Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the need-a-law-for-everything dept.

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."

34 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. They won't get rid of it by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They will just find a way to tax it.

    1. Re:They won't get rid of it by pimpimpim · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually in germany and the netherlands (almost) all mortar-brick gambling houses, and several lotteries as well, are state owned, and a lot of money of the poor souls that get addicted to this flows directly towards the state. As they have to get their money somewhere, and are not earning enough, they're likely to get their money in a criminal way. In effect, all this leads to state-controlled white washing of criminal money.

      Don't know how it's in the US, but I don't wonder countries are against online gambling: not because of your health, or to prevent fraud, but because of all the money they'll lose their grip on.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:They won't get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The power elite will impose whatever policy brings in more revenue for government. It's really that simple. Government is run as a business, and like any business, more revenue is always viewed as a good thing. The objective for the power elite is to maximize revenue and "market share" (control over the people), and that is exactly why every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, and exactly why all governments tend to expand, and never reduce, their powers throughout their existence.

      Take prohibition for example: sure, they could tax drugs and "allow" us our god-given right to voluntary association, but prohibition rakes in billions per year for government, and provides them with orders of magnitude more power than regulation and taxing, which can be leveraged for even more profit. Therefore, prohibition is here to stay, at least as long as big government is here to stay.

      They will literally sit down and discuss how to maximize revenue and market share, like any business would, and the answer will be determined exactly that way. Don't you love being ruled by other human beings?

    3. Re:They won't get rid of it by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is where the idiocy begins. You can't tax something that's illegal. Well, you can, but not many people will fess up. Right now, with the betting going on overseas, the industry is pulling money out of the US economy and adding it to other country's economies. All taxes aside, the US economy is weakening because it is illegal to gamble online in the US, but not on servers outside the US.

      IF the US were to legalize online gambling, and tariff the hell out of international gambling services, they could not only keep more of the money IN the US economy, but they could still tax the gamblers (capital gains) and the profits of the online casino.

      Instead the government has created a situation where they are attempting to dictate morals to the majority aged citizens and are shipping our US dollars overseas for no good reason.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:They won't get rid of it by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The US uses a convenient legal fiction that Native Americans have sovereign land on which casinos can be built. As part of the agreement to allow the casinos the states get a cut of the take. The whole setup is a sham since most of the money goes to the casino operators.

      The legal fiction is that it's sovereign land. The truth is that it's federal land, held in trust. This is clearly true because soverignty does not apply to members of the tribe, only to the tribe as an entity in itself and to the land itself.

      I work for a Tribal casino in Northern California. There is some truth to what you say; some tribes have contracted someone to come in and build and operate the casino, and those entities typically get the bulk of the profits for something like ten years.

      The tribe[let] I work for put up a Bingo hall in the 80s and has been operating it more or less continuously since. When it came to be time to open a casino, they went to the bank, got a loan against the business, and built a new, larger bingo hall/event center, a 40-some room hotel, and a little conference center.

      Consequently, the tribe gets the majority of the money. Not only do registered members of the tribe get a share of the money (aka the "per capita" payment) but a certain, significant amount of money goes into the tribal council's coffers. They've built quite a few homes with the money, and they're preparing to build more.

      Nevada just legalized mobile gaming, which is to say, on phones and handhelds. I think they're going to be implementing video keno via sms first. This will knock out a considerable amount of online gambling, but only in NV. The simple fact is that people will do destructive things with their money and if we really want to "solve" the problem, we should be allowing it in the USA, with extremely tight regulation. If we're worried about the cultural impact of legalizing online gaming, maybe we can funnel a percentage of the taxes to a fund to deal with the ills. Ultimately though, people will end up gaming on-line via encrypting anonymizers, and the money will continue to leave the country, unless we legalize online gaming in the US, and collect the money here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:They won't get rid of it by Hentai · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's Ayn Rand.

      "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
      much easier to deal with."

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    6. Re:They won't get rid of it by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Really? The war on drugs is profitable? I thought they did this because drugs are bad for the children(TM). Any politician crazy enough to propose legalizing drugs would get voted out so fast the following election he'd think he was a victim of redistricting.

      He probably WOULD be redistricted. See, this war on drugs shit means that the law enforcement agencies get more and more money to buy new toys so they can abuse them. (Five-oh is outside, waiting with the van, hoping that shit will get out of hand / so that they can test their weapons on innocent civilians / the high tech shit costing millions and millions! --Michael Franti/Spearhead) In fact we just had some of that here in Lake County, which is known as a methamphetamine production center throughout California; the cops just got tasers like a week ago and they've already used 'em twice, then claimed that they've only done it once in a statement to a paper on the second occasion. Fucking pigs.

      We have helicopter overflights every day in my neighborhood. Ostensibly, they're looking for meth factories, and large outdoor plots of weed, since probably something around half of the people in my neighborhood are producing marijuana. And no, I am not exaggerating. It's kind of a mecca. Personally, I moved up there (it's at about 2800 feet) to try to get some cooler weather, and it hasn't been working worth a crap this year, but it's been over 100 degrees on the flatland pretty often. But the point is, they have a bunch of fun toys.

      And speaking of fun, here's a fun fact: They took over 1,000,000 marijuana plants out of the Mendocino and Tahoe national forests to the north of me, in this county and the neighboring county alone. Since they're outdoor, that could be anything from 750,000 pounds up to about 3,000,000 pounds of product, and the average person will smoke less than an eighth of an ounce a week. 16 ounces to a pound makes that enough for (assuming 1lb/plant) 8 eights * 16 oz/lb * 1,000,000 pounds = 128,000,000 man-weeks of smoking, or enough to keep about 2.4 million people smoking for a year. (I'm not sure if there's any valid statistics on average marijuana consumption per user - marijuana research is actively suppressed in the USA unless you're aiming to prove that it's harmful. The government paid a bunch of money to try to prove that it's harmful, and failed, and decided not to publish the full results of the study. Surprise, surprise.)

      In spite of that, there is no shortage. Prices have not gone up. Marijuana has not become scarce.

      If you need any more proof that the war on drugs is more about buying toys and making money on the "corrections" system than about any moral issues, you're not paying sufficient attention. The war on drugs is doomed to be an ongoing failure until it ends, causing more crime than it could ever solve, just as prohibition of alcohol was.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:They won't get rid of it by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yeah, that's why I corrected myself and said that you can, but people aren't going to pay for it. Like in the US, some states have marijuana tax stamps.

      Marijuana tax stamps were instituted by the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937", which enacted federal statutes. I've never heard of state marijuana tax stamps.

      Can you tell me which states these are? Or at least name one? Preferrably with a citation.

      The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, under which no stamps were ever sold (There is an anecdote about someone successfully getting them once, but I don't recall it giving any detail after that) was developed under the interstate commerce clause in the constitution and had two primary purposes. One was to protect paper and plastic industries - a lot of the lobbying involved here was on the part of Charles DuPont. Did you know Henry Ford once made a prototype vehicle made almost entirely out of hemp plastic, down to body panels and structural members? The other was to demonize blacks and mexicans, who were competing with white americans for jobs during the great depression. This was a highly successful campaign that painted marijuana as a drug of the evil blacks and mexis.

      Everyone should keep in mind at all times that the war on drugs is a war on personal freedom (see: bill hicks) and that the government operates by keeping us separated from one another so we don't gang up on them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:They won't get rid of it by Harry+Coin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more profitable because it justifies military-scale law enforcement budgets, allows law enforcement to seize assets worth millions of dollars, allows the state to jail non-violent users to use as a cheap labor pool, and neccessitates the construction of prison after prison. We now have a higher percentage of our population in jail that the USSR at the height of the gulags.

      Of course, prohibition has also been the largest factor in the erosion of our right to privacy.

      I'm all for jailing violent offenders, but let the god-damn tokers out! Put our police to better use, like violent gangs and corporate criminals.

      --
      That's pre 7-11 thinking....
  2. Idiots by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess they're just running true to form, though. They allow OTB and lotteries online, because they can tax those.

    1. Re:Idiots by AviLazar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lottery proceeds go to help senior citizens. OTB? Online gambling is not desired because it makes it way to easy for people who are gambaholics (or to become such). Travelling to a casino is at least a chore (unless you live close to one).

      And why not tax....both on the side of people who win and when the house wins. That is a lot of revenue. Online casinos usually fund one small group of people (it doesn't take much to own/manage an online casino).

      The gov't wants a few things
      Tax the players who win
      Tax the casino
      Ensure that it is not so easy for people to spend their lifes earnings (and money they dont have, such as credit card money) on gambling and blowing their lives away.

      remember, it is not the easiest thing in the world to legalize gambling in a state. Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:Idiots by arivanov · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Idiots but for another reason.

      This is a very interesting item as far as globalisation is concerned because a number of countries where gambling is a major industry have filed a WTO case against the US for restricting free trade. More specifically it is related to stopping credit card payments to entities in these countries by Visa and MasterCard. Any congress intervention before the WTO proceedings are complete is putting the US on a deliberate collision course with the WTO.

      Also, it is a classic case of double standard. 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. And god forbid if it is against the beliefs of the taleban elders.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:Idiots by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Informative

      I call your bluff, and raise you a fact.

      All individual gambling income is taxed at the federal level. OTB and lotteries are done at the state level, and not at the federal level. This is simply the latest addition to a long history of federal anti-gambling bills -- not really news at all:

      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1082.html
      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1084.html
      http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1955.html
      http://www.unc.edu/courses/law357c/cyberprojects/f all01/Internet_Gambling/Publish/page12.html

    4. Re:Idiots by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.


      While the struggle to get slot machines in Pennsylvania was, and still is, an acrimonious debate, the reason behind the debate is because of who benefits. Slots coming to PA is not to help increase revenue (though it will) nor to stop people from going to West Virginia, Delaware or New Jersey and spending their money at those gambling locations (though it will slow the exodus) nor is it to help in property tax reduction (um, yeah).

      No, the one and only reason that slots came to PA was to keep the horsetrack business alive. Without the slots the horsetracks in the state would have been dead within 5 - 10 years. Don't believe me? Then why is it that all the racetracks in the state (8 total) get to have slots licenses but only fourteen total licenses, including those at the tracks, are available for the entire Commonwealth? If the Commonwealth wanted to bring gambling to the land it would have allowed slot parlors to open anywhere that one could afford to pay the licensing and other fees. You'll never see a slot parlor in downtown Harrisburg but someone is fighting to build one just outside Gettysburg.

      Let us not forget also the current controversy of having a middleman buy the slot machines and then distribute them to the parlors instead of allowing the companies to sell directly to the parlors. Just another way for certain elected officials to get kickbacks and produce jobs for their connected friends.

      Oh, and as far as not allowing table gambling is concerned, you do know the reason for that, don't you? It's because a table game requires the person to concentrate on the game at hand and thus wouldn't allow them to watch the horse races. A slot machine requires no concentration and one can stop playing the machine for a moment and place bets on the races then resume playing the machine.

      I'm not against gambling. I used to go to Atlantic City and spend a few bucks. I've gambled in Vegas and would like to see the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut. But what I object to is the typical PA bullshit of how the process was done and will be implemented. The Gaming Control Board is a joke. It's rules are so lax that corruption in the industry will be rampant.

      Not to mention that one of the employees of the board dangled his girlfriend out their apartment window and dropped her while they were celebrating his job appointment in the commission because both were drunk as skunks.

      Then there's the employee, an investigator no less, who was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, escape and public intoxication. Let us not forget the other folks of the gaming board who have also had issues including one who lied on his application and two others, attorneys in fact, who were involved in drunken brawls.

      The real fight is not whether to allow gambling in Pennsylvania. The real fight is over how much money will be skimmed off the top for political purposes. Does the word WAM ring a bell?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Idiots by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree except for the statement "US".

      The US has really been overpowered/bought out by multi-national corporations who owe their allegience to no government. Our senators and congressmen almost certainly know this but the system has been set up so corporate money is now required to enter politics at any serious level.

      What is referred to as the "US" is really 270 million people being pulled along and steered by a tiny minority. They give us the illusion that we have control but where it counts, we do not and have not for at least 30 to 40 years.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  3. I bet.. by MarkByers · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet $1 that online gambling will not be banned.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  4. Land of the Free? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whatever happened to the land of the Free? If you want to gamble your money on-line, why shouldn't you be able to?

    1. Re:Land of the Free? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

      re:"Whatever happened to the land of the Free? If you want to gamble your money on-line, why shouldn't you be able to?"

      Um - some boat people you sent our way got mixed up into our politics. The one's wearing belt buckles on their heads. Thanks for starting us out with the best and the brightest.

    2. Re:Land of the Free? by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I think "the land of the free" is an intellectually dishonest catchphrase, in general.

      We all would love to live in a Land of the Free. It implies we have absolute control over our own actions, and "there ain't nobody that can tell us what to do!" Reminds me a lot of that feeling you get when you turn 18 and start flipping the bird to all and sundry.

      The problem is that our actions, when taken in public, can have an effect on an awful lot of people. Riding without a helmet? Great. When you wreck and live in a persistent vegetative state, the Insurance Company has to cover it. The problem is, I'm paying into the same insurance company you are, so my rates (may) go up, just because you were too stupid to put a hat on your noggin. Ditto with seatbelts, only now you may have 4 people in comas for the rest of their life, and the cost increases dramatically.

      If there was no monetary pain to me, at all, because you didn't want to wear a seatbelt or a helmet, go for it. After all, it is your life. If you can ensure that I don't have to pay a cent more because you want to risk it, I'm all for you not wearing helmets or belts. Or, rather, I'm all for your freedom to do as you wish. It's not my fucking job to keep you alive. I may tell you you're stupid and to put a seatbelt on, but that's just freedom of speech. It's not like you have to do what I say.

      Drugs and gambling are somewhat similar, but subtly different. The only downsides to these: people, due to their dependence upon either, breaking the law and stealing shit to fund their habit. The subtle difference is that, the act, itself, does not DIRECTLY (or as-closely-indirectly-as-seatbelts-do) cost me any money. I mean, the justification for outlawing drugs is a: social (we don't want drug use in our community), which is, in my opinion, the antithesis of a "free" community, or b: financial (we don't want drug users stealing our stuff), which, in my opinion, has some grounding. But the problem is that the habit, for all of its power over the person, is too indirect, in my opinion, to be banned. Example: if I'm a billionaire, and I want to sit in my mansion all day and do coke, who the fuck are YOU to say that's wrong? it's my life, it's my house, and I'm paying for it with my own money. Right there, whether you agree with drug use or not - doesn't matter. It's about freedom. Ditto with gambling. But when a crackhead steals my bike to pawn at a pawnshop to finance their need, I tend to get a wee bit pissed off. With that said, I'd probably be just as pissed off if it was just a bunch of punk kids on a dare. Or a hobo who thought he'd take up cycling for unspecified personal reasons. So really, in this instance, it's not the drug use, or gambling, that is bad, it's what people CAN do to finance it. Which is, in my opinion, a separate issue. They may be linked, but they're not one in the same. If you're Michael Jordan and you want to gamble away crazy moneys in Poker, go for it. You've got the money, and I'm not going to tell you what to do. But if you steal something of mine, then you're a thief, and you need a swift kick in the teeth.

      Prostitution is way different. That's just the moral police acting like the world will end if they don't "protect the people". I'm old enough, thanks. I can think for myself. Are you going to protect me from credit card debt, too? No? Then shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Legalize prostitution. Tax it. Spend that tax money on setting up education programs for prostitutes. If they have a pimp who is abusing them, protect them. Mandate monthly checkups. STDs.

      Nanny state, true. In some ways. However, sometimes your freedom to do something impinges on my rights. In that case, maybe a law is in order. Maybe it isn't. That's what public debate is *supposed* to be about. Instead, it's just a bunch of boiled down, trite sound bites strung together to rally the masses. Phooie.

    3. Re:Land of the Free? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, don't blame us! We were setting the right example by persecuting them. After they ran away, how were we to know you guys would let them run your government?

    4. Re:Land of the Free? by z80kid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > Riding without a helmet? ... the Insurance Company has to cover it.

      There are non-regulatory solutions to alot of these things. Find an insurance company that insists on helmets and seatbelts, and charges more to those who ride without them. You say that prostitution should be legal, but the johns might be with your health insurance company. Thats going to cost you too.

      The fact is, both of these things are costing you right now. You pay for the cops who are rounding up and babysitting these "offenders". You pay for the courts that process them. You pay with your money, and with lost freedom and privacy. (After all, they have to watch everyone to catch the offenders - ie driving checkpoints and undercover cops).

      We've got laws dictating every little aspect of our behaviour. And I'm convinced we're little better off than we would be if we let people make their own decisions and suffer the consequences for them.

  5. Question... by Lobo · · Score: 3, Funny

    How are they supposed to secretly monitor these transactions of they make them illegal?

    --

    -------
    Bite Me Fanboy!!
  6. What's the problem with gambling? by Tet · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What I don't understand is... why is gambling deemed such a big deal in the USA? You allow people to drink, smoke, carry guns and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least), but not to bet on certain outcomes. It just seems really bizarre to me, particularly when you allow betting on other outcomes, such as dabbling in the financial markets.

    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
    1. Re:What's the problem with gambling? by thebdj · · Score: 4, Funny

      A few years back I was in Alabama when they were trying to pass a lottery. One of the anti-lottery signs said, "What Would Jesus Do?" I found this sign rather telling, but also somewhat on the humorous side to an outside observer who could easily say, "He would hang there and watch."

      This is where you are suppose to laugh...

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    2. Re:What's the problem with gambling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I don't understand is... why is gambling deemed such a big deal in the USA?

      Because authoritarians presently rule. I'm 54, but the Bill of Rights was a pathetic, toothless joke even before I was born. We aren't the land of the free, many if not most countries are freer (Canada, right on our border, for example). It's not the home of the brave, either; at least, our politicians are all yellow, as are most of my cowardly countrymen.

      You allow people to drink

      Not in every county. For a couple of decades it was illegal everywhere. You can get arrested for walking down the street drinking a beer in most cities.

      smoke

      Not certain substances (pot, crack, meth, heroin), and in my town nowhere indoors in public.

      carry guns

      Not really. Walk down a Chicago or New York street with a loaded shotgun and watch how fast the cops arrest or shoot you! Plus you can't transport a loaded gun legally, it has to be unloaded, broken down or disassembled, and can't be within the driver's reach.

      and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least)

      Only in Nevada. You can gamble in Nevada as well (slots, cards, dice, etc). Most states have some gambling; lottery, and there are riverboat casinos in many states (mine for one) where you can play poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, craps, etc; and we have horseracing and betting on it.

      but not to bet on certain outcomes.

      See "smoke". Also see "prostitution", my theory is that American casinos are pushing this law. America has the best government money can buy. I have no representation at all, the only people with representation are the corporates.

      What I'm sure a lot of foreigners don't understand about the US is that it's a HUGE country, over 6400 km wide and over 3200 km north-south, with its biggest state, Alaska, sitting on top of Canada and with Hawaii way off in the Pacific, halfway to Japan. Our Constitution limits (limited, no longer it seems) Federal power, leaving the individual states to pass their own laws. In theory, at least. There is at present no Federal law against gambling or prostitution.

      You have to remember that most US states are bigger than most European countries. It's over 600 KM from Chicago to Paducah, and Kentucky borders Illinois. And Illinois is only a medium sized state! I live in central Illinois, and the closest legal whorehouse is in Canada 300 miles away; Nevada is almost ten times as far.

  7. EXCEPT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  8. no gambling by pubjames · · Score: 5, Funny



    You guys can't gamble on the internet? [Takes long drag from joint]. I thought the USA was the land of freedom..?

  9. More useless legislation by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  10. Nanny state? by Wylfing · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  11. easy workaround by MooseTick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  12. What about RPG Gam(bl)ing? by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  13. A quick history of payment in the industry. by Sound+of+Silence · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  14. Why is popularity always cited in defence of laws? by adrianbaugh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.
  15. No need to worry at all... by Churla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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