Slashdot Mirror
U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act
SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."
They will just find a way to tax it.
I guess they're just running true to form, though. They allow OTB and lotteries online, because they can tax those.
I bet $1 that online gambling will not be banned.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Whatever happened to the land of the Free? If you want to gamble your money on-line, why shouldn't you be able to?
How are they supposed to secretly monitor these transactions of they make them illegal?
-------
Bite Me Fanboy!!
Haven't you ever gone to a Major League baseball game, signed up for like 5 credit cards, then immediately left to go home and max the cards out playing online poker? Conclusion ... baseball leads to gambling addictions.
Disclaimer: I make my income through Internet gambling. However, even before that, I just never saw the problem. Why is it so demonized over there?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
And, uh, the bill in question carves out an exception for online horse race betting - explicitly legalizing betting on horse races online. So...well, not ALL online gambling is bad, just SOME gambling.
You guys can't gamble on the internet? [Takes long drag from joint]. I thought the USA was the land of freedom..?
Great. More useless legislation from our elected officials. Must be election year.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
You can buy publicly traded stocks, you can purchase insurance of various types, and you can contribute to the politician of your choice!
Not sure why casino-game gambling is different...probably because they can't tax it.
Blar.
I thought the "problem" with gambling -- like the "problems" with prostitution and street drugs -- was that casinos in your neighborhood tend to bring with them a lot of undesirable activity, e.g., the underbelly of Las Vegas. But if the casino is not in your neighborhood, why should anyone care?
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
I don't know about you, but beyond the obvious issues arrising from making the transfer of funds illegal, does this bother anyone?
The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites.
What does that mean exactly? Am I to believe that they can make the linking of sites illegal? Is this for any website? or just ISPs? And what ISPs advertise these places on their sites in the first place?
-- www.RoachMcKrackin.com
"The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites"
This will just cause the creation of middleman sites where you park funds with your credit cards and then they transfer the $$ to the online casino of your choice. Paypal would be a good candidate for this. If the govt get's on Paypal's case, then some offshore holding company will come along and for a 1-2% fee do this. The sad thing is that it will probably be owned by a casino and will drive the cost up another 1-2% just to get into a game.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
What if you're using a paypal or Google Checkout account. You just deposit a amount on your paypal account and use the paypal account for paying your gamble. If this would stop gambles from gambling. But is this bill protecing the citizens of the US for gambling habets, or just the money flow?
I can't understand why it's illegal to gamble. Everyone likes a flutter every now and again. It doesn't harm people. Admitidly there are a few sad cases of people who don't know when to stop. With the underground gambling that goes on the scene can be very ugly. If it was all above board and legal it could be properly regulated.
Is this a hold over from Americas purtianical past? If enough people feel something should be legal why isn't it? Why crimialise the majority of adult males who have bet online, played card games with their pals or participated in a sports related bet at one time or another?
I am constantly surprised that there is no real policitical will for gambling to be made legal in the USA. One thing I can tell you is that the businesses in Las Vegas definately don't want it legal everywhere else because it would remove their own (near) exclusive money making operation.
Man, I would be worried if I ran one of those sites. As much as I don't think they'll shut it down, even just the thought of debate would scare me. Those people are banking.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
What about the RPGs (Puzzle Pirates being the example that comes to mind first) that allow gambling within the game?
Money can be funneled in via purchases of credits/dubloons/tokens, which can then be used in gambling on games within the meta-game. I use YPP as an example because it just recently added poker to its arsenal, although it's had multiplayer gambling for years (especially in tournaments, where you don't even have to convert the dubloons into anything to use them as prizes).
Granted, the dubloons in YPP are meant for purchases of items such as clothing and swords, but they COULD still be used for gambling...
Whenever any aspect of computer science or telecommunications faces any form of government regulation, there are always those who cry out, "People will find a way around it!" The majority of people, however, want to work within the law or are just too lazy to circumvent it. Remember, many Internet gamblers are not even interested in spending the energy to go to a real casino. Although there are surely many exceptions, Internet gamers are largely casual gamblers and will not want to risk violating the law for a hand of Texas Hold'em.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
If the efforts of the US government to get rid of Internet gambling go half as well as their efforts to stop all the other illegal stuff that goes on in this big, unregulated, worldwide network.. *struggles to keep a straight face*
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Why wouldn't the players just put money in PayPal then, transfer it for "credits" at the Casino/Poker Site and then transfer the money back to PayPal (thier winnings). Then their banks would only be working with PayPal.
I am sure all of these Poker Sites would be willing to sign up (if not already) with PayPal if it was the only way to get the American players involved.
Setting up some company outside the US to do the money transfer to/from the people who're not allowed to play online.
I can already see the $$$s roll in...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Church does not want anyone moving in on their high stakes Bingo action.
No U.S. bank or credit card company I know of will make a transfer to an online poker site or other gambling site TODAY. This is why everybody who plays online poker uses NETeller, which is based out of the UK, for their money transfers.
I have read about this law several times, and I still don't see a single thing that it's possible to do today that the law would prevent. Am I misunderstanding something about the law?
I love when Congress tries to take the "moral high ground". We all know, the best way to get rid of something immorral is to write a law banning it. Surely, no one would want to break a law like that!
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't
>It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites.
Are they really asking all USA providers to filter content to remove links? What about links from other programs (i.e. non-Web)?
Wouldn't it be more simple to ask to "not redirect to the websites"? (blank/redirect DNS entries)
The thing they're asking and the thing that should be done (in order to comply) are two different things, technically...
Most credit card companies will decline direct payments to gaming sites, but sites like NETeller already offer the middleman status and work with most banks. I don't know how this legislation would affect "middleman" sites like NETeller. FWIW, I use NETeller for my online poker playing and it works great... but yes, they do take a small cut when you pull money back to your checking account.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
I have been playing poker online for quite awhile now. I am NOT a gambler. I do NOT like to play blackjack or other games where I do not have an advantage. I have made quite a bit of money by playing poker online, as have many others. In fact, many players have quit their regular jobs, because they can make enough money playing online poker.
To some of you, when I say "I'm not a gamber", you must think that I'm nuts. Google Chris Ferguson: he only plays poker tournaments. He's not a gambler. He's much more of a business man and all business entails some risk, but at the end of the day (well, "year" perhaps), he's making money, consistently.
Find me a slot machine player that can do that. The only way to win with slots is to get really lucky once, and then stop. The same goes for Blackjack, craps, video poker and all other casino games where the house has an edge. Poker is different. Good players can play and play continue to generate revenue for themselves.
Ok, in the strict sense of the word, I'm a gambler. But if I didn't have an edge, I would not be playing online poker anymore. I would have quit a long time ago. Instead, it's a fun way for me to make a few extra bucks.
If the major credit card companies are already not allowing direct payments to online gambling sites, how does the government know how much gambling is going on? Are they using illegal and unconstitutional means to monitor peoples' internet use?
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
I predict that we start seeing ads for foreign banks popping up in places like Sports Illustrated.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
When offshore gambling sites first popped up 10+ years ago, the quick and easy way to deposit money into them was via credit card. Around 6-7 years ago, most credit card companies started denying payments to any "gaming website". While they claimed they were taking the moral high ground, the real reason is having to deal with chargebacks. Since it is against the law to collect on any gambling debt in the US, you had people running up their credit card bill at gambling sites, then protesting the charge and the card companies did not have a legal leg to stand on -- they certainly couldn't take anyone to court claiming they were owed this money that they knew was being used for gambling. When the card companies started denying payments, people started using middleman payment processors. The processor of choice was Paypal. Fees were high, but often times you could get the sportsbook to pick up the fees if you made a deposit. In 2002, when EBay bought Paypal, they decided they wanted to stop handling any grey area business since they were a large company and didn't want the legal liability. This meant dropping payment processing for most porn sites and gambilng sites. The irony of this was that Paypal made its name in the industry (and its fortune) off of gambling and porn sites, but was now ditching them now that they had achieved a higher status. When this happened, Neteller -- an offshore payment processing company -- was the one who got the biggest boost in business. With even higher fees, they essentially did what Paypal was doing (though with much less regulation and customer service). After a few years many people found they could no longer do credit card deposits to Neteller, so most have resorted to actually making direct bank deposits from their bank to Neteller. Neteller is still around today and is still what most people use to make sportsbook deposits. Western Union is also a company many people use, but people have found more and more they are asking a lot of questions on who exactly you are sending the money to -- obviously the government is putting the heat on them as well. Over the years many other small payment processing companies have popped up... All of course unregulated, but with the lack of viable options for getting money into offshore books, people have taken the chance.
Eye On Gambling -- www.eog.com
I have no confidence in the ability of the politicians to make an informed, logical decision. I also have no hope that any ordinary, reasonable person can actually influence a politician. (Of course, I live in Texas. One look at our Representatives, and you can see why I gave up hope.
If I want to gamble in the USA I can get on a plane, train or car and go to Las Vegas, Boloxi or some other place that allows gambling. I might meet someone new in Las Vagas, and I might hear some new ideas, but they will be limited to people who can travel to Las Vegas (mosty Americans). My community at home is still "protected" from "immoral" influences. Now they want to make it so I can't do virtual travel to accomplish the same thing I could do with physical travel. (This whole concept is beyond the intelligence of the average politician, even if they didn't have special interests to protect.) Actually, since I don't gamble, I don't have a stake in this decision other than to regret that it's another sign of Big Government chipping away at individual choice.
And, it's an election year: Politicians have to be perceived as being upright and moral, so what better target for publicity than an "immoral" activity supported by a population too small to have any influence across other issues? (They're against Prostitution and Drunkeness also, but that doesn't keep them from getting laid and drunk.)
The politicians are afraid of open interchange, and are heading toward deciding that we can't travel on the Information Superhighway without a passport.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I Hate Gambling. I Hate Gambling Spam. I hate all such business.
But, there are Spam blockers. "Adblock+Firefox" has proven to be an excellent relief from their eye-sores. And guess what? I don't go to those sites, I don't participate and I don't get involved. As far as I can tell, and unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, I am largely unaffected by these sorts of "vices." And for anyone else who despises them as I do, how does their presense affect them?
I find it "interesting" that legislators are willing to take such measures. And it'll be interesting to see how it works out. But basically, I don't approve of the measures being taken in this case. If the really hate gambling that much, they may as well set up blockades around all Indian reservations to prevent people from going there as well.
People vote in meddling jackasses with delusions of intelligence and borderline megalomania. These are the pretty boy arseholes with rich parents who ran the major cliques back in school. Now the idiot voters have granted these lunatics the power to dictate how we have fun, who we can fuck, what happens to the money we earn, and so on and so forth.
Walt Kelley said it best:
Pogo
Replace the physical trash with ideological pollution.
And voting out the white boys doesn't help. Here in So Cal, we have many Hispanic Democratic politicians with heavy Catholic backgrounds. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
My, I'm just full of doom and gloom and pop culture quotes today. :)
Free trade which lines the pockets of an American corporation is OK. Free trade which cannot line the pockets of an American corporation and goes to other nations is not OK.
I know you meant that as a slam, but I absolutely agree with that statement. As an American, I am very concerned about trade deficits. Sure, it strengthens the economies of other nations, but it does so at the expense of the American economy.
It's not a double standard at all, it's just seeking a balanced economic exchange.
This is a really bad omen, but for right now, this means nothing. I already have to use Central Coin as a middleman for Poker Stars. I deposit $50 in my Central Coin account, which acts as an online "credit card", with which I deposit money to Stars. Withdrawal is the reverse, and takes about 6 days from the time I withdraw it at Stars to the time it hits my bank account again. This won't affect me or most people who gamble online.
Note: Central Coin sucks ass. Don't use them. If I could go back and use something else, I would.
The Indian tribes that control casinos must have gotten hell of a deal on bulk-purchased politicians last week.
Will this make placing bets over the telephone illigal as well, seeing as both often go over the same network?
And what if I call my bookie with skype, is that illigal?
I very much agree about the free trade issues. For the past year, I've been working in the UK gambling industry (non-internet gambling), and there isn't a hope in hell of getting into the US market. They have import barriers on gambling machines set so high (multi-millions of dollars high!) they know that no non-US company can enter the market.
Its effectively a closed market, yet they can freely enter European countries. Yet the US endlessly talks about the importance of free trade.
This news story is also interesting from a freedom point of view. In a country that prides itself of freedom and "land of the free" and free thinking etc... its fascinating how many times the land of the free isn't at all free to choose how to live.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
The gambling companies will just add a level of indirection, and continue business as usual. Gamblers won't stop, and neither will the credit card processors.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If they've got some good lobbyists (hopefully this time), they may argue for keep more money in the US via the reservations. If the congress really had any sense they'd set up a lotto-style system where a percentage of winnings (or x% of antes) goes to, oh say education (imagine that!).
This house bill is at least taking the right approach to trying to prevent online gambling, no matter what one thinks of the harm such activity causes (or what regions of the country may be influencing the legislation). But I am curious how the bill will withstand judicial scrutiny if it requires ISPs to block access to certain sites, given that blocking technologies inevitably block protected speech as well. The better approach, and the one stressed in the bill, is impose liability on the payment intermediaries (like credit cards). The various options for curtailing internet gambling and controlling other internet activities are discussed in length in a paper available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=696601.
"Opponents cited the growing popularity of online gambling." How is this relevant? Law making should not be about whether something is popular or not, but whether it's desirable or not. It's as though, when Moses came down from the mountain with his commandments, the thieves' guild had expressed opposition, noting the current popularity of theft - popularity wouldn't necessarily make it right.
Note, I'm not coming down for or against online gambling, just making the point that its popularity is a specious argument when it comes to legislation.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
The person sponsering the bill is (of course) a republican. You know, "the party of individual rights and responsibility". Oh yeah, and by the way, evil.
Is there one person on this forum who thinks all this is just a simply wonderful and great idea? "The silent majority" haha.
SonicSpike Link
If not, it should. It would finally put an end to annoying popups/ads (well annoying until you add them to the blocklists :) from companies like www.888.com.
And, unlike the casinos which are generally located in foriegn countries, the advertising providers are generally US based and therefore subject to US laws.
We're completely safe from this unenforcable law because to really enforce it they would need to be able to monitor... all... your net...
damn
Hold on, someone's at the door...
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
If they pass this bill, it pretty much puts the kibosh on partygaming.com (who floated in London in 2005) and the like. From this article, 87% of their $350m odd revenue comes from US customers... Sell those shares!
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
If they want to prevent money from leaving the US economy, they should create government subsidized poker schools to teach Americans how to play the game. That way, Americans will win and even bring in money from other countries.
Not to mention that one of the employees of the board dangled his girlfriend [poconorecord.com] out their apartment window and dropped her [papundits.com] while they were celebrating his job appointment in the commission because both were drunk as skunks.
My fellow Americans, what this country needs now is comprehensive anti-civil servant girlfriend dangling laws...
I'm not a big fan of Free Trade Agreements, but I AM a big fan of taking peoples money on PokerStars. Luckily, we've enacted FTAs with the caribbean nations that host most of these Companies.
It's a little known fact that these treaties actually give foreign companies the ability to sue the US Government for loss of revenue due to legislation. Yes, you heard me right: Foreign companies can do something that domestic companies cannot: They can SUE the US Government.
A recent lobbyist for the Online Gambling Industry attributed 80% of their revenue to U.S. patrons. IANAL but that seems like a legitimate cause of action if I've ever seen one.
Dear U.S.,
Thank you for helping boost our banking economy with your latest crazy laws.
Sincerely,
Switzerland
Our system of govenment is designed to protect the will of the majority and the rights of the minority.
This is a case of "saving the majority from themselves." And if a country elects representitives, they should REPRESENT the will of their constituents.
Just as the government of China how effective it is.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
1. Make online gaming illegal 2. Enforcement requires we closely monitor all internet traffic 3. This information MUST be shared with other government agencies 4. Consolidate moitoring under Homeland Security 5. Fascists Profit!
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
Ah, but who will actually do the workarounds?
As with most hacks, there will be a few people who actually do the work and lots of people who use those hacks. In this case, it seems quite likely that the online gambling sites themselves will find ways around the problems, then distribute software/documentation on how to do just that (probably as easily as they can manage it). Most interested users will just follow instructions, do the simple install, or whatever it takes.
Law enforcement, under this act, would have the power to tell you what to put on your website. They could order removal of links to gambling sites.
... Sounds unlikely but we've seen weirder stretches of law.
The principle that links are just citations and therefore free speech has taken a bad beating, but as far as I know this is worse than what we've got.
Terrorists hurt the US more than gambling does, the argument might go. So of course Congress might ban linking to terrorist web sites. The word "terrorist" has been used (by government officials) to describe everyone from the Branchy Davidians to General Anthony Zinni. Does dailykos.com "hurt the morale of the troops"? That's worse than gambling, on a terrifyingly plausible argument. Stop people from linking to them, and what happens to their Page rank? Then ask, what about internal links? If a site links to itself, and linking to that site is illegal
Laws shouldn't be about whether they are popular or not, *OR* desirable or not. Laws should be about protecting individuals from direct unwanted harm caused by others... or to maintain the general peace.
Since none of this gambling is involuntary, and none of it fails the "does it scare the horses" test of maintaining the peace, there shouldn't even be debate about banning online gambling in a free and democratic society, any more than there should be a debate about slavery or censorship in a free society. Laws like this deserve nothing but scorn from free people in what is supposed to be a democratic society.
Insurance should (and in many cases does) require the exercise of due caution to be valid, or for notification of regular dangerous activities to be passed on to the insurance corp.
Go ahead and drive without a seatbelt, but if you get nearly killed your insurance should be voided.
Go ahead and practice dangerous 'sports' like cliff diving and parajumping, but if it's regular (more than X times a month/year), notify your insurance company and pay the premium to account for your dangerous activity.
Obviously there should be some curb on this, but people should be responsible for their own actions and personal safety... which includes being responsible for the costs and consequences.
I'll bet
2:1 odds the act will be defeated
5:1 odds the act will be defeated by > 75% majority.
100:1 no quorem present.
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
I know someone who moved out of the US and into Costa Rica and Australia to work Internet Gambling. He's making big bucks.
You're misunderstanding the need for right-wing politicians to appear to be doing something to crack down on activities perceived as "sinful" to their base.
Jesus, save us from your followers.
Sean
In online gambling, the money traditionally goes to some business outside the country. That's US money going to some other country, with no real trade being made from it. The difference between a trip to Las Vegas and an Online Poker site, besides convinience, is whose pockets ones losses end up lining.
Therefore:
Gambling in Nevada = Perfectly legal (21 and up, of course)
Gambling on a website with profits going to foreign company = US money leaving US for nothing in return = BAD!
Compare, if you will, to Gold Farming operations overseas. You pay US cash in exchange for something that doesn't really exist! More money for China!
But don't forget that it is not the government which profits. It is big business which profits when it contracts its services to the government. They can do this because we've convinced ourselves that it is more efficient to subcontract absolutely everything to private entities rather than let the government do anything for itself. This is especially ironic and tragic in areas where quality and safety are more important than profitability such as in energy production, healthcare, military, emergency services and education.
when these services are provided in an unsafe manner the government must then go in and spend even more money to clean up the mess. You can thank limited liability. Corporations have limited liability. Society itself and its government have absolute and total liability.
for example when poison is dumped in a river and the polluter goes bankrupt. one way or another SOCIETY itself pays to clean up the mess.
Government is a lot more efficient than people think. They are just blaiming all the costs which corporations "externalize" on the government. When in fact those costs are cost which ought to be carried by the corporation which created them.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I sent the following to my current Representative. I urge everyone in the US to write to their own representative if it's not too late:
I wish to write to you to strongly urge you to vote against H.R.4411 that is currently being debated. While gambling may be addictive, there are other forms of addiction that are far more dangerous and are permitted by the Congress. Alcohol and Tobacco can both be extremely addictive and can cause far more harm than online gambling. I cannot possibly understand the logic behind such draconian measures as H.R.4411 sets forth on online gambling while far more "dangerous" activities are accepted.
One of the great things about this country is that I am able to do things that may not be good for me. The government was never intended to be a nanny or a parent and I do not believe that the government should arbitrarily ban an activity that is perceived as harmful. If I wish to enjoy online poker then I should be allowed to enjoy it without the Congress declaring my actions to be illegal simpy because Congress feels that online poker is somehow dangerous to me. I ask that you allow me to retain personal freedom and make decisions for myself in a way that I believe the founders of this nation intended. As a constituent of yours, I wish to convey my absolute opposition to H.R.4411 and I hope that you will do the honorable thing and voice your own opposition to this bill.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
...I'm more concerned with, "It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites."
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
Since you can often trade real-world money for in-game money in MMORPGs and othe online games, would this make it illegal to have something like a poker or bingo game in Second Life?
Also, MMORPGs are essentially games of chance themselves, where you pay money, play, and have some chance of pay-off. Depending on how its worded, could this law make MMORPGs illegal?
Alcohol production requires a small measure of expertise and some small quantity of inexpensive materials. Even though these are minor impediments to distilling your own liquor, they are enough to keep the vast majority of Americans from doing so (the smell doesn't help). In the case of marihuana, however, absolutely no expertise is required - hellfire, the stuff is a weed. It's hard to keep it from growing. Thus, it was possible to begin effectively taxing virtually all alcohol production in the country (at 35-70% or even higher). If such a tax were attempted with marihuana, any clod with the common sense not to actively walk on his plants every day could circumvent paying such a tax, thus preventing any signifigant revenue stream for the government.
Unfortunately, this is not likely to change in my lifetime. Even when the popular vote is for decriminalization/legalization of marihuana, the power structure that is our government prevents it. Ever sensative to any threat to their power, they (the government and its component personnel) will react zealously, vigorously and violently to crush that threat.
This evening Eye On Gambling's own, "The Shrink" (Ken Weitzner), will make an appearance on CNN Headline News with host Glenn Beck to discuss the H.R. 4411 bill being voted on by the House of Representatives which among other things would "prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. The bill also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling websites" (AP). The show will air at 7PM EST and again at 9PM EST and Midnight EST on CNN Headline News (DirecTV Channel 204, DISH Network Channel 202).
Eye On Gambling -- www.eog.com
The 18th Amendment? When will people learn you cannot control, 100%, the activities of people. You can suppress it, you can stifle it, but you cannot eradicate it. The only thing politicians do, is bring contempt from all people for these proposals.
Do you think its the population that is against online gambling, or the states, because they're not getting a piece of the pie?
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
I mean many online gambling sites already have a system/service like PayPal which acts as an intermediate bank. Of course it's not "only" for the online gambling sites. When this happens, will the government prohibit money being transferred into that institution? What if gambling sites make it easy to open a legit foreign country bank account? Are they going to block real banks too?
HD Trailers
H.R.4777 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act - Actual bill text is here:l
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4777_ih.xm
Libertas in infinitum
On a side note, it REALLY bothers me when people call gambling "gaming". Call it what it is; Gambling. say it: "Gambling"! SAY IT!
one o u tekies tell me how findnot and/or similar technologies reroute my internet transmissions. can i avoid detection using this to communicate w/the gambling sites? thx
So, does there ever come a point in a society where decades or centuries of legislation finally just grinds things to a halt and the government caves in under its own weight?
It certainly seems as if the rate at which we're passing legislation recently that this may actually happen. Have any studies on the Roman Empire been done to see if this was part of their demise?
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
And all your 2/7 off, AK suited, etc...
You guys can't gamble on the internet? [Takes long drag from joint]. I thought the USA was the land of freedom..?
Actually it is, the Politicians can get away with pretty much anything, so long as they don't get exposed by the press and their political cronies protect them.
You see, in the United States it's just fine for your employer to seek labor overseas to replace you. Just you try exerting your own muscle at seeking overseas businesses (in this case bookmakers and other gambling) to deal with. It's free, but simply less free for the minnows than for the big fish.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This ban is to freedom as losing with AA to 72o is to poker... a bad beat.
Vote the Following A**HOLES OUT:
Republicans
Robert Aderholt, Todd Akin, Rodney Alexander, Spencer Bachus, Richard Baker, J. Barrett, Roscoe Bartlett, Joe Barton, Charles Bass, Bob Beauprez, Judith Biggert, Brian Bilbray, Michael Bilirakis, Rob Bishop, Marsha Blackburn, Roy Blunt, Sherwood Boehlert, John Boehner, Henry Bonilla, Jo Bonner, Mary Bono, John Boozman, Charles Boustany, Jeb Bradley, Kevin Brady, Henry Brown, Ginny Brown-Waite, Michael Burgess, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Ken Calvert, Dave Camp, John Campbell, Chris Cannon, Eric Cantor, Shelley Moore Capito, John Carter, Michael Castle, Steve Chabot, Chris Chocola, Howard Coble, Tom Cole, Michael Conaway, Ander Crenshaw, Barbara Cubin, John Culberson, Geoff Davis, Tom Davis, Nathan Deal, Charles Dent, Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, John Doolittle, Thelma Drake, John 'Jimmy' Duncan, Vernon Ehlers, Jo Ann Emerson, Philip English, Terry Everett, Tom Feeney, Mike Ferguson, Michael Fitzpatrick, Jeff Fortenberry, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Elton Gallegly, Scott Garrett, Jim Gerlach, Wayne Gilchrest, Paul Gillmor, Phil Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, Virgil Goode, Bob Goodlatte, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Gilbert Gutknecht, Ralph Hall, Katherine Harris, Melissa Hart, Robin Hayes, J.D. Hayworth, Joel Hefley, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, David Hobson, Peter Hoekstra, John Hostettler, Kenny Hulshof, Duncan Hunter, Henry Hyde, Bob Inglis, Darrell Issa, Bobby Jindal, Sam Johnson, Tim Johnson, Nancy Johnson, Walter Jones, Ric Keller, Sue Kelly, Mark Kennedy, Peter King, Steve King, Jack Kingston, Mark Kirk, John Kline, Joe Knollenberg, Randy Kuhl, Ray LaHood, Steven LaTourette, Tom Latham, James Leach, Ron Lewis, Jerry Lewis, John Linder, Frank Lucas, Daniel Lungren, Donald Manzullo, Kenny Marchant, Michael McCaul, Thad McCotter, Jim McCrery, John McHugh, Buck McKeon, Cathy McMorris, John Mica, Candice Miller, Gary Miller, Jeff Miller, Jerry Moran, Tim Murphy, Marilyn Musgrave, Sue Myrick, Randy Neugebauer, Anne Northup, Charles Norwood, Devin Nunes, Tom Osborne, Butch Otter, Michael Oxley, Stevan Pearce, Mike Pence, John Peterson, Thomas Petri, Chip Pickering, Joe Pitts, Todd Platts, Tom Price, Deborah Pryce, Adam Putnam, George Radanovich, Jim Ramstad, Ralph Regula, Dennis Rehberg, David Reichert, Rick Renzi, Thomas Reynolds, Mike Rogers, Mike Rogers, Hal Rogers, Edward Royce, Jim Ryun, Jim Saxton, Jean Schmidt, Joe Schwarz, Jim Sensenbrenner, John Shadegg, Clay Shaw, Christopher Shays, Don Sherwood, John Shimkus, Bill Shuster, Rob Simmons, Michael Simpson, Lamar Smith, Michael Sodrel, Mark Souder, Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, John Sweeney, Tom Tancredo, Charles Taylor, Lee Terry, Bill Thomas, Mac Thornberry, Michael Turner, Fred Upton, Greg Walden, James Walsh, Zachary Wamp, Dave Weldon, Curt Weldon, Jerry Weller, Lynn Westmoreland, Ed Whitfield, Roger Wicker, Joe Wilson, Heather Wilson, Frank Wolf, Bill Young
Democrats
Thomas Allen, Brian Baird, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Timothy Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Dan Boren, Leonard Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Robert Brady, Sherrod Brown, G.K. Butterfield, Ben Cardin, Dennis Cardoza, Ed Case, Ben Chandler, Emanuel Cleaver, James Clyburn, Jim Cooper, Jim Costa, Jerry Costello, Bud Cramer, Joseph Crowley, Henry Cuellar, Susan Davis, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Peter DeFazio, Diana DeGette, Rosa DeLauro, Norman Dicks, Lloyd Doggett, Chet Edwards, Rahm Emanuel, Bob Etheridge, Chaka Fattah, Harold Ford, Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Al Green, Jane Harman, Stephanie Herseth, Brian Higgins, Chris Van Hollen, Rush Holt, Darlene Hooley, William Jefferson, Stephanie Jones, Paul Kanjorski, Marcy Kaptur, James Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick Larsen, John Larson, Sander Levin, John Lewis, Daniel Lipinski, Nita Lowey, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Carolyn McCarthy, Betty McCollum, Mike McIntyre, Martin Meehan, Kendrick Meek, Gregory Meeks, Charles Melancon, Michael Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Brad Mil
How is this relevant?
It was written by the L.A. Times which is hardly an unbiased source. The author obviously has an agenda or opinion on this issue and they have allowed it to enter into their writings. I personally agree that the gov should not ban Internet gambling, but one has to admit that this article is hardly unbiased.
Besides, I think the silent lobbyists pushing this are actually an arm of the brick and mortar casinos.
Libertas in infinitum
I think the silent lobbyists pushing this are actually an arm of the brick and mortar casinos attempting to stifile competition. Remember big business likes big government because big government can legislate in favor of big business. This is why we need small and limited government.
Libertas in infinitum
I'm sure the republican-controlled congress will continue its longstanding tradition of making government leaner and shoot this bill down, right? Right? I mean, look at all the other recent republican-controlled congressional actions designed to make government smaller and more effic...ah, shit.
It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that protectionism is bad for the economy.
People enjoying a surplus in the trade with the US are then able to buy US products.
Teh aim of any country should be to have a balanced trade with the rest of the world in the medium and long term.
An economy that is always in deficit or always in surplus will eventually face problems.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Heck, sure as hell the McDonalds accross the street is sending some money back to the mothership in the US.
And that is just ione example of many.
Claiming that US people don't see any of that money (in the form of taxes, profits or even share value), is frankly ludicrous.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
My first post went unnoticed so perhaps I need to be clearer. Here in the good ole USA when laws have been passed that annoyed a/the citizen(s) there is a long tradition of civil disobedience,,,,,something about a tea party? So, now that we have arrived at this crossroads it seems reasonable to plan ahead. I read on a poker blog that it is possible to go to "findnot" and apparently other such sites and that my geographic location and/or my ISP would be secreted in a way that would make it impossible to restrict my access to financial institutions and poker sites due to my U.S. citizenship. Is this true and if not what other technologies are available to circumvent this law? And, as always, if the fascists can't take a joke,,,,FUCK 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No factual basis for the damage caused by 2nd hand smoking?
Don't insult our intelligence, please.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm surprised so many posts are confident they wont ban it since it brings in the money. I think its highly likely to pass and is being lobbied by the richer, established brick and mortar domestic casinos who suspect they lose business to online gambling. (which may or may not be true, much like the music piracy debate).
I miss the fiscally conservative small state Republicans....
not sure what people are thinking, but everyone is already required to at least pay Federal income tax (in the US)...
... on all winnings. Of course you can offset your "winnings" with your "losses". And I know that we all have little notepads to write down exactly what we won and lost on each hand of Texas Hold'em and blackjack, right?
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.html
I do know that the casinos where I live will take out federal and state tax on a winning jackpot (because it's a documented win) but obviously have no way to really figure out how much you lost on the quarter machine to get that. So I can't imagine it being too difficult to claim that you lost more than you one in any given year. After all, the house ALWAYS has an advantage!