refund the taxes i paid in the UK while working and living in the US and in turn paid much less to the US government.

I actually expected to be caught in the reverse situation since i met the standards for being a permanant colorado resident and a permanant uk resident at the same time.

Prohibition, Gambling, & Nazis

[cmholm]

The problem is they are making Foreign based companies responsible for the Actions of US citizens.

Hmmm, ever tried looking up anti-semitic sites on Yahoo from France? Tried bidding on swastika-embellished merchandise on eBay from Germany? The problem is they are making US-based companies responsible for the Actions of their citizens.

Because many US states license gambling in some form or another, some assume this is just a pissing match over something the US hasn't figured out how to tax, yet. However, there are many folks in the US who aren't at all happy with the spread of gaming here no matter what the tax revenue is, and quite a few of them sit in the US Congress.

What it comes down to is that some folks don't want to let the next Hitler find his voice, and other folks the next Al Capone to fund his.

And the GOP is for less government how?

[sizzzzlerz]

For a party who wants to get government off the backs of the pee-pul, they sure have an odd way of going about it. Or, maybe, that has really never been their intent, simply a slogan to get the single-issue-ers to vote for them.

What about gambling in MMORPGs?

[FleaPlus]

(From a comment I posted previously, for which I still haven't seen any good answers to)

This makes me wonder what the legality will be (or is) of gambling in MMORPGs and other virtual realities, particularly those like Second Life where in-game items and currency can be bought and sold with real-world money. If you make in-game gambling illegal, that seems like an unreasonable (and perhaps unconstitutional?) constraint placed on creators of games. On the other hand, if in-game gambling is legal, that's a pretty big loophole for the "evils of gambling" to get through.

On that note, couldn't all for-pay MMORPGs be considered a form of gambling? Players pay a certain amount each month, and there's a certain chance that you'll be able to accumulate in-game items which can be sold for real-world money. There's of course an entertainment aspect to the game, but there's also an entertainment aspect for going to a casino.

s/arrest him/extradite him [NT]

[Fooby]

filler:
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

admen + $ = FREEROLL$$$!!! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me that advertiser-supported 'freerolls' will solve this 'problem' without violating the terms of this bill should it become law:

1) The advertisers put up prize money to sponsor 'freeroll' poker tourneys (for example.)
2) The players play the freeroll tourneys for free.
3) ...
4) The tourney winners profit! :)

Now all the Feds have to do is pass legislation to make sure the prize winnings are taxed before the winners are paid off electronically or by
mailing a paper check. The key is that the 'funds' are only flowing in
one direction. Should the Feds outlaw 'freerolls' then all USA online gambling will become 'play money' only....

The above is the equivalent to a sweepstakes with the 'tissue paper' of a 'game of skill' (and chance) attached. Therefore, no harm, no foul! :)

Re:Gambling bans said to fight poverty-related cri

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just another way to say that people shouldn't be responsible for their own actions. If gambling(1) causes people to enact crimes(2) then they will be likely punished for those crimes, once they are caught. If the police forces were able to put more of their efforts into real crimes and stop messing with victimless crimes, then those who create victims would get caught more often. As it is, they are over worked, under staffed and under paid, basically spreading themselves too thin, thanks to bullshit victimless crimes.

(1) Gambling is victimless, or at most creates a self inflicted victim.
(2) In my world, a crime has to have a victim other than the perpetrator (you can't make yourslef a victim). Drug use by adults is considered victimless. Any crimes you commit while on drugs will still net you the associated jail time or fines.

Ya right !

[Matador]

All this is going to do is tell someone to use a proxy in another country to do their thing.

Doubt this will stop anything.

I think its like the prostitute business, nothing will stop it. Boys will be boys.

YES!!!

[Kittie Rose]

I bet with my friend over this on the internet. I can't believe it was cleared! I'm taking this one to the bank.

Let it pass, you can still use...

[Fracker]

Neteller

Currently many online offshoring gambling sites have issues processing US credit cards. The bank that issues the credit card will stop the transfer prior.
Sites like Neteller and FirePay continue to grow which circumvents the entire wire transfer, credit card deposit or echeck. Essentially you are moving your money to an offshore account that can be used to pay for basically about anything.

It's like a Paypal with no strings attached.

Japan solved this a long time ago.

[Genom]

Pachinko.

Basically a form of gambling in Japan, where outright gambling is illegal. How do they skirt it?

One company allows you to buy balls. You give them money, they give you balls. Then you take the balls over to the pachinko parlor, where you can use the balls to play. When you win, you receive more balls back. They don't allow you to buy/sell the balls there. No money changes hands. When you're done, you go back to the ball-vendor, who "buys" your balls back.

The ball-vendor and the pachinko parlor are two completely seperate businesses, legally. That way, you're not *technically* gambling. Because the transactions are abstracted, it gets around the anti-gambling laws.

I could see something similar happening with online gambling. Get an account with some "chip" vendor, where you buy online "chips", which are strictly defined as being worthless (EULA type stuff). Then go to a (legally seperate) gambling site which just *happens* to allow you to use those chips, but doesn't directly allow you to buy-in or cash-out, so no money is actually changing hands. When you're done, you cash-out your account with the chip-vendor.