Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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".
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
Contact your Reps and tell them to kill this crap.
LordBodak's journal.
How's that "Land Of The Free" thing working out?
... oh? What? never mind.
What? No drugs, no hookers and no gambling?
Still at least you get excellent TV shows
I wonder how much support (contributions/bribes) for this law come from Abramoff's tribal gaming buddies.
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.
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].
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
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.
Cogito Ergo Sum
How does this affect the *really* big gambling sites, like NASDAQ and the NYSE?
Ohhhhhh, not *that* kind of gambling....silly me.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
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!
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
/ Savemoney/P99649.asp
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
In the end, nothing will change. Offshore gambling will be no different.
...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.
Loading...
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.
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.
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.
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:
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...
My, that was a yummy potato!
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.
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.
How am I ever going to win back my drug money, now?
Who will pay to interrupt the Olympic closing ceremonies or buy grilled cheese sandwiches that look like Jesus??
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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.
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.
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....
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!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
...this new legislation will certainly stop all that evil poker playing, won't it?
.5 / .10 cent No Limit on PartyPoker)
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
I am my own gestalt.
... 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.
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.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
For the most part I doubt it'll affect online poker players all that much. Most of them think that it's illegal now.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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
-Dan Rode
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).
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
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.
Find coupons in Greeley
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.
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.
Luke, help me take this mask off
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.