U.S. Arrests Online Gambling Company Chairman

Common sense by kooky45 · 2006-09-07 09:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you live outside of the US and have done something that the US have made illegal then don't go there.

Re:Common sense by AceCaseOR · 2006-09-07 09:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

IANAL, but I think the prosecutors will make an argument that Mr. Dicks knowingly provided a service that was illegal in the US, to US citizens who were on US soil at the time. On the one hand, it's a clever way of getting the guy. On the other hand, it could set up some dangerous precidents. Getting a hacker under US law because the server he penetrated was on US soil is one thing. However, the strategy I think they're going to use could, in theory, be used by the **AA against, say, The Pirate Bay.

--
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Re:Common sense by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-09-07 09:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Only a few million people should be arrested then. The age of consent is 14 or 16 in most European countries. So you're saying pretty much half of Europe should avoid travelling to the USA because they would be arrested?

Fortunately, law doesn't work like this. You cannot exercise judicial power for things outside a country's juristiction or if you're not a citizen of that country (you can be held accountable for age of consent laws without borders solely based on citizenship, for example if you're an Australian and go to Thailand and back, you can still be arrested for sexual crimes if you had sex with a 13 year old girl in Thailand).

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:Common sense by ScrewMaster · 2006-09-07 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Insightful? I think not. Here, let me fix it for you: "If you live out side of the {insert any country here} and have done something that the {insert any country here} has made illegal then don't go there.

Our government isn't in the habit of arresting foreign nationals for activities that are perfectly legal in their country of origin. But if he was providing illegal services to U.S. citizens then he put himself at risk. Why that is such a shock to you people I don't know, unless you just need another excuse to America-bash. People complain bitterly when a Google or a Yahoo complies with the laws of another country when they disagree with those laws, fully expecting that those companies should simply break that country's laws with impunity. And maybe they should: but the principle works both ways ... if you break our laws, even over the Internet, we have the right to subject you to those laws when you're on our territory. That's how it is anywhere in the world.

Now, having said that ... I'd rather our government kept its grubby little paternalistic fingers out of our lives and let us give all our hard-earned cash to crooked foreigners if we so choose. One of the most cherished rights that Americans have always enjoyed is the right to go to Hell in our own way. But unfortunately we have a lot of people in power over here that think they know better than we do what is best for us, want to force their pattern for living on everyone else.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Common sense by tomhudson · 2006-09-07 10:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't laugh - a lot of people are paying extra so they won't have a stopover in the US on the way to another destination, just to avoid the hassles, even if they have never done anything wrong.
This is just going to make the situation worse. The losers are the US air carriers, and services based in the US.
Re:Common sense by GaryPatterson · 2006-09-07 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

That should bar lots of US website operators and bloggers from going to the Middle-East, where their sites would land them in hot water. I wonder what the penalty is for running a porn site, or a site critical of the government.

If a US website operator was executed, is that okay too? Should they just know better?

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, but prosecuting citizens of other countries for things which are legal in their country but illegal in yours will become a very slippery slope.

I dont see the logic in this by unity100 · 2006-09-07 09:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

Online gambling might be illegal in u.s. This guy is an u.k. citizen, and set up a site IN u.k.

Are americans SO moron that they can conclude they have the right to arrest someone according to their own laws, WHEREAS ALL they NEED to do and HAD to do is to bar all access from u.s. to that u.k. site ? Huh ?

--
Read radical news here

Re:I dont see the logic in this by MBCook · 2006-09-07 09:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

He let's Americans gamble on his site, so he lets them break the law. That's illegal. At least that what I'm guessing their logic is. My guess is that their claim to him is a little tenuous to say the least. I bet he refused to bar access from US betters. The US's stance is hardly unknown, especially if you are in that industry.
I think that "online gambling is prohibition" comment is rather ridiculous. Online gambling is something people do from home, where one of the big things about prohibition is that it removed a common social activity (going to a bar with friends and to meet people). They are nothing alike except that they are both bans on something popular, and (are likey to get) overturned.
Don't forget that there is a REASON online gambling is still illegal. While that act can be intrepreted that way, Congress could have easily changed that by passing a law. However, don't think that all the casinos in Vegas and elsewhere like the idea of online gambling. That could take away a LOT of a their business if it was legalized. I'd be amamzed if they weren't pouring out money to keep online gambling illegal.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:I dont see the logic in this by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-09-07 10:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, you got that backwards. The shop isn't flying to Saudi Arabia selling vodka, but the Saudis are flying to the UK buying vodka in a local shop ("This is a local shop, for local people; there's nothing for you here").

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:I dont see the logic in this by TubeSteak · 2006-09-07 10:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't forget that there is a REASON online gambling is still illegal.
Because offshore-hosted online gambling can't be taxed?

Casino winnings are taxed

If Congress could figure out a way to tax all online gambling winnings, they'd do it in a heartbeat. (Specifically winnings paid out by companies outside the U.S.A.)

As it is now, if you win from some offshore gambling outfit, it is up to you to report your winnings... or not.

To support the Submitter/Editor's assertion that online gambling is similar to prohibition: Politicians caved in to the Prohibitionists because income from the relatively new income tax (just 7 years old) made it possible for the Federal Gov't to do without the cash from liquor taxes.

Prohibition ended in 1934, because income taxes tanked ~60% during the first few years of the great depression.

To summarize: Because (1) the tax revenues wouldn't be that large/needed and/or (2) Congress can't figure out how to enforce taxes, they will continue to 'ban' online gambling. Once 1 &/or 2 gets changes, they'll reconsider.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:I dont see the logic in this by Al+Dimond · 2006-09-07 11:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the case of selling most products internationally you have to actually make an effort to sell in another country. Even if you're shipping stuff sold "on the Internet" you're shipping it physically to a foreign address and should certainly make sure you're not shipping stuff to countries where it's illegal. When you open up a server on the Internet that content is available to everyone by default. In fact, there's not even really a reliable way to tell where the hits are coming from given proxies, VPNs and whatnot. The same problem exists with payment methods: yes, in most cases it's easy to determine the location of a payer given, say, a credit card billing address. But it's certainly possible to get money routed through foreign accounts or through online payment systems that don't list a shipping address. Perhaps when operating a site that accepts payments for controversial items one should mandate a payment system that includes a billing address and refuse to bill any countries but those where the service is known to be legal. That's not really very difficult, so you're right that this one guy has it easy.

But what about services that don't require payment? For example, the P2P software that's been deemed illegal in Australia. Or racist websites operating in the US that run afoul of Canadian and European laws. Falun Gong sites that are illegal in China. Various types of pornography that are illegal in various places in the world. IIRC it's still illegal to export cryptographic software from the US to certain embargoed nations under the same laws that prohibit the sale of weapons to these nations; I'm pretty sure if you sold any other weapon to such a country the Feds wouldn't take, "But he clicked a box on our website saying he wasn't from Iran," for an answer. We run into the problem that it's easy to cross national borders on the Internet and impossible to control which borders you're crossing. All you have to do to "export" something online is sign up with your neighborhood ISP. This is one of the reasons it's been so successful.

Expressing the laws of every country and state through a technological standard would be ridiculously challenging; even accurately representing the location of clients to every server would be pretty difficult without massive cooperation. If every country in the world tries to apply their import/export laws to Internet traffic we'll be creating massive amounts of work for server operators, who would likely overcompensate by trying to lock down their services to domestic viewers. Countries like Saudi Arabia and China that figure they probably can't force foreign webmasters to obey them set up firewalls, but those are expensive and hard to maintain. I don't have a total solution, but I think as a practical matter Internet traffic can't be treated like standard imports and exports.
Re:I dont see the logic in this by daspriest · 2006-09-07 13:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

"But what about services that don't require payment? For example, the P2P software that's been deemed illegal in Australia. Or racist websites operating in the US that run afoul of Canadian and European laws. Falun Gong sites that are illegal in China. Various types of pornography that are illegal in various places in the world. IIRC it's still illegal to export cryptographic software from the US to certain embargoed nations under the same laws that prohibit the sale of weapons to these nations; I'm pretty sure if you sold any other weapon to such a country the Feds wouldn't take, "But he clicked a box on our website saying he wasn't from Iran," for an answer. We run into the problem that it's easy to cross national borders on the Internet and impossible to control which borders you're crossing. All you have to do to "export" something online is sign up with your neighborhood ISP. This is one of the reasons it's been so successful." When I was stationed in Spain, I tried to download a 128 bit encrypted browser, the site recognized my IP as not US, so denied the download. I could have gone the proxy route, but figured it was easier just to get the stuff I wanted from work with the US military IP's. But seems that most sites could deny access from sites that it is known to be illegal to access the service or software, but why is that really their concern. It's not illegal (afaik) in the UK to export gambling services, just like its not illegal to export P2P clients, so why should they be bothered.
Re:I dont see the logic in this by Al+Dimond · 2006-09-07 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think your point about exporting, in general, makes sense: people can take measures to prevent exports that their own country deems illegal. If we were really going to treat Internet exporting like physical exporting, though, the government would be cracking down on proxy servers that potentially broker traffic between embargoed nations and websites offering services. We generally don't do that, and it would probably be a horrible mess if we did, but I think that there should be a clearly codified reason why. We wouldn't want the government to randomly begin applying pressure on particular proxies it didn't like by surprise, or anything like that.

"It's not illegal (afaik) in the UK to export gambling services, just like its not illegal to export P2P clients, so why should they be bothered."

They should be bothered because a UK man was just arreseted for exporting gambling services to the US, and because some P2P company was somehow ordered by an Australian court to provide a modified program to Australians (I don't remember exactly how that was enforced, but it was on /. a while back). They should be bothered because people that distribute Falun Gong material aren't treated very nicely when they travel to China. Because, while they perhaps should be able to export anything their own countries allow from their domestic servers, the countries they're exporting to aren't seeing it this way.

This is why I believe we (the United States, but also every other country that wants to consider itself a civilized nation) need a clear policy for these situations: what should our response be to illegal material from other countries on the Internet? Right now we clearly have confusion, because if there was a clear policy that the people in his situation would be arrested our UK friend would probably never have traveled to the US.

Our laws, your country... by MosesJones · 2006-09-07 09:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Its another great example of the US deciding that its perfectly okay to have their laws apply to people from other countries, but the idea of an international criminal court that might try CIA and US Soldiers for torture and crimes against humanity then the answer is no.

Remind me again why people think the US is imperialist?

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:Our laws, your country... by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-09-07 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you're saying the server hosting the site somehow flew into the USA?

The only way they could have arrested him legally, if he broke a law in the USA WHILE in the USA.

You cannot break US laws outside the USA, so in the UK what he does is perfectly legal.

Why isn't the british diplomacy concerned about the kidnapping of a UK citizen? In the 18th century they would have sent the gunboats already.

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:Our laws, your country... by wiggles · 2006-09-07 09:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not to defend this action, but the guy did commit a crime on US soil from the UK. I'm sure the US government's reasoning is something along these lines: By setting up a server in the UK to allow gambling in the US, the crime (slob in his underwear betting on cockroach races at 4am or whatever) was committed on US soil. The crime was only facilitated by offshore people and servers. They can use the same rationale to arrest and try South American drug lords, sea pirates (Avast!), money launderers who use offshore accounts, etc. They even have arrest warrants waiting to be served for the members of the DeBeers cartel for antitrust violations and contempt.

Here's an analogy. Say I'm in Mexico with a trebuchet and tons of pot. Let's say for the sake of argument that we paid off the federales, and we can operate with impunity. Let's say you're in Texas with a catapult. If you send me money via your catapult and I send you bales of dope via my trebuchet, I'm guilty of selling drugs in the US, even though I never set foot on US soil.

See?
Re:Our laws, your country... by Aladrin · 2006-09-07 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

So you're saying that while he was in the US, he shut his company down or somehow else prevented US citizens from illegally using his site?

He WAS in the US while breaking this law.

I was leaning towards his rights until I found out that his site lists US phone numbers and EST calling times, and 77% of his business is from the US. It isn't like he's got a few people he didn't manage to keep off the site. He actively encourages them to break the law.

Disclaimer: I stole those facts from above posts. They could be totally wrong. But I doubt it.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Re:Our laws, your country... by pete-classic · 2006-09-07 10:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does that mean I can defraud citizens of the UK from my home country by post or wire with impunity so long as my government doesn't mind? And then travel there freely without fear for my liberty?

I'm against gambling laws, but you're coming across rather shrill.

-Peter
Re:Our laws, your country... by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-09-07 10:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

If we would accept your reasoning, why is that, that a citizen of the USA from a state where gambling is illegal can go to Las Vegas, gamble, then go back to his home state and NOT get arrested?

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:Our laws, your country... by A+beautiful+mind · 2006-09-07 10:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, this is a very small difference, but important:

The action of gambling took place at TWO places (technically this still isn't accurate, but then we'd go into internet architecture):
a.) client-side: the USA client broke the law for gambling.
b.) server-side: the UK server and it's owners are in the clear, because it is legal to operate a gambling server in the UK.

Btw, let me ask the following: let's say, a las vegas casino were to offer gambling online. Are you saying the casino owners were committing a crime for letting USA citizens gamble online, while gambling on site is perfectly legal? IMO, the client/server side distinction still applies. The client could be held accountable, but the casino not.

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:Our laws, your country... by jeff4747 · 2006-09-07 12:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Columbian drug runners are also regularly thrown in jail for selling services in the US.

With the "drug runners", they are actually in the US when they commit the crime.

This case hinges on where the crime actually occurred. An argument could be made that the gambling was done in the US, because that's where the customer is located. Another argument can be made that the gambling took place in the UK, because that's where the "dice" were "rolled".

IMO, the gambling took place in the UK. In the US, somebody just connected to a web site. However, that interpretation doesn't work for the religious whackos in our country who insist on legislating morality. So our government arrested the guy under the first interpretation.

Re:"Peter Dicks" by Tackhead · 2006-09-07 09:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Pretty sums up how I feel about the gambling industry.

Funny. Pretty much sums up how I feel about the prohibition industry.

Oh that's good... by bziman · 2006-09-07 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

So it's okay for the United States to arrest foreign nationals because they run a business in their own country that is (sort of) illegal in the States.

And yet the American government complains loudly when Freedom Fighters in the Middle East capture and detain members of the American invasion force who are obviously breaking the law by invading those countries?

It would be really nifty if the American government spent as much time trying to provide health-care to its citizens, teaching science in its schools, and waging peace, as it spends on enforcing fear driven puritanical laws at home and waging unjust ideological wars abroad.

--brian

U.S. a no go zone by ConfusedSelfHating · 2006-09-07 09:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the near future, the United States of America may be a country that non-Americans fear to travel to. With the DMCA, the Patriot Act, association with gambling sites, corporate deals with Iran, corporate deals with Cuba ... you just simply do not know whether or not you will be arrested when entering the United States. If your non-American company did business with Cuba, could you be arrested? If you engaged in fair use of media in your country, could you be arrested for DMCA violations?

You won't know until you are on American soil.

Re:U.S. a no go zone by syousef · 2006-09-07 09:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

I stopped wanting to go to the US a long time ago. My last name is Yousef and I'm very arabic looking. Never mind that my family's background is Christian not Muslim, that I don't believe in God, or that the work I do required security checks and clearance before I was employed. Last nail in the coffin was when they started fingerprinting everyone. I don't want to be treated like a criminal and randomly finger printed and searched all the way there and back. That's not something I want to do for a good job let alone for a holiday.

In 1998 I went to the US to do training and none of this was a concern. The programmers boot camp I went to sucked by on one of my two weekends off in the 10 week hell I went to the Kennedy Space Center and I loved it! I always wanted to go back and take a look at the Grand Canyon. Now I wouldn't go if they paid me.

Fuck 9/11. Fuck the terrorists. Fuck the people who've used it as a power grab. Fuck the blind sheep who'll let them until its too late. I've had a gut full of this bad behaviour from all sides. ...And if anyone wants to mod this as flamebait, that's fine be my guest, but before you do read the definition of a flame. I'm not saying these things just to piss people off. This is genuinely how I feel, and I'm not alone.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer

hogwash by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-07 09:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

the US has no right to arrest foreign citizens following the laws of their respective country. none of this could possibly stand up in court.

still wonder how this is illegal for a non-residen by mabhatter654 · 2006-09-07 09:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I still wonder how this is illegal for a non-resident, hosted off shore, with no servers in the US at all. Now it should probably be illegal for US citizens.. many individual states have laws against gambling in any form...but that would be a state issue to their citizens. I sort of understand how the Federal Wire laws make state crimes illegal because you "used" a federal regulated wire service, but I can't understand how they can arrest citizens of other countries for running the service legally in their own country.

Of course, were the USA we can do what ever we want... I often wonder how we'd react if say Bill Gates was arrested in Communist China for being an "obscenely rich capitalist".. .I'm sure that's still illegal over there, and Microsoft sells to China.. so why should the reds take a chance at getting him? It's the same basic principle.

21st Century Prohibition by subreality · 2006-09-07 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is online gambling the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century?

No. Marijuana is the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century.

So I guess if I set up a boat off-shore and by bryz · 2006-09-07 09:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Started up a website serving up good old kiddy porn, started charging US users to download those images I should be safe then.

I think another person suggested that the US should have censured illegal sites.

How about if you're going to conduct business in a country, you follow and obey all local rules and regulations? If you can't comply, then about making it so that you block access yourself so you don't violate those laws and regulations.

Second, I can't believe this Dicks decided to go through the US even though the other guy went in a couple months earlier and got arrested. It's either arrogence or stupidity.

Re:Like driving on the left hand side of the road? by operagost · 2006-09-07 09:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is nuts to arrest somebody for a "crime" committed elsewhere (where it is not a crime). For example, in many parts of the world civilians are not permitted to own or carry handguns. Should somebody be arrested on landing in the UK because they happened to own/carry a handgun while in the US?

No, but if they sold and shipped the handgun to someone who lives in the UK they might be.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Not the first time by ReverendLoki · 2006-09-07 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember Dmitry Sklyarov?

Perhaps this is all a fiendish plot to cut down on US tourism...

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Confused by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-07 10:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oooh! Oooh! Can we now criminally charge corporations for moving offshore to skirt US labor laws??? Please? Pretty Please???

No. The War Against Drugs by nead · 2006-09-07 10:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is the Prohibition of the 21st Century.

Re:No, not gambling... by rainman_bc · 2006-09-07 10:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

If a smoker wants to smoke in a public park, let them. It's a public place meant for everyone. You can't please everyone.

If a smoker comes though and blows smoke in my general direction, it should be considered socially acceptable for me to go fart in that smoker's space too.

Thing is, my space belongs to me. I find having cigarette smoke blown in my direction akin to invading my space. I find it more disgusting than the smell of fart, and more harmful to my health.

I think we should start a campaign where we go and fart in smoker's spaces.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re:Like driving on the left hand side of the road? by thrillseeker · 2006-09-07 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nobody forced Mr. Dicks to sell services to American citizens.

Nobody forced Americans to proactively make use of Mr. Dicks' services.

I live here and... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-07 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

...I flat out refuse to fly. I'll drive or take a damn sailboat before I'll give an airline one penny or give those goons the satisfaction of seeing another sheep bend over to get sheared and get the shaft put to them. I cannot understand why any MAN would put up with seeing their wife or daughter get felt up by some armed goon pervo at the airport. I will NOT put up with that be a sheep nonsense at the airport. I am a FREE MAN, not some peasant who must bow and scrape in front of the king's mercenary henchmen. FUCK EM!

So good for you foreign guys, and every time you avoid flying into or out of the US, drop a note to the airline you avoided and to some select senators here, and maybe a few letters to the editor at the big papers, let them know that this bullshit is stupid!

The entire REASON for the formation of the USA was because we wanted to trade FREEDOM for the ILLUSION of "security" that was given by being a "king's subject". Screw that noise.

They ask if you're american and block you. by neo · 2006-09-07 13:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

What's an international company supposed to do to keep americans from using their freedom? They ask if you're from the US. They tell you to check and see if it's legal to do what you're doing there. Are they supposed to visit you?

The guy at my deli never asks for ID when I buy lottery tickets and all the bingo I played as a kid at church was when I was under 18... but you let one american bet the Packer's to win the SuperBowl and bam! You're in jail.

We have a goverment that outlaws things so they can profit from doing it themselves. When the Mega-Millions jackpot is $25 million, you know how much money they make? Let's just say the goverment is taking more than half before showing you that number.

Re:Like driving on the left hand side of the road? by JonnyCalcutta · 2006-09-07 19:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or perhaps all those Americans shipping unrated videos or chewing tobacco to the UK should be waiting for the FBI to turn up with the extradition papers?

If this was all as above board as some suggest, then why weren't these people simply extradited, instead of the Feds hiding behind the baggage carousel waiting for them to change planes? I mean, it might be hard to understand, with the USs puritanical views on gambling, but these are executives of publically traded companies - Richard Branson is equally as guilty http://casino.virgingames.com/, as an example. This is not the equivalent, in the UK at least, of some drug baron using loopholes in the law to sell prescription morphine to kids, or Louigi 'Fingers' Spaghetti running a craps game down the back alley. Over here these people are running companies as legitamate as QVC or Bloomberg.

Slashdot Mirror

U.S. Arrests Online Gambling Company Chairman

38 of 634 comments (clear)