US Outlaws Online Gambling

imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS. To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."

Comments

I Feel so much safer

[Anonymous Coward]

from the Terrorists now.... Thanks Congress! Oh wait! This isn't for fighting terrorist? My Bad.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[bluelip]

Possible circumvention?:

The companies sell you a t-shirt. The cc companies can process that payment. It just so happens that a promo is going on that gives the user 100 free 'tokens' when they purchase a shirt.

Mike Coles
'bluelip'

Re:I Feel so much safer

[TheGreek]

It just so happens that a promo is going on that gives the user 100 free 'tokens' when they purchase a shirt.

And how do you get your winnings out, Kreskin?

Another free shirt?

Pass.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[bluelip]

The bill doesn't state the companies can't mail you a check.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[TheGreek]

The bill doesn't state the companies can't mail you a check.

This piece of legislation may not specifically address that.

But I bet the US Postal Inspectors would be more than happy to intercept any check any offshore Internet casino might send you.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Fezmid]

There's already something like this in place for at least one poker site. You buy a phone card from them (it's a valid phone card) and then you transfer the minutes into your account for money.

If you win and want to cash out, they mail you a check.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Tremor (APi)]

Why not just do what they do with Pachinko in Japan?

Under Japanese law, cash cannot be paid out, but there is virtually always a small exchange centre located nearby (or sometimes in a separate room from the game parlor itself) where players can conveniently exchange tokens for prizes for cash. Such pseudo-cash gambling is theoretically illegal but from the sheer number of pachinko parlors in Japan it is clear that the activity is at least tacitly tolerated by the authorities.

You buy some tokens, you play with the tokens to win more tokens, you spend those tokens to buy a thing - a special, completely worthless thing, that can only be bought at the game parlor. You go outside, turn the corner, and sell the thing to a shop which is bizarrely interested in the thing, and is more than happy to buy it from you. At the end of the day, this shop then sells these special things back to the Pachinko parlor, who restocks them.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[bladesjester]

The Japanese use a similar loophole for winning money from pachinko. It's illegal to gamble for money there, so you can win prizes (in the form of tokens) that you then take to a nearby "unrelated" business and trade them for money.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Thaelon]

What winnings?

Re:I Feel so much safer

[eno2001]

You're both kind of funny in the head. Here's the way I see it. You buy the T-shirts and collect lots of them. Then you become a regional rep for the T-shirt sales and tell others how they can buy the T-shirts from you and you add a few cents for handling. You also tell them that if they buy 1000 t-shirts from you, that they can then become a regional rep too. Have this happen about five or six time and you're a T-shirt mogul! Meanwhile you have tons of tokens to gamble away and you have your winnings converted to items of huge value. Ferraris, one million cans of chicken soup, a sky scraper... then you have those shipped here. Customs would have no idea what hit them and you'd be wealthy beyond your wildest dreams over and over again! (Not sure what to put here) PROFIT!!!

Re:I Feel so much safer

[russ1337]

>>> "You buy some tokens, you play with the tokens to win more tokens, you spend those tokens to buy a thing - a special, completely worthless thing, that can only be bought at the game parlor

So these tokens are like gambling chips.... (think about that for a second)

By them giving you something in return for your 'win' you have still 'won a prize'... no matter how invaluable you think it might be. Heck, a piece of paper has little actual value, but your ability to swap it for valuable goods gives it value. - its still a prize, and you still gambled.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[ehrichweiss]

Oh please post a link to who this is!! A friend and I use poker sites all the time and this would be the way to equalize this BS law.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[soft_guy]

It would probably be easier and cheaper just to bribe the police.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[aplusjimages]

Do they have these exchange stores at a 7-11 or something? This is fine for the big cities, but how would someone in the sticks get paid?

Re:I Feel so much safer

[kfg]

. . . its still a prize, and you still gambled.

The issue is not gambling. The issue is compliance with law.

KFG

Re:I Feel so much safer

[fyngyrz]

Actually, the issues are:

That the government is not my mommy; ethically the government has no right to say what I can do with my own money until I directly use that money to hurt another citizen or it is extremely clear that I intend to do so; legally the government has no right to say anything at all with regard to gambling, because I never gave it any such right, nor have I authorized anyone to do so for me. The government is out of control, operating illegitimately, unconstitutionally, unethically, and "compliance enforcement" is in fact coercion backed by enormous, life-ruining power.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[bladesjester]

You're missing the important factor - the place you get the money from is not the same as the place you do the "gambling" at. The place that pays the money for the prizes could just as easily be online as well as long as it is not the place where you do the gaming.

pay your money to play the games.
get token prizes for winning the games.
get a money transfer from third party business for the prizes.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is out of control, operating illegitimately, unconstitutionally, unethically, and "compliance enforcement" is in fact coercion backed by enormous, life-ruining power.

and there aint a damn thing you can do about it.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[psykocrime]

The issue is not gambling. The issue is compliance with law.

Right, and the best way to deal with a bad law (defined as any law that inhibits your personal freedom to do anything you want other than
harming someone else or infringing on someone else's rights) is to ignore it.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Blnky]

ethically the government has no right to say what I can do with my own money

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately for you:
A) The government doesn't have to accept your money as legal tender. Expecially if they don't recognize you as a viable foreign government.
B) The money you are currently using daily is the property of the government.
C) The government can regulate its own property.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[aplusjimages]

Okay, that makes more sense. From the way you were describing it I was thinking brick store to cash in the prizes and thought that would cause problems. The online store makes more sense and would work.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[kfg]

That the government is not my mommy. . .

There was a guy on Book TV a couple of weeks ago who modeled the difference between political Conservatives and Liberals as being people who believed in a strict parental role and those who believed in a nurturing parental role.

Sitting there listening to the guy all I could think was, "Doesn't leave a lot of room for grownups, does it?"

I think it says a whole lot about our culture when even a harsh government critic can only think of the populace as children who have to be babied.

KFG

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Party Poker

Re:I Feel so much safer

[fyngyrz]

A) The government doesn't have to accept your money as legal tender. Expecially if they don't recognize you as a viable foreign governmen

That's fine. I'm not interested in giving them any, anyhow. They're not actually doing anything on my behalf. They only pretend to.

B) The money you are currently using daily is the property of the government.

Actually, that is not the case. You might want to look into alternative means of exchange as well.

C) The government can regulate its own property.

I have never entered into any agreement (signed, sworn, affirmed) with the government for the use of its presumptive property. Therefore, it has no legitimate hold over me to enforce any regulation whatsoever in that regard. What it has is power, as I said before. That said power is entirely illegitimate make it no less effective at this point in time.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[fyngyrz]

Doesn't leave a lot of room for grownups, does it?

Well said. Further, if you look at the various founding documents, you can see that they were written with the idea in mind that citizens were indeed to be treated as grownups. The abandonment of the charter and the mental gymnastics performed by the government in order to achieve a position of "we're your mommy" are despicable acts that are, I think, intimately related. Next time, we need to put some teeth in the founding documents, I guess.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[kfg]

. . .we need to put some teeth in the founding documents, I guess.

That was supposed to be the Second Amendment, but mommy doesn't like us playing with toys that might put somebody's eye out.

Especially if that somebody might be mommy.

KFG

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a little like Dave and Busters, except the part where you sell Johnny's "toy" back. You just put $100 in the card recharger, but you're leaving with a rainbow pencil with a bright pink feather on the end.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[kfg]

You might want to look into alternative means of exchange as well.

Ithaca Hours:

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/7813/ccs-ithi. htm

KFG

Re:I Feel so much safer

[kfg]

Right, and the best way to deal with a bad law . . . is to ignore it.

Capital One is not going to bite the hand that feeds it.

KFG

Re:I Feel so much safer

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. [applauds]

Re:I Feel so much safer

[hackwrench]

Apparently those nanites from Doctor Who in WWII are still about and they still haven't quite given up on that "Mummy" theme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctor_Dances

Re:I Feel so much safer

[lightsaber777]

Mabye not... but 1.) Law prohibits minors from gambling and most states regulate gaming heavily. 2.) Internet gambling pokes a huge hole in this since there is no way to identify if, in a household of three, it is the husband, wife, or 10 year old son gambling... possibly in a state that does not allow it. 3.) The only way to enforce the law is to simply close the hole. Same reason you can't buy liquor and guns online. And before you point out one of the many online gun retailers, you have to realize that they are not shipped to your house. When you buy a gun online it is shipped to the local gun shop of your choice which is authorized by the government to accept such a transfer. The gun is then processed as if you had bought it at that shop. So effectively, it is impossible to buy one online even if you can find and pay for it there.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[indifferent children]

Right, and the best way to deal with a bad law (...) is to ignore it.

Hmmm, let me guess: the Libertarian project to 'take over' a state by getting masses of Libertarians to move there and vote as a bloc, has failed. Your new secret plan is to take over the prison system by convincing all of the Libertarians to break laws willy-nilly and get incarcerated. I doubt that you will be able to actually 'take over' the prisons (they won't let you take your guns to prison with you), but the LP could become the largest prison gang.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[indifferent children]

They're not actually doing anything on my behalf.

What's your home address? I bet that I am a better shot than you are, especially at 3am when I am prepared to rob you, and you are asleep. Seeing as how you post on /., you probably have some cool toys that I would be interested in.

The police benefit you just by being there; you don't have to see them beating-down a perp on your property for you to be deriving benefit. Same goes true for the military. The soldiers who aren't being bled in stupid foreign entanglements, really are protecting our country from foreign invaders (who oddly enough have less respect for our Constitution than your current government).

Re:I Feel so much safer

[indifferent children]

get a money transfer from third party business for the prizes.

Hell, never give me my money. Just let me spend my winnings at Amazon.com, ThinkGeek.com, BestBuy.com, etc.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[fyngyrz]

What's your home address? I bet that I am a better shot than you are, especially at 3am when I am prepared to rob you, and you are asleep. Seeing as how you post on /., you probably have some cool toys that I would be interested in.

See, now here's a complete and utter moron who makes my point for me.

First of all, the cops do not prevent you from creeping up on my home; they come afterwards (assuming I survive to call them or an alarm system notifies them), and they may, or may not, be able to chase you down. Secondly, presuming they do catch you, you've already invaded my privacy, posed whatever threat you can. Which I doubt is significant — I'm a fifth degree black belt (what idiot threatens a guy with a URL like "blackbeltsystems, anyway? Are you 12 years old?) I'm also an expert marksman, I am always armed (concealed carry and accessible arms at home), and should I not be able to get to my weapons, I am a weapon, and I have a custom alarm system, which makes my house darned near impregnable, and most likely, I've already killed you anyway (in my state, cross my door without my permission, and your ass is mine.)

You see, unlike you, I've already thought this through and taken care of it as far as it is practical to do so. Attack me, and you'll find yourself with a serious problem. Invade my home, and you'd better be damned good at it and prepared to do me before I do you.

And where are the police you revere and think I ought to be paying for in all of this? Writing traffic tickets, that's where. Sitting at the town limits trying to catch some hapless out-of-towner speeding. Once an hour, they cruise by the banks, so as to make sure that the instruments of government debt (you know, "dollars"... they represent negative money, because the government is an inept bunch of thieves) have remained undisturbed. The cops don't patrol the neighborhoods. They are so rarely on scene when a crime is ongoing as to make it practical to rule the possibility right out, and should they even manage that awesome feat, there is absolutely no assurance that despite having been caught in the act, you'd see a jail sentence because those idiots (the government in general, cops as accomplices) have filled the jails with totally harmless people who smoke weed, of all things. Furthermore, should I report the crime, I'll spend more time filling out forms and screwing with insurance than I care to — frankly, it seems considerably more practical to bury you in a ditch and forget you ever showed up. Plus, I enjoy digging; I'm a rockhound. These skills could dovetail nicely.

The police benefit you just by being there; you don't have to see them beating-down a perp on your property for you to be deriving benefit.

That's drivel. The police benefit me in preventing crime not at all, and rarely anyone else. They might do some good if they were on foot and in the neighborhoods, but they're not, and every criminal in the country knows it. Including you, a moron who was dimwitted enough to threaten my household; if the cops were actually effective, I wouldn't need to be so able with regard to defending my family. The police, as presently constituted, are a waste of my funds. I'm not in the least interested in punishment by judge and jury; I'm interested in prevention, and cops are worthless for that.

Same goes true for the military. The soldiers who aren't being bled in stupid foreign entanglements, really are protecting our country from foreign invaders (who oddly enough have less respect for our Constitution than your current government).

I agree the government should have a military arm, certainly one able enough to deliver nukes on top of any invading force. A standing army, as in always-on-line in-a-camp foot-soldiers, is a waste of

Re:I Feel so much safer

[kbielefe]

The government can ethically regulate commerce (i.e. what you can do with your money) because the founding fathers explicitly gave up that particular right to the government in Article I, section 8 of the constitution. Of course, you made the excellent point that neither you nor anyone else alive ratified the constitution, thereby rendering the constitution democratically invalid and the government illegitimate. What right does someone's great^8 grandfather have to speak for me? To be fair though, I think if there were enough votes to defeat a ratification today, we would probably know about it.

Why would the founding fathers do something "stupid" like giving the government authority to regulate commerce shortly after overthrowing a government that abused that authority? On reason is that a neutral third party is needed to make sure both parties are getting a fair deal.

Another reason is when money changes hands, the effects of that transaction are not limited to the two parties involved. There is an aggregate effect on the entire economy. Your $100 gambling loss may not be significant by itself, but many millions of dollars leaving a state or country is.

As to gambling in particular, it is addictive, meaning there is a high probability that people will continue to engage in it despite their own financial detriment. While many people are able to control their gambling, difficulty in debt collection is disproportionately high among gamblers.

Requiring others to absorb the cost of uncollected debts due to gambling addiction can definitely be described as "hurting another citizen." And the gambling industry does not exactly have a history of being scrupulous and putting the needs of the customer first. Not being physically present only increases the odds of being cheated by either side.

As to this particular restriction on gambling, it pretty much retains the pre-internet status quo of giving the states full control over the issue. You'll still be able to gamble online if the website complies with all state laws, and no financial transactions or site traffic crosses state lines.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[werewolf1031]

They're not actually doing anything on my behalf.

Oh really? Do you drive your own vehicle OR make use of public transportation? Thank the department of transportation for keeping up the roads, signs, signals, ad infinitum, however imperfect they may be in your area. Has your country repelled an invasion recently, or perhaps not been invaded in your lifetime? Thank the military. Do you make any use of the postal service? I could go on all day but you get my point.

While I fully agree with your earlier assessment that the government is "out of control" (this online gambling law is a perfect example), and I'd like to add that it's a bloated, overpowered juggernaut that is about 100x the size it should be, it does provide basic services which all of us make use of daily. Regardless of one's opinion of the current administration, to claim that state and local governments are "not actually doing anything on [your] behalf" is utterly absurd.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[fyngyrz]

On reason is that a neutral third party is needed to make sure both parties are getting a fair deal.

Yes, of course. Now, if only the government was neutral, we'd be OK. But instead, it uses these powers to stop commerce in the name of an ethically bankrupt, not to mention false, morality.

Another reason is when money changes hands, the effects of that transaction are not limited to the two parties involved. There is an aggregate effect on the entire economy. Your $100 gambling loss may not be significant by itself, but many millions of dollars leaving a state or country is.

This reasoning is insidious, even poisonous. My personal behavior is not anyone's to modify so that it bulks up an average, society-wide behavior. If people are depending on controlling my personal tastes and interests in order to have the society they want, then what they want is immoral, not to mention impractical, and I will not comply with such coercion. If things are only "OK" if they serve the broad interest, then we'll be killing off low IQ citizens, ripping up handicapped ramps, and exiling the blind, deaf, dumb, and religious. That idea just won't float. If my actions do not directly assault you, your property, or your family, you have nothing left to say at all. Anything beyond that is "mommy", and mommy needs to be committed to the deepest, darkest dungeons -- she's not taken a correct step in decades. Because she's insane.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[fyngyrz]

most states regulate gaming heavily

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that because you have identified this behavior as a money grab, it's ok? If that's the case, why is it that you feel that the government has some inherent right to skim the gambling industry, I mean, aside from the fact that they claim they do?

Next, if a parent feels it is appropriate that they teach their minor child how to gamble -- with real money, if that's their decision -- exactly why is it somehow legitimate that the state steps in and interferes? I mean, again, aside from the fact that the state says they can?

You're simply describing the mechanics of an out of control government. I don't see any justification for either the intrusion into the family, or into the finances or pleasures of an adult. You know the only reason why so many people think they need a mommy? I maintain it is because they've never been able to make a move without thinking that the state is right there to hold their little, teeny-weeny hand. If you never treat a child like an adult, they're going to have a hell of a time getting there. For the more aggressive ones, eventually, they'll reject you and go out on their own anyway. That's the danger of a mommy government. It retards one segment of the population while pissing off the other.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[novus ordo]

I'll take the government's Abrams and Apaches over your squirt gun.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[lightsaber777]

Wait, so I should treat my child like an adult? He's not an adult, he's a child and therefore should be treated like one until he proves he is responsible enough to be an adult. According to your thinking I should sit my 3 year old down and have a man to man talk with him about why he can't run out in traffic? I watched my siblings do this to their children and they still rejected them. Being a parent is not about being accepted by your children. One thing I've learned, and perhaps you're too young to know this yet, is that when I look back on my childhood I am happy that I had strict parents. It pissed me off at the time, but looking back I understand. What you are describing in those who are infurated by the "mommy government" are most likely the people who need the government to prevent them from completely screwing themselves over... and becoming a burden to the rest of us in the process. Healthcare costs out of control... but why can someone limit me from smoking wherever and whenever I want? Sexually transmitted diseases spreading faster than ever, again becoming a weight on the health care system and taking researchers away from diseases that can't be prevented by a little self control... but who are you to tell me what I can do with MY body? Broken homes and broken children because parents have a gambling problem... but don't you dare make it harder for me to gamble away MY money. You are focused only on yourself... and perhaps that's a responsibility you can control. Regulations are for the people who can not control it and become a weight on society because of it.

Re:I Feel so much safer

[fyngyrz]

Wait, so I should treat my child like an adult?

I did not say that. You should treat your child as you determine is appropriate, based upon your mores, the child's ability to deal with the situation as you see it, and the give and take that results from the experience in a maturity-appropriate manner. You are responsible for the developmental curve of your child (unless, of course, you defer to TV and grade school like most American sheeple.) Any attempt to treat any one child like all other children is likely to result in a poor outcome, because all children are different and there is a relatively narrow window during which children develop at a very high rate. If you aren't aware of this, you're not particularly fit to be a parent yet, in my view, but then again, you can do what you want with your kids without hearing any objections from me. Just so long as you don't interfere with my family or physically damage your own.

One thing I've learned, and perhaps you're too young to know this yet

I have three boys. All three are entrepreneurs and millionaires as a result of their own efforts, strong charitable givers, atheists, PhD's, and extraordinary parents within their own families. They're all black belts, physically and mentally fit, all have travelled the world. They're healthy human beings and highly successful by any rational metric. Was I strict? Yes, I was — you have no idea. Stepping out of line resulted in strong correction, and they were forbidden broadcast television and all recreational drugs until they were 18. Did I teach them how to gamble with live funds? Yes, I certainly did. Among many other things. Do I regret it? Not one bit. Would you? Only if you gamble with them.

What you are describing in those who are infurated by the "mommy government" are most likely the people who need the government to prevent them from completely screwing themselves over... and becoming a burden to the rest of us in the process.

Sophist nonsense. No healthy human needs a mommy government until they've been trained to depend on one. There is no sufficient justification to hold down the rest of the population based upon the minimal performance standards of the lowest performance level of the population. As for being a burden, only if you let them.

Healthcare costs out of control... but why can someone limit me from smoking wherever and whenever I want?

The two are not related. You need to do some remedial work here. Healthcare costs are largely a consequence of the mommy problem, specifically lawyers. Your smoking may incur costs upon you, but that's because you're making a personal choice, and there is no need for society to protect you from yourself beyond warning you. If you can't learn, cancer is a perfectly appropriate outcome, and I feel no need whatsoever to "save you from yourself." You're an adult, you should have solved this problem already. Figure it out or die (or fund the doctors... and probably die anyway), and good riddance to you.

Sexually transmitted diseases spreading faster than ever

And this should be resolved by government?!?!?! Talk about a non-solution! As a parent, you can nail this particular problem to the wall, drop the odds for yourself and your kids to very near zero. Again, if you can't figure it out, evolution has people waiting to replace you.

Broken homes and broken children because parents have a gambling problem

Um-hmmm. And every other kind of problem. You are incredibly stupid if you think you can fix these things by legislating away the rights of the healthy. If the parents are determined to be physically damaging their kids, then they've proved they can't parent, and the solution is obvious. Otherwise, it is none of your business. "Broken" children a

hooray.

[kin_korn_karn]

Thank God the congress knows how to protect me from the evil casinos! Four more years!

Re:hooray.

[Library Spoff]

Channel 4 news here in the UK just had a report on this. It said it was in part pressure from the US casinos that's pushed this bill. The UK is opening up to US casinos to allow them to open `Supercasinos` - we'll have to see now what happens there, should they go ahead if British companies are not allowed a level playing field?

Re:hooray.

[east coast]

The UK is opening up to US casinos to allow them to open `Supercasinos` - we'll have to see now what happens there, should they go ahead if British companies are not allowed a level playing field?

Uh, sorry, but what does this have to do with this law? We're talking about internet gambling, not a physical building in a country. AFAIK there is no law to stop me from visiting the UK and gambling in a casino in your country. Just like on cruise liners... while the casinos on cruise liners will not operate in US waters they go full steam in international waters and yet I've never seen anyone arrested for profiting from gambling on a cruise ships casino. If it weren't legal I'm sure some fuss would have been made over it.

This is an apples and oranges situation you're talking about. I can't say with absolute certainty but I'd think that at least some American casinos are owned by foreign entities.

Re:hooray.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me just remind you something: internet is worldwide. Internet is not *american*. So, if online casinos would need US government license to operate (and pay taxes), so, should I presume that online casinos also need brazilian license and, of course, pay brazilian taxes?

Yes, they CAN host Online Casinos somewhere else, and the U.S. can't do anything about it. BUT, the government took a very smart approach, knowing that they can't enforce their laws on foreign countries (therefore foreign web-hosts), they instead are prohibiting Credit Card companies inside the U.S. to process any transactions related to online bets.

I have to say I am indeed impressed by the approach legislators took upon this issue, and IMHO online gambling isn't something I trust (with all the experienced black hats out there Im sure more than one can crack the security in those servers), and who doesn't like the free food/drinks at the casinos :P

Re:hooray.

[mikael]

The biggest losers with the passing of this act, are the British online gambling companies.

Personally, I'd prefer if British financial investors would invest their money on something more worthwhile like medical or scientific research, rather than gambling.

Re:hooray.

[Gadgetfreak]

Yep, it's funny for those of us who can think for themselves. But don't forget the people outside of Slashdot, many of whom cry because they simply cannot maintain control of their finances or their own life.
These are the people that want the government to protect them from all the bad things, and lobby and vote accordingly. I'd be a lot more liberal if I knew people would still be responsible for their actions. But I know that's not going to be the case.

I live in Southeastern Connecticut, home of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos. I visit both regularly, simply because of the restaurants and other offerings. I don't gamble at all. However, I constantly see the people with tattered clothes sitting at the machines, the mother with her 6 year old sleeping on the carpet next to her at 2 AM. I see the signs mounted on all the pay phones with the free # for the gambling addiction hotline... which are there only after lobbying pressured them.

The average American owes thousands to credit card debt already. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying it's a prime example of how people will piss and whine to politicians about the things they don't like rather than make conservative decisions in life. The same people want schools to raise their children for them. And they want the government to protect them from themselves.

You'd be surprised how many people will be happy that online gambling is effectively shut down. And it's probably not going to be the moral conservatives who speak the loudest in favor of it.

Re:hooray.

[Library Spoff]

>>We're talking about internet gambling

You don't say...

The point I am (perhaps badly) making is that US companies lobbied congress as they felt threatened by Foreign gambling sites. Should the UK allow US companies to operate casinos here in the UK when US casinos have damaged British gambling sites?

Re:hooray.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to say to GadgetFreak... bravo. I could not have put it any better myself.

Re:hooray.

[east coast]

The point I am (perhaps badly) making is that US companies lobbied congress as they felt threatened by Foreign gambling sites.

Actually, you're making the point very badly since this law would cover US based gambling sites as well. There's nothing nationalistic going on here.

Re:hooray.

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm, it is exactly the moral conservatives who are behind this

Re:hooray.

[Library Spoff]

>>There's nothing nationalistic going on here.

Sure...
The fact that lots of *tax free* gambling was going ahead has nothing to do with this...

dream on.

Re:hooray.

[EastCoastSurfer]

I'm not sure how many of the online casinos are based in the US, but the brick and mortar casinos here definitely had a hand in getting this bill through. They view the money going online and thus offshore as money that they would've gotten if people were forced to travel to a real casino to gamble. The real casinos have been unable to cash in on the internet craze b/c of current gaming laws. This left the only ones who were able to profit as startups offshore.

Re:hooray.

[Il128]

This is not a "Liberal" law. This is a Republican law. It isn't about protecting the people. This law is clearly about protecting the brick gambling establishments from the virtual ones. Perhaps you should review how and why laws are created in America?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

This law is more about PAC money than it is about morals or people.

How could anyone think otherwise? It isn't like the law effects the mother you describe. What you think she hasn't already pawned everything? Do you really think laws that involve money are passed to protect people from themselves? BS! What about this law?
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/bankruptcy.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.256:
What is really telling about this law is that the wealthier you are the more debt you can escape and the poorer you are the less debt you can escape. Laws to protect people from gambling. Please. They don't care about people.

Re:hooray.

[east coast]

political != nationalistic

These are separate concepts and if tax money was the only thing that was a concern they'd have built this law to not include domestic casinos! Why is this such a hard concept?

Re:hooray.

[drooling-dog]

I'd be a lot more liberal if I knew people would still be responsible for their actions. But I know that's not going to be the case.

Well said. I know it really pisses me off when people who own property expect the government to protect it for them, taking our tax dollars to pay for police and stuff. Or when they make contracts with people who then breach them, they run to the government for enforcement instead of taking it upon themselves to hire a few thugs and break a leg or three.

The difference between liberals and conservatives isn't so much about whether government will perform services for its people, but rather about how privileged you need to be before you deserve the benefits of civilization.

Re:hooray.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be a lot more liberal if I knew people would still be responsible for their actions.

you are kidding, right?

you think repbulicans are responsible for their actions?

was i supposed to mod your comment funny?

look both demicans and republicrats are out to do one thing - take care of themselves and theirs.

don't try and play the "personal responsibility" lies of the republican party... that's right up there with the republicans claiming to be "fiscally conservative" as they pile on previously unimaginable debt upon america's children and fight wars they are unwilling to finance themselves.

"fight wars, get tax cuts! we are republicans and we have total control!"

it is easy to fight wars around the world when others will pay the bills, no?

this is personally and fiscally irresponsible.

Re:hooray.

[pluther]

...this law would cover US based gambling sites as well. There's nothing nationalistic going on here.

Not entirely accurate.

The law outlaws online poker and casino games, which are mostly provided by UK companies.

The law still permits online gaming by companies providing horserace betting, "fantasy" games, and lotteries, which are primarily US-owned.

Although I would guess the protectionism in this case is specifically from the state of Nevada, not from the US as a whole. The state has a long history of aggresively lobbying other states to keep gambling illegal.

Re:hooray.

[PriceIke]

Excellent post.

I should add that those people who are pissing their rent money away at online gambling web sites will just find another irresponsible behavior to partake in once their e-casinos are shuttered. I'd venture to say that no society in the history of the planet has ever been able to legislate responsible behavior. Either you're responsible with your money or you're not.

Re:hooray.

[mosch]

Question #1: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker?"

YES NO DON'T KNOW REFUSED
5% 90% 4.5% 0.4%
49 868 43 4

Question #2: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in Las Vegas?"

YES NO DON'T KNOW REFUSED
5.5% 90.7% 3.3% 0.5%
53 874 32 5

Question #3: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in Casinos on Indian Reservations?"

YES NO DON'T KNOW REFUSED
8.3% 86.6% 4.6% 0.5%
80 835 44 5

Question #4: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker for charitable fundraisers?"

YES NO DON'T KNOW REFUSED
8.1% 86.9% 4.4% 0.6%
78 838 42 6

-Page 1 of 2-

Question #5: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker on the Internet?"

YES NO DON'T KNOW REFUSED
18% 74.2% 7.4% 0.4%
174 715 71 4

Question #6: "Should the federal government prevent Americans from playing poker in the privacy of your own home?"

YES NO DON'T KNOW REFUSED
3% 94.7% 1.8% 0.5%
29 913 17 5

Question #7: "Do you believe the federal government should be managing Americans gambling behaviors on the Internet?"

YES NO DON'T KNOW REFUSED
26.9% 66.1% 6.4% 0.6%
259 637 62 6

Re:hooray.

[psykocrime]

I should add that those people who are pissing their rent money away at online gambling web sites will just find another irresponsible behavior to partake in once their e-casinos are shuttered. I'd venture to say that no society in the history of the planet has ever been able to legislate responsible behavior. Either you're responsible with your money or you're not.

Yeah, personal freedom / personal responsibility. The price of freedom is responsibility. And if the outcome of ones actions are negative, then so be it. It may sound harsh, but I cannot accept the idea of the govt. curtailing (or attempting to curtail) my freedoms because somebody else might do something irresponsible and harm themselves (or even somebody else for that matter).

Not that I'm not sympathetic to people with various problems, such as gambling addiction, drug addiction, etc. But I'll choose how (if at all) I want to contribute to mitigating that problem, and not at the expense of my freedom as a sovereign individual.

Re:hooray.

[Ana10g]

I'd actually disagree with you on this one (though I'm not in favor of what you describe). There is a happy medium here, not too much socialism, not too much capitalism, but just enough of each. For example, take a look at welfare, specifically in the case of a healthy, working aged adult (I'll get to the sickly, disabled, and elderly later). Why should I, as a healthy, contributing member of society, have to pay for this person to sit on their ass, when they are perfectly healthy, and capabale of getting a job, and at least contributing something to society? I realize that not everyone is going to have high paying jobs here, but, my point still stands. Even if you take a low wage job, it's better than nothing.

The United States and her citizens were able to do just fine without welfare until the Great Depression, a time in which the program was necessary to pull the economy out of a major slump. After that point, I would argue that welfare is no longer needed.

One of the benefits of civilization, however, is to help out those that cannot help themselves. Case in point, the infirm, and those not able to work (see, I told you I'd get here). These individuals cannot contribute to society, and I would not advocate putting them out in the street to fend for themselves.

Basically, why should I pay for that welfare mother to have another child so she can increase her welfare check? Seems like she's taking advantage of me, which really pisses me off. Find another way to get money, and put the d1ck down.

Re:hooray.

[melikamp]

Why, I see a great way to legislate responsible behavior. Simply have the government to take charge of all material goods and distribute them according to people's needs. This way no one will have an option to be irresponsible with their money. In fact, there won't be need for money at all. ...Waaaaait a second...

Re:hooray.

[Millenniumman]

What he is saying is that they are less likely to waste all of their money gambling, and as such will be less affected by these laws.

Re:hooray.

[TheBigBezona]

Perhaps instead of spending tax dollars protecting people from themselves, we might consider spending it on educating them instead.

Re:hooray.

[joshsnow]

I live in Southeastern Connecticut, home of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos. I visit both regularly, simply because of the restaurants and other offerings. I don't gamble at all. However, I constantly see the people with tattered clothes sitting at the machines, the mother with her 6 year old sleeping on the carpet next to her at 2 AM. I see the signs mounted on all the pay phones with the free # for the gambling addiction hotline... which are there only after lobbying pressured them

Yes, but if I understand correctly, you're speaking of off-line (traditional) gambling, which has not been banned. I would have thought that the poorer people, the less well educated etc wouldn't be the types who are going to benefit from this ban, because they're far more likely to be frequenting establishments like the one you describe.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think there's a deeper political motive at work. I don't know what it is, but I'm reasonably certain that the US government doesn't have its citizens best interests at heart here.

Re:hooray.

[drooling-dog]

Basically, why should I pay for that welfare mother to have another child so she can increase her welfare check?

Welfare mothers have children because they're the only joy they can look forward to in their lives, the only thing they can call their own.

If I were you, and interested in the quality of the civilization in which we live, I'd be asking what I can do to educate those children so they'll have a shot at leading productive lives themselves. But I'm sure you've never thought of it quite that way. Because their mother was on welfare, they deserve to lead miserable lives themselves, don't they?

By the way, you worked your way through college with no help from anybody, right?

Re:hooray.

[stinerman]

Why should I, as a healthy, contributing member of society, have to pay for this person to sit on their ass, when they are perfectly healthy, and capabale of getting a job, and at least contributing something to society?

If the person is simply lazy, then yes, they should be kicked the to curb and told "good riddance". Now if there are really zero jobs in their area, then we have a problem. The government should try to make sure everyone who wants a job can have a job. This is not always the case.

The United States and her citizens were able to do just fine without welfare until the Great Depression

Really? For certain values of fine, I suppose. I don't know the poverty numbers from 1776 - 1929, but I don't think it was as rosy as you tend to think. And then, AFAIK, society was different then. Communities were closer knit and people were happier to help.

Basically, why should I pay for that welfare mother to have another child so she can increase her welfare check? Seems like she's taking advantage of me, which really pisses me off.

The welfare is for the child, not for the mother. I haven't really found a good solution to this problem. I don't like, as you don't like, having to pay for a welfare mother working on her 8th kid, but I really don't want to have children born to a mother who is effectively using them as an ATM from getting the care they need. These children didn't ask to be born to a shitty mom and dad (if he's still around), and they can't fend for themselves, so they'd seem to be in the "disabled" category and should get government assistance.

Re:hooray.

[Ana10g]

By the way, you worked your way through college with no help from anybody, right?

Actually, I did, as a matter of fact. State schools are the only way that I could afford to go, and I made it through in 5 years. I wouldn't have it any other way, it certainly taught me the value of a good work ethic (which a lot of college students who have everything provided for them don't get).

Welfare mothers have children because they're the only joy they can look forward to in their lives, the only thing they can call their own.

Bullshit. having 10 kids versus 11 kids is not extra joy. 10 is plenty of joy. seriously.

Re:hooray.

[ArtStone]

As a fellow Libertarian, do you see government having any role is making sure that the operators of gambling establishments are running an honest game? Or that they disclose the house's "take" on things like slot machines? Should the revenue from casinos be taxed?

Especially on the Internet, where there is no physical place of business, and all of the win/lose decisions are being made by computer code, the potential for fraud is enormous. (where is the cry for a paper audit trail because we can't trust the software?)

When someone claims a casino stole their money, is their any role for the government to get involved in the dispute? If the government had no jursidiction over the casino, it lacks the information to know what happened and why. Even if there are laws, a government has no jurisdiction outside of its borders.

If the government doesn't regulate an activity up front, yet people demand that it solve the problems the lack of regulation has created - then we wind up where we are now... Most people do seem to want government to "protect" them, even at the cost of giving up their personal freedoms. This is what governments do (see: State of Fear, Michael Chricton 2004)

In summary, it looks like the money funnelled through Jack Abramoff and other lobbyists paid off.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109 -4411

Note that this Bill passed the House by 317-93 (R 200-17, D 115-76, I 1-0)

All 5 representatives from Connecticut (home of Foxwood Casino) voted Yes.

Re:hooray.

[drooling-dog]

State schools are the only way that I could afford to go, and I made it through in 5 years.

That's my story as well. Two semesters off to raise money for tuition and expenses, then back into the fray, with a few loans along the way. I like to think that the taxpayers of my state made a good investment by subsidizing my education, and I'm sure you feel the same way (your writing skills look pretty decent, so it appears that they did).

Bullshit. having 10 kids versus 11 kids is not extra joy. 10 is plenty of joy. seriously.

That's a boatload of kids. Once you get much past 3 or 4 I'm thinking that maybe something else, like fatalism or a lack of timely access to contraception, might be involved. Poor and uneducated people all over the world tend to have a lot of kids regardless of whether welfare is available and rewards it. The best predictor of how many kids a couple will have is - ta da! - how educated they are. That's why you and I put together don't have 11 kids, even though the tax laws encourage it.

Meanwhile, our government is doing its damnedest to make it more difficult for the po' folks to get either contraception or education, so you'll have plenty to complain about for years to come. Would you really want it any other way?

Re:hooray.

[RockDoctor]

We're talking about internet gambling, not a physical building in a country. AFAIK there is no law to stop me from visiting the UK and gambling in a casino in your country.

- First, find a casino.
- Then sign up for a year's membership (refundable, maybe, but you still need to be a member to get in. TTBOMK, the laws may be relaxing slightly). Oh, you'll probably need to find a proposer and seconder who know you and are willing to put their names to your behaviour. That's probably down to individual casino's rules.
- Then gamble your money away.

Casinos are far fewer and further between in Britain than I believe is the case in America. And also far less used. My home town (Aberdeen, Scotland) has, I believe a casino, with rules much as described above. But it's been 15 years since I met anyone who'd been to it.

The GP-poster's point was : UK laws are being changed (largely it would seem at the behest of foreign [read: American] gambling companies to make it much simpler for foreign [read: American]-styles of losing money to operate over here, and in a reciprocal move, the US government is acting to block a legitimate UK (largely) business from operating in America.
This would be some use of the concept "reciprocity" that hasn't yet made it to the dictionaries. Pretty much what's to be expected though.

I heard that fossils of a poor bookie had recently been found, but I don't believe the reports. The Earth isn't old enough for such an improbable event to have occurred, let alone been fossilised. (UK English "bookie" ~= "gambling financier", whatever that is in American English)

Re:hooray.

[geminidomino]

Dude, what the hell? GP didn't say a damn thing about republicans OR democrats.

I'm glad you realize that both sides of that coin are the kinds of scum normally only found in Vegas, but geez. I don't think he meant the word "liberal" to mean "Democrat." For starters, he didn't say it with NEARLY enough vitriol to fall into the camp that uses it as shorthand for "satan worshipping, baby eating puppy-kicker." Plus, the rest of his text suggests, in context, that he means he might be less cranky about the government's gunpoint charity programs if there was any indication that the recipients thereof *deserved* charity instead of the whole absolution-fest that is the current vogue among the whiny side of the aisle.

Re:hooray.

[ErroneousBee]

Actually, us investors like to diversify into a range of sectors, to protect our investments against bubbles such as this online gambling one.

Not that there are that many scientific companies in the FTSE250, I can only think of GSK. Most medical research is done in institutions or in startups funded by specialist investors.

You could invest in Huntingdon Life Sciences, they need backers.

Re:hooray.

[pizzaman100]

Interesting, but it seems to be a bit of a push poll - ask a bunch of questions people agree with, and then then hit them with the internet gambling one at the end. They should have just asked: Should internet gambling be legal?

Re:hooray.

[rizole]

...it's funny for those of us who can think for themselves.

Oh come on...this is Slashdot, we all think the same here. Wait...you're not new here are you?

Re:hooray.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should internet gambling be legal? No.
Should internet gambling be illegal? No.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Re:hooray.

[tinkerghost]

Actually, you're making the point very badly since this law would cover US based gambling sites as well. There's nothing nationalistic going on here.

IIRC there are no US based gambling sites that are not directly tied to US B&M casinos because there are laws & regulations which prohibit them. That's why they are all located offshore to begin with.

Re:hooray.

[mosch]

I guess it's possible to read bias into it, but I think that's a bit silly. It asks about poker in all the different venues where it is routinely offered in America.

If you just ask about the Internet, you aren't going to be able to differentiate between people who want all gambling banned, and those who just see the Internet as being different.

Additionally, this poll was not about online GAMBLING, it was about poker in particular. Most poker players are simply trying to get an exemption for games of skill and will grudgingly live in a world without blackjack and craps, even if our inner libertarians think those games must be legal.

Circumvention

[UbuntuDupe]

It seems (and I've never used a gambling site before and I don't advocate breaking the law) that to get around this, all you have to do is deposit the money to a "legit" offshore intermediary who then places your bets in your stead. Unless the government wants to audit all offshore businesses for gambling, everything looks kosher and compliant with the law. What am I missing?

Re:Circumvention

[nizo]

The only drawback I can see is you might end up in an offshore prison without access to a lawyer or any due process, since the only reason you would do this is to fund terrorist attacks, right?

Re:Circumvention

[nuzak]

> What am I missing?

Money laundering laws. The gist being that they don't care what middlemen your money goes through, it's the endpoints that count.

Re:Circumvention

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it seems to me that the correct thing to do is leave America. Save a seat for me on the last plane out.

Re:Circumvention

[nuzak]

I'm not entirely sure you'd want to try leaving through an airport. Maybe we won't have fenced off Canada when you do want to leave ;)

Re:Circumvention

[elrous0]

What am I missing?

The fact that the NSA and IRS keep a close eye on all bank transactions between U.S. citizens and foreign banks to look for money-laundering?

-Eric

Re:Circumvention

[psykocrime]

and I don't advocate breaking the law

You should give it a try sometime. It's what all the cool kids are doing. Just don't hurt anybody else
or violate their rights.

Re:Circumvention

[NightRain]

It's not terribly hard to bypass. There are numerous sites out there such as NETeller, Firepay etc that are effectively the same idea as Paypal. You deposit funds to them, and through them, to the online casino

Re:Circumvention

[Spokehedz]

It's actually easier than that. Don't use money. No, really! Just use 'tokens' or 'BonusBucks' or whatever the hell you like to represent money on your site.

One Currancy Unit = X BonusBuck(s) and then your around the whole issue entirely.

I think that you also have to offer at least one non-game thing to purchase with the BonusBucks... Like, hats or a T-Shirt or something.

IANAL, and I have NOT RTF bill/law/whatever... Just using logic to solve the issue.

Re:Circumvention

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I haven't read the law itself, but from the article it would that it would be illegal "for credit card companies" to collect the debt, not the act of gamblining itself. Where I live there happen to be three Indian casinos within an hours drive, technically seudo-foriegn territory, in the state it is actually illegal to gambil. So how is this any different ?

Re:Circumvention

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this complicate the so-called "War On Terror?" that makes use of such information? Everyone who wants to gamble online within the US has no choice but to use an offshore account. The NSA might have amazing processing power to process all those transactions, but I'll bet the number of false-positives will increase.

Re:Circumvention

[element-o.p.]

and I don't advocate breaking the law
You should give it a try sometime. It's what all the cool kids are doing.

Oh, and our own government! (w.r.t. NSA Wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc.)

Re:Circumvention

[elrous0]

You're assuming that the "War on Terror" isn't just an excuse to spy on citizens for lots of other stuff to begin with.

-Eric

Re:Circumvention

[GutBomb]

this law makes any transaction where the end result is a payment to an online casino illegal, so netteller, firepay, and paypal can no longer be used for this type of transaction

Re:Circumvention

[NightRain]

But the law only applies to banks doesn't it? If that's the case, it's impossible to define a transaction where the end result is a payment to an online casino. You use your credit card to top up your online payment service account. Then, you use said payment service to, at a different date, for a differing amount, to fund a deposit to an online casino. You also buy some merchandise, and make other non gambling related purchases. Exactly which transaction /with the bank/ was done to make payment to an online casino?

Re:Circumvention

[GutBomb]

what you speak of is "money laundering" which is already illegal.

Re:Circumvention

[Best ID Ever!]

You aren't missing anything. The issues prevented by this bill seem to be:

1. How difficult will it be to go through intermediaries, and will the average person bother?

2. How many of the sites will comply (as PartyGaming and 888 have) so as to avoid legal troubles?

There are rumors that they put a last minute provision in exempting the tracking of checks, since the burden on the banking industry would be too great, so the answer to question #1 is probably that intermediaries might not even be necessary.

As for question #2, there will always be someone to pick up the slack given the amount of money at stake. It looks like the US online gambling "center of gravity" may shift from the regulated environments of Europe to the loosely- or non-regulated environments of the Caribbean and Costa Rica.

Re:Circumvention

[NightRain]

How is that money laundering? Back in the days when paypal could be used for online casinos, that's exactly how it worked. You'd buy things here and there, and you could also deposit some funds to a casino. How does it count as laundering when it's literally everyday use, with no greater goal in mind?

Re:Circumvention

[sig226]

If you are stupid enough to gamble online, you not smart enough
to use offshore banking.

It will never stick

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

5 will get you 10 they won't enforce it.

I'm having a hard time caring...

[halivar]

YRO aside, it is currently illegal is gamble in most of the United States anyway, except certain states and indian reservations. So, in this case, I don't really feel that anyone's "rights" are being trampled. All that's happening is that a loophole by which US citizens could gamble in foreign countries without leaving their houses has been closed.

Whoop-dee-doo.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[HUADPE]

Well, your rights were being trampled before, and now they closed the loophole by which you were able to secure your right to waste your money. Gambling is stupid, no doubt (you WILL lose), but you SHOULD have the right to make your own stupid decisions. Just because a government is tyrannical does not mean its people don't have rights. They are just having their rights significantly violated. The greater question here is where was the credit card lobby. They are going to lose serious money on this (1% fee on $12bn of transactions, PLUS the fact that people who gamble tend to have high debt and revolve credit at high interest rates).

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[psykocrime]

YRO aside, it is currently illegal is gamble in most of the United States anyway, except certain states and indian reservations. So, in this case, I don't really feel that anyone's "rights" are being trampled

Rights do not depend on laws; either to grant said rights, nor can rights be revoked by law. If something is a right then it's something
you can do without asking anybody's permission, period. You can voluntary accept the authority of some entity (maybe called "government" or something) to restrict *your* rights if *you* want to, but don't make the mistake of assuming that govt. has any inate authority to restrict anyone else's rights.

As such, I will say that free people have a "right to gamble" and have most likely never granted the United States government - or any other government - any authority to restrict it. As far as I'm concerned, any law restricting gambling is invalid, null and void and should be ignored.

Basically it goes back to the old saw... "We have exactly as much freedom as we are willing to demand and as we can defend."

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[aztec rain god]

Powerball much?

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Alchemar]

How many of those states have goverment lotteries, church run bingos, or allow internet transactions for the Stock market? If only a select few (goverment, certain religions, and the wealthy) are allowed and others are not, then somebodies rights are being trampled.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Tet]

YRO aside, it is currently illegal is gamble in most of the United States anyway

Rubbish. It's currently illegal to gamble on certain outcomes (sports, card games, etc.), while being legal to gamble on other outcomes (share prices, for example). It's a completely arbitrary distinction, that has no logical rationale. Either you believe that gambling is immoral and should be banned or you don't. To selectively allow some types of gambling while banning others is just bizarre.

Disclaimer: I make my income from online gambling, so I probably have a certain amount of bias. Currently very little of that is with US bookies, so this will have very little monetary impact on me. But it's still a stupid decision.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[shawnmchorse]

It wasn't so much a loophole as a gray area, because there wasn't a specific law covering it. All we had was the Federal Wire Act, which said that placing sports bets by phone was illegal. Hence the recent high-profile arrests of the heads of Internet sports books, at least one of which I know had a toll-free phone number set up in the U.S. to do exactly that (take sports bets by phone). Now Internet gambling isn't a gray area.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, that's how governments come into being. It's a social compact whereby you delegate and/or give up certain rights to a governing body. Why? Because democracy is ineffective above a certain small number. You honestly can't go out and solicit 300 million individual opinons. The contentious issue is just where the line is drawn, and what rights are retained by whom. Even I - a socio-anarchist libertarian - know and respect that. I just want the line drawn granting the government a bare minimum of "rights" and responsibilities.

Yeah, you can ignore the law. Just prepare to be *justly* punished. Things like this are to be changed through the political process. Failing that, the judicial process. Failing that, through revolution.

Do you really think we're going to make it to revolution over online gambling?

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[mspohr]

Actually, gambling is legal in most states (ever heard of your state lottery?... many states also allow casinos) althought it is highly regulated.

The issue is that online gambling is not regulated by the US or US states and is in competition with US companies.

I think this legislation has much more to do with competition than morality...

Ever hear of a lobbyist named Abramoff? He bought and sold politicians to protect his gambling clients... he got caught but our corrupt politicians are continuing the game.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[BoomerSooner]

Lol, welcome to America. Where Republicans talk about "securing the country" but generate a whole new generation of jihadists. Where Democrats have no backbone and are too disorganized to feed on the ineptiude of the current administration. Where both parties are in the pocket of large companies who donate large sums to their campaigns. And where an ignorant population doesn't look past the negative campaigning to see who will *actually* work for their benefit, not just speak from talking points and do whatever the hell they want.

That being said, you have no right to spend money on whatever you want. It is a government instrument and as such can be regulated by the government. Just barter with them, i'll put 110 chickens on NY vs Chicago with only 10% chicken juice!!! BOOYAH I'll be eatin for weeks!

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[DragonWriter]

YRO aside, it is currently illegal is gamble in most of the United States anyway, except certain states and indian reservations.

Well, no, gambling is restricted in most jurisdictions, but you'll be hard pressed to find any jurisdiction where no form of gambling is legal in the US. Heck, in much of the country, state governments are directly involved in gambling operations.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[xoundmind]

Gambling is stupid, no doubt (you WILL lose)
You obviously don't know much about football and gambling in general.
....Up $370 already this fine season. Which is not uncommon for those in the know.
Yes, I am breaking the law and no, I do not give a shit.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Stalyn]

What denotes what are rights and what are privileges? Either God or a group of people who agree on what "rights" are not to be infringed. (They tend to cite God as the judge of such rights). We call this social contract a government.

Without a government enforcing a social contract, there are no universal "rights". But just what you may think is your so called "right". However your neighbor may think it's in his "right" to take your property. Who will be the arbitrator of such a conflict, the person who is the strongest? Is that the kind of world we want to live in? The strongest have the rights and the weak have none?

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[NewWorldDan]

Exactly. But apparently credit card companies don't have a right to process your payments to the casino.

This law does, however, bring up a point that I think needs to be addressed by a constitutional amendment: All bills should be reasonably related to a single subject. Also, politicians that tack an amendment like this on to an unrelated bill should be publicly tarred, feathered, and barred from office for life.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Tanktalus]

Breaking the law? Really? That all depends on where you made your money.

If you and a group of friends put money in a pot to make a wager, and then the winner(s) take all the money from the pot, leaving no "overhead" for the establishment in which you make the bets (e.g., your house), it's perfectly legal. What's not legal is some person or organisation taking a cut from the wagers, without a valid license from the jurisdiction the gambling is occuring in (e.g., casino, charity raffles, etc.)

And, if what you're doing really is illegal, it seems a bit brash to advertise it on the 'net. Not that I think any law enforcement is going to notice or pay attention.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[OakLEE]

Rights do not depend on laws; either to grant said rights, nor can rights be revoked by law.

Accepting this premiss, then how do we go about determining what a right is?

As such, I will say that free people have a "right to gamble"

Ok, so if merely declaring something a right is enough to make it so, then I can declare that people have a "right to take from other people that which the takers want" (i.e., a "right to steal") and refuse to follow any laws to that prohibit it.

I am not disputing your assertion that there might be a "right to gamble," but I would like to see better logic for asserting it than "It is because I say it is."

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[defaria]

What denotes what are rights and what are privileges?

In this country it's called the Constitution.

Either God or a group of people who agree on what "rights" are not to be infringed. (They tend to cite God as the judge of such rights).

There is no god.

We call this social contract a government.

No you call it that. There is no social contract or at least I've never been asked to sign any papers. Also the government does not guarantee to enforce any such social contract so it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on - which it ain't.

Without a government enforcing a social contract, there are no universal "rights".

Bullshit! Rights exist even if they are not enforced by anybody. They are just unexcercised.

But just what you may think is your so called "right". However your neighbor may think it's in his "right" to take your property.

Property rights are innate.

Who will be the arbitrator of such a conflict, the person who is the strongest?

You'd be hard pressed to show that that is not often the case....

Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

But that IS the kind of world we do live in son. You're just now finding that out?!? Or are you still that naive?!?

The strongest have the rights and the weak have none?

BINGO! Though I wouldn't say that the weak have none, it's demonstrable that the strong have more. And, really, this is exactly as it should be, evolution shows us this.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Stalyn]

My point being is that "rights" are a human construct; they do no exist outside of human experience. God is only brought into the debate when someone like yourself declares that "rights" are independent of human reality. How do you solve this paradox, that rights are "inalienable" without a God?

Also for a long time we lived in a world where the "strongest" (not strong by some sort of evolution criteria but rather strong because of human institutions) preyed over the "weak". We didn't like it and we formed Constitutional governments. By the way the Constitution is a social contract.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Jaeph]

My version s/steal/gamble/:

-----
As such, I will say that free people have a "right to steal" and have most likely never granted the United States government - or any other government - any authority to restrict it. As far as I'm concerned, any law restricting stealing is invalid, null and void and should be ignored.
-----

I'm closest to a libertarian in philosophy. I too do not like rules restricting gambling (along with most "victimless" crimes, e.g. seat belt laws). However, your argument is so generic as to be pointless, IMO.

-Jeff

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[fyngyrz]

It's a social compact whereby you delegate and/or give up certain rights to a governing body.

Funny, I didn't enter into any social compact. I've sworn no oath, signed no statement, affirmed no lord, master, or committee. You must be very confused in this regard.

Just prepare to be *justly* punished.

Hmm. OK, let me get this straight. A bunch of people I would never, ever have chosen to represent me, claim they do without any kind of authorization, direct or implicit, on my part. They make up laws based upon some metric I also have no truck with, and should these laws subsequently interfere with my pursuit of happiness, undertaken without harm to any other citizen, I will be "justly" punished?

The fact is, the ruling class embodied by the government enforces these ridiculous laws by exercise of overwhelming power, coercion at its finest. No more, no less. There is nothing "just" about it. Justice is a completely defrocked and humiliated concept in America.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[fyngyrz]

My point being is that "rights" are a human construct; they do no exist outside of human experience.

There is no need for human rights to exist outside of human experience. They exist, nonetheless, and are no less critical for all of that. Rights come about as a consequence of one or more person's actions and possessions affecting another person or persons. They don't spring up fully formed from religion. Even the oldest religious tomes simply codify the human experience of the times. Often poorly, I might add.

How do you solve this paradox, that rights are "inalienable" without a God?

Serious answer: The obvious way, the usual way, is to kill you, imprison you, or take your property when you interfere with them. Certainly makes it more difficult for you to alienate them, doesn't it? And God never had to step in at all.

This works because the idea of an inalienable right is a very practical one for building an orderly social construct, such as a family, club, town, state, or nation. It doesn't hurt when you're trying to invent a religion, either.

By the way the Constitution is a social contract.

The constitution is a document that specifies how the government is to be (ready?) constituted.

The constitution is not, by any means, a "social contract." No individual or collection of people 200+ years ago can contract you — that is, sign you up — for anything. No matter how well-intentioned they were at the time. That would be illegal under laws that predate the constitution by centuries and still exist today, and it is also ridiculous in ethical terms. Only you can sign yourself up for such a thing, just as only you can sign yourself into marriage or slavery or debt or service obligation.

Consequently, unless you specifically signed something that says you will "comply with the terms of the constitution" or some such drivel, or sworn a public oath to that effect, or affirmed in writing the same, you are in no way bound by anything written in that document. What you are is subject to the power of the government, enforced by coercion when and if they decide you unacceptably non-compliant with the laws they have created. This is an issue of exercising power. No more, no less. Anything else you have in mind is purely sophist nonsense.

The idea was that the constitution would control how the government was constituted and thus, prevent abuses of the types that those people were subjected to from their current government (England's then-monarchy.) They did a very credible job, unfortunately, today's government pays only the barest attention to the constitution, making laws left and right that blatantly violate the terms that the government is constituted under. This, for any thinking person at least, shows that the government is no longer operating in compliance with the charter it was formed to hew to; which in turn (if it is even possible!) makes the laws created by said government even more doubtful as to legitimate ethical underpinnings.

The best that can be said of the American people today is that as a power-weilding group, they are woefully uninformed, dominated by a government that no one ever authorized, and that their liberties and human rights have been wholly swept away beneath a tide of charter-less lawmaking comparable only to Rome's last days, where manifestly similar lawmaking led directly to Rome's downfall.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I'll help on your final sentence so it matches the currently accepted reality.

s/strongest/richest/;
s/weak/poor/;

All done.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Anonymous Coward]

leaving no "overhead" for the establishment in which you make the bets (e.g., your house), it's perfectly legal.

That entirely depends on state law. I knew one state were zero cut gambling is legal and one where it isn't. I'm sure there's a webstite out there listing each state, but I don't care that much.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Stalyn]

You seriously misunderstand the concepts at hand. Social contract is not something you sign. Also "inalienable" mean's to be inherent.

The philosophical question at hand is how do human rights come about? Are they a human construct and codified in a social contract or are they intrinsic to a human being? If you believe they are instrinsic to a human being, these rights take on a metaphysical origin. They are deemed inherent by some creator or God. Perhaps in a rationalist sense these rights are a priori, which is another way of bringing God into the debate.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[dwlovell]

You were born into a society that had an established set of rules and a government that is largely by and for the people. Just because you didn't vote for anyone or enter into any specific contract doesn't mean you aren't bound by the rules of that society.

The great thing about this country is that we have a codified system of laws, so it is established what is illegal and what is not according to a code. Other countries don't have codified laws, so you can be arrested or executed for no specific reason.

Part of the sacrifice of choosing to live in any community is that you must submit the the laws dictated by the beliefs of the masses. (ie: you wouldn't let someone live in your house unless they generally submitted to your rules, you wouldn't let someone live in your neighborhood if they didn't agree to the rules of the neighborhood)

There are plenty of other countries you could have been born into where you have no rights and any offense to the "rulers" can get you get killed or imprisoned without explanation or trial.

If you dont like obeying laws you didn't have input on, go live somewhere where there aren't any laws, and see how peaceful your life is.

-David

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[smitingpurpleemu]

You're a MORON. Just because you disapprove of the law doesn't mean you have the right nor the moral obligation to violate it at will. The law was created by a legal government with which the people have agreed to a social contract for the past 230 years. You do NOT have the right to opt out, otherwise everyone would opt out in their own selfish interest and the world would revert to a state of war of all against all that Hobbes predicted.

Your libertarian garbage has been tried repeatedly in idealized communities with upper-class people (so you can't blame the masses for their failure) and has failed horribly each time. Locke would puke if he saw what you wrote. It's funny how far people have perverted his views.

Sure, violate the law in your own "moral judgement." Then go to jail, and suffer all the shit that goes on in the big house, and the vast majority will neither care nor empathize.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[xero314]

I like this idea. I think upon reaching the age of consent all people must sign a agreement with the rest of the citizens of the country (since governmental officials all act with the power granted them by the countries citizens) or else renounce all protections give to other citizens (in other-words, sign the contract or run like hell because it will be open season on your ass if you don't). By signing the contract you agree to working within the societally acceptable methods for handling interactions, transactions, disputes or whatever else. If you at any point violate the contract (say by committing a act outlined in the contract as criminal) you renounce all protections give to those who have maintained their contractual agreements (again, run like hell).

Seriously, if you are old enough (or ballsy enough) to have control over your own life then leave the country if you don't like it. If you really want to stay but don't like the rules then work towards fixing them. Don't just sound like an asshole spouting out neo-libertarian bullshit like it's some sort of "natural right." I only hope that when someone either rapes you, maims you or steals from you that you don't ask for any help from governmentally appointed law enforcement since they have to contract with you either. In all honesty if you don't agree to the contract of the country you are in then you no better (and hardly even different) than a foreign invader.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[dircha]

> The philosophical question at hand is how do human rights come about?
> Are they a human construct and codified in a social contract or are they
> intrinsic to a human being?

Such a perspective escapes the Randian.

He has already provided his answer: "Rights exist even if they are not enforced by anybody. They are just unexercised." Further, he says, "Property rights are innate."

Indeed, "Though I wouldn't say that the weak have none, it's demonstrable that the strong have more. And, really, this is exactly as it should be, evolution shows us this."

Eureka. It is therefore it ought to be!

Libertarianism (as in the Libertarian party and Ayn Rand) is an excellent psychological rationalization for an egotistical, narcissistic life. At least this is to what I have always assigned its apparent appeal.

Lacking any ground upon which to found his rationalistic philosophy, he founds it upon nothing at all. The only reaction he is capable of, like a broken record, is to place his fingers in his ears and shout out his assertions over and over, louder and louder, uncompromising: "My rights are inalienable and innate!" "It is therefore it ought to be!" The intensity of his assertions is the measure of their truth.

This makes debating a Randian a pointless task. Having no common ground, the "debate" is a quarrel to vilify, insult, and humiliate the opponent. Fortunately for civilization, Libertarians excel at losing this exchange in the public sphere, leaving them primarily to troll the dark alleys of the internet.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[dbcad7]

"The law was created by a legal government"

hmmmm, I'll have to ponder that one.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[dbcad7]

I beleive that this law, is too vague. So therfore I have decided that I will reinterpret it myself. I cite the precendence for doing so, as George Bush and the interpretaions of the Treaty of the Geneva Convention. In that case an agreement of the world, (can't get much bigger than that) is much like the Constitution "just a god damned peice of paper"

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[fyngyrz]

Just because you didn't vote for anyone or enter into any specific contract doesn't mean you aren't bound by the rules of that society.

On the contrary, that's precisely what it means. No one gets to legitimately obligate anyone else by fiat. That is based in English common law (and Roman law before that.) It predates US law and is still the basis for it. I can't sign you up for a loan, and you can't sign me up for slavery. Further, the government can't sign me up for anything either, except by using coercion, because I do not consent. Does the government use coercion? You bet. Each and every day.

Part of the sacrifice of choosing to live in any community is that you must submit the the laws dictated by the beliefs of the masses.

(A) no it isn't, (B) I don't, and (C) the laws are not a consequence of the "belief of the masses." Our current laws are a consequence of a very small group of people who are completely out of control, in gross and extreme violation of their charter, essentially owned by corporations and PACs, and generally lower than pond scum.

Now, these may be people that you want to control your life by virtue of some imaginary nonsense you've cobbled up, but I decline. I do respect the power they wield and I am wary of it, and modify my behavior so as to not get caught in the gears, but that is in no way indicative of any respect I have for the government itself. Only its weapons and coercion have my respect, because frankly, they're the only things the government can offer that are worthy of respect.

If you dont like obeying laws you didn't have input on, go live somewhere where there aren't any laws, and see how peaceful your life is.

I'll do what I choose to do. That'd be because you have absolutely zero input on my choices. Are we clear?

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[dwlovell]

I think your messages sum up why you are so at odds with government and laws established by others. I respectfully disagree with your arguments. If my neighbor decides he has the right to burn my house down to keep him warm, I expect the laws established by society to force him to pay for the damage and be punished for the behavior if his intent is found to be malign. By that same expectation I know that I am limited in my actions according to what society has deemed lawful. If you dont believe in the shared expectation of societal rules, then I do not quite understand how you expect a society to progress. I can only imagine your view is anarchy, but maybe you see it differently and I just am not enlightened yet.

Fortunately you live in a society where we will protect your right to believe what you want. As long as you dont violate anyone else's rights it is good to have an opposing viewpoint. We can only grow stronger through discussion.

I never implied I had any impact on what you do, I was just stating the obvious that if you were to choose to live in a place where you did not have to submit to any laws, that you would likely have a lesser quality of life and possibly a lack of one. If you took that as I was telling you what to do, then I apologize because it wasn't my intention.

-David

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[EzInKy]

No one gets to legitimately obligate anyone else by fiat. That is based in English common law (and Roman law before that.) It predates US law and is still the basis for it. I can't sign you up for a loan, and you can't sign me up for slavery.


Interestingly enough English slave law (and Roman slave law before that) also predated US slave law.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[fyngyrz]

By that same expectation I know that I am limited in my actions according to what society has deemed lawful.

The problem here is that many people think if it is lawful, it is "OK." Similarly, many people think that if it is unlawful, it is "not OK." This is simply self-deception.

It is not OK to burn down your house, presuming only that you have not burned down someone else's. Your right to swing your fist ends where the next person's nose begins. That principle arises more or less immediately in the attempt to get along in units of multiple individuals, no matter how you characterize the unit. That is one of the basic human rights; it uniformly works towards harmony, supports effort sharing, privacy, and much, much more.

Similarly, you don't get to coerce me into doing things on your behalf I do not wish to do, because you are effectively "swinging your fist" by using coercion. And of course, vice-versa; I don't get to do this to you.

If we can agree that we should pursue a shared goal in some manner, that's fine, and our behavior should be governed by the form and extent of our agreement.

This is how I expect a society to be able to progress. Shared mutual interests. Shared mutual respect. Mutual agreements. The problem with a government of coercion is that there is no "mutual" characteristic, there is only force. Your agreement is not required. Hence, the ethics of the government are bankrupt.

On the other hand, tolerating a government like the US government is how I expect a society to regress. And unsurprisingly, that is exactly what we see today. Habeas corpus? Vanished. Right to speedy trial? Vanished. Torture? Order of the day. Privacy? Gone. Ex post facto revisionism and double jeopardy? Business as usual. Corruption, particularly financial, in government? Uniform and extraordinarily deep. Right to representation? Gone. Land and and monetary and property grabs? You bet, no problem, and no recourse. Suppression of the ability to pursue happiness (specifically, happiness that does not trample other person's toes)? Of course. Devaluation of currency? You bet — that dollar you hold is backed by trillions in debt, which means that every time you use it, you are devaluing your work and work product to a degree you can't even comprehend (which is why most people can't see the problem, of course.) This government has invaded other countries, utterly failed to deal with numerous problems at home that it is chartered to deal with, stepped all over literally thousands of issues it has absolutely no charter to legitimately be involved in at all (like marriage, drug use, mutual wagering etc., the government regularly lies to our faces about its goals, activities, and past performance... and sure, I could go on and on.

The government was constituted as a servant of the people. That was intuitive, cleverly done, and well thought out. Unfortunately, paper is not much of a controlling element, and the government has mutated itself into the all-powerful mother of the people, and mom is a frigid, grasping old hag with fangs, bad breath, and endless debt that sucks the very life from her (forcibly) adopted children.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[dwlovell]

In an idealistic world, I think your solution is very elegant and utopian. I think the reality is that most people lack "Shared mutual respect" and will steal from their neighbor in a heartbeat if there is no coercion to back everyone up. All societies must institute some level of coercion to keep the baser elements from ruining the freedoms that everyone else enjoys.

I agree we dont have some of the freedoms we once had, but despite all the problems we have today, I still think people are living longer, happier lives than ever before. Poverty, starvation and infant mortality rates in this country are nothing compared to what they used to be 50 years ago. People from all over the globe still clamour to get into this country for all the opportunity and freedom it offers. Dont get me wrong, I still think we should fight our government with our votes to regain some our basic freedoms, but I just don't think our current system is totalitarian or unreasonable.

I live in a smaller town where I could actually get elected as a city counselor if I wanted to run. I have seen that the past city government workers can make a big impact in this community. I dont think we are powerless to make change in the system we have now.

Anyways, I dont think we will be changing each other's minds anytime soon, but I have enjoyed the discourse.

-David

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Aquila Deus]

Seriously, if you are old enough (or ballsy enough) to have control over your own life then leave the country if you don't like it. If you really want to stay but don't like the rules then work towards fixing them. Don't just sound like an asshole spouting out neo-libertarian bullshit like it's some sort of "natural right."

In a nation without any sort of nature right, the people could vote to kill all those rich bastards like bill gates and take their money away - and that's exactly what the communists did.

The difference between a free world and a non-free one is not democracy, but the principle to protect everyone's basic freedom. Without this the US is no different than nazi germany or communist china and it doesn't deserve to exist.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Cederic]

and/or permit specific amendments to be voted down without stopping the rest of the bill.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Darby]

I only hope that when someone either rapes you, maims you or steals from you that you don't ask for any help from governmentally appointed law enforcement since they have to contract with you either.

In point of fact, he would be perfectly justified in expecting help from the governmentally appointed law enforcement since he has already paid for it.
The fact that he paid for it at gunpoint is completely irrelevant to the fact that he did pay his protection money.

The issue of whether or not he'd be silly to expect any *worthwhile* help in excahnge for his payment is a completely different subject.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[xero314]

The difference between a free world and a non-free one is not democracy, but the principle to protect everyone's basic freedom,

And through what process do you propose that we determine what these so called basic freedoms are? You will not find a single act that all people agree is a freedom people should have. Currency and Property are certainly not part of any natural give right. You might be able to argue that life is a basic right, but even then you will people that argue for restrictions on even this right (such as; does one that takes that right from another retain the right to it themselves). Neo-Libertarian Natural Rights are a joke, they are a made up set up beliefs accept on on faith with no scientific or social consensus to back it. So you have to decided who choses what the rights of the people are or else they will all disagree which leads to mayhem and chaos. It's the same flaw that Anarchy (no mater how good the concept maybe) has. So a system of determining rights agreed upon by the people is the only way that a society can exist with any semblance of stability.

In a nation without any sort of nature right, the people could vote to kill all those rich bastards like bill gates and take their money away - and that's exactly what the communists did.

Just to clear up a common misconception, neither the Soviet Union or China were ever communist regardless of the belief of the ruling party. Calling those countries Communist is like calling the United States Democratic. All there of these countries, Soviet Union, China and the US, are Republics (as is most of the world), with the only major difference being where and how the wealth of the countries was distributed (which by the way should not be confused with communism which has no system of wealth distribution).

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[xero314]

In point of fact, he would be perfectly justified in expecting help from the governmentally appointed law enforcement since he has already paid for it.

I'm going to call shenanigans on this whole topic. The person that started it is most likely gainfully employed. In the United States to be employed and receive payment for that employment you would need to sign a serious of agreements with the employer and the US government (in the form of W4 or other tax forms). No one has put a gun to anyones head and forced them to sign and employment agreement or initial tax form(this may have happen in very rare circumstances but it's certainly not common practice). So in the end I hope this person is bound by the agreements they have signed, and it's there own damn fault for not knowing the full ramifications of that agreement. There are a lot of people in the world that have never signed a US tax form, and most* of them do not receive any US protections or are bound by US law.

The one thing you can always count on in the US is the right to chose. If you have not violated the laws of the country you can leave any time you like.

*And yes I would be all for taking away the protection of rights of anyone not willing to be bound by laws of the country they live in.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Darby]

I'm going to call shenanigans on this whole topic.

Your call of shenanigans is denied due to extreme bogosity.

The person that started it is most likely gainfully employed.

Blagh blagh signed tax forms etc.

That wasn't the point to which I responded.

You said (essentially) that he would be unjustified in expecting police protection were he to be victimized by criminals.

I said (essentially) that regardless of his feelings about any of the above, that he has already paid for that exact protection and hence deserves it as much as you or I.

Had he said that he has refused to ever pay any taxes (or if you could show that that was the case) then you would have had a reasonable point.

So that particular argument of yours did nothing to refute any of the arguments he made.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[xero314]

My point was I was retracting my original statement because the original poster has already voluntarily taken part in the United States political system so he should be protected like anyone else. More importantly was that this was not through any form of coercion or at gun point. The original arguments where after all...

Funny, I didn't enter into any social compact. I've sworn no oath, signed no statement, affirmed no lord, master, or committee.

A bunch of people I would never, ever have chosen to represent me, claim they do without any kind of authorization, direct or implicit, on my part.

...which I have shown is complete bullshit if he is gainfully and legally employed in the United States. All of that without even taking into account the unsubstantiated claim...

They make up laws based upon some metric I also have no truck with, and should these laws subsequently interfere with my pursuit of happiness, undertaken without harm to any other citizen, I will be "justly" punished?

...which just made me realize how full of shit the original poster really was.

From a personal perspective I'm just sick of people interested in reaping the benefits of a government, such as the protection of certain rights, but think they should not have to also help support the government.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Darby]

My point was I was retracting my original statement because the original poster has already voluntarily taken part in the United States political system so he should be protected like anyone else.

Fair enough. That was really my only gripe.
Personally, I'm somewhere in between you and he although leaning more his way as our debt spirals out of control due to some maniacs who are actively subverting the system which I did sign on for (according to your definition). I'd say since they broke the contract and are currently wiping their asses with it that it's pretty much null and void.

Anyhow, that's really neither here nor there. You did reasonably address my point of contention for which I thank you.

Re:I'm having a hard time caring...

[Aquila Deus]

Neo-Libertarian Natural Rights are a joke, they are a made up set up beliefs accept on on faith with no scientific or social consensus to back it. So you have to decided who choses what the rights of the people are or else they will all disagree which leads to mayhem and chaos. It's the same flaw that Anarchy (no mater how good the concept maybe) has. So a system of determining rights agreed upon by the people is the only way that a society can exist with any semblance of stability.

So it's okay for a nation to kill all the rich men and take their properties, if more than 50% of people agree?

impact on gambling stocks

[Rude Turnip]

"The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."

I bet they did. Shit, someone's knocking at my door.

Sour Grapes

[TheWoozle]

Congress is just upset that they can't effectively tax online gambling because most of the companies are offshore. It's a case of sour grapes - if we can't tax it, you can't do it!

Re:Sour Grapes

[Tiger4]

But they could if they wanted to.

Just tell the (US) credit card companies they can't do business with a casino unless the transaction is clearly marked GAMBLING in the charges statement. Then tell them to produce a statement every year in January totalling anything that is marked that way, a lot like a 1099-G. The Govt will assess X% witholding on the transactions, through the CC company, and the gambler has to file for it or forfeit the money. If the CC company doesn't comply, they get hit with 10x penalties. Some will cut off the casinoes, the others will start to report.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Blob Pet]

Actually, many of the U.S.-based casinos have been advocating for regulated online gambling which would allow for the US government to tax the industry. Companies like MGM would like to open up gambling sites but can't. Even UK-based companies have stated that they'd be more than willing to pay taxes to operate legally in the US.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Politburo]

Several of the large companies operate out of the UK. In fact, the executives of these companies are BEGGING the Congress to regulate the industry (regulate != shutdown). Who ever heard of an industry that's willing to pay taxes? But that was all tossed away by those "moral" GOPists.

Re:Sour Grapes

[spottedkangaroo]

It is exactly this type of argument that shows congress didn't outlaw it because they can't tax it (because they could); they outlawed it because of God.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Stalyn]

Why not pass a law that all online gambling companies wanting to do business in the US must have a headquarters located within US borders and therefore taxable?

If it was just about taxes they wouldn't be banning all online gambling, just the kind they can't tax.

Re:Sour Grapes

[UbuntuDupe]

Sure they can tax it. The winnings have to be paid out electronically somehow, don't they? The bank that receives it will report the income for tax purposes.

Re:Sour Grapes

[TubeSteak]

Actually, many of the U.S.-based casinos have been advocating for regulated online gambling which would allow for the US government to tax the industry.

I think this Administration missed an opportunity by shutting the doors on legal/taxed online gambling because the Federal Government desperately needs more cash & online gambling would be a big, fat, steady paycheck. Since it is all computerized to begin with, taxes could be automagically shunted straight to the Treasury Dept. The Feds wouldn't even need to know your identity.

BUT, I don't think it is something they could have sold to their Conservative base. Here is why:
1. It is a tax
2. The Conservative fundies hate gambling
3. It would require more Gov't (in the form of regulations)

Re:Sour Grapes

[Tired_Blood]

I disagree. Congress already has an effective manner to tax all forms of gambling, in that even though the IRS wouldn't be able to collect from the casino, individuals would still have to report their winnings to them on the 1040. The IRS will still collect, just not as much.

However, I see this as mostly about competition with brick&mortar 'destinations'.

Without a monopoly on gambling, where would Las Vegas be? Without Las Vegas, where would Nevada be?

I feel that this business model monopoly is the real reason. If you could gamble from home, you would be less motivated to visit such locations, and that would hurt other industries. The money made from the tax on actual gambling (from both casinos & patrons), while significant, is a fraction of what would be lost overall if these destinations were to lose their monopoly status. At a minimum, you'd need to also account for the sales tax lost on gas/travel, lodging & dining when doing the comparison.

And finally, include the number of voters that are employed by these industries. That number is the real currency in politics.

Anyway, there's more to this than just reduced gaming-tax revenue.

(Sorry if this post is oddly written - I blame it on the caffeine)

Re:Sour Grapes

[AnalogDiehard]

So how does this differ from overseas banking and imported manufactured goods...?

Re:Sour Grapes

[Ruzty]

Unless Harrah's or Jack Binion or Trump are who you consider to be God, that's way off base. It was sponsored by and lobbied for by US brick and mortar gambling operations. The tax and moral issues are red herrings to distract people from who is really preventing them from their chosen leisure time activity.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm....what the hell are you talking about? How would they know that the individual or company was affiliated with a casino operation? Should they do due diligence on both parties in every transaction (billions of them per day)? What about cash winnings from brick and mortar casinos that you deposit into a bank account? Should they refuse said deposits until you can provide a signed, notarized affidavit attesting to the origin of the funds? What about your proceeds from that garage sale? Shall we tax them that way too? What about little Janie's babysitting money?

Gambling winnings are already taxed in as much as people report them on April 15th, along with every other form of income.

That is not a bank's job and they are in no way organized to handle it. Commercial banks serve no functions like this and what you suggest would take a massive regulatory overhaul of all private banking establishments AND the IRS. Good luck.

Re:Sour Grapes

[terrymr]

So god likes this website : http://www.youbet.com/ ?

Re:Sour Grapes

[Tuzanor]

3. It would require more Gov't (in the form of regulations)

Versus the government resources needed to enforce this? Oh wait, war on drugs, prohibition, etc...if you make it illegal, the bad things go away.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes. In every instance you mentioned, you should be taxed. I think banks should actually ask you where you got the money from, and add that to a comment field each transaction. (Gift, Winnings, Income, etc.) Putting money into your account that you won from Brick and Mortar casinos, should be taxed. Little Jannie's babysitting money is some form of income, should be taxed. (Don't forget that if you make under a certain amount per year you are exempt or something.) Little Billy's Lemonade stand on the corner, should be taxed and also have FDA standards and licensing requirements normal business owners need, imposed on them. Taxing everyone fairly and equally is the only way that we will be taxed so much that people will complain and they will lower taxes for all.

Re:Sour Grapes

[sehryan]

I don't know if I agree with that line of thought.

I am now MORE inclined to want to go to Las Vegas and try my hand at a real game of Hold'em, because I have been able to play online. Without online poker, I wouldn't know how to play poker well enough to dare sit down at a table in a casino. So now that I cannot continue to improve my skill, as I cannot play online anymore, and I don't know enough people who actually enjoying playing as much as I do to get a home game going, I am less likely to have any real motivation to go to Las Vegas.

Not to mention, look at all the folks who started out online and are now "professional" poker players (legit or not). Pros tend to move to Vegas and play in casinos more than online. That steady stream of fresh meat is going to get significantly smaller, probably to pre-online poker days.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bank that receives it will report the income for tax purposes."

Sorry, they can't. When you open an interest bearing account (savings, interest bearing checking, CD, etc.) you are notified of and consent to the reporting of interest income as a condition of account establishment. That's why you get the handy interest income statements for use in tax preparation. Commercial banks have no mechanism to report "gambling income" and have no customers' agreements to do the same. This real time auditing of every bank account in the US by every private bank, credit union, or cooperative to pick out those transaction related to gambling is grossly impractical. How would they know that the USD 2000 deposit from XYZ corp. is gambling related? As long as the account #s are legit and the transactions go through, there's no human in the loop to even care. If it's under the 10000 "red line" nobody will ever know, unless you're audited, in which case you probably have larger problems.

Creating a foreign gambling compnay watchlist is similarly unrealistic. Transactions with watchlisted entities suspected of being terrorist-related are almost certainly surreptitiously monitored, but it's not like your local BOA has a list of such persons/companies - it would be kept secret for obvious reason. Plus, it takes the whole intelligence community to come up with that list in the first place.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

You can learn how to play these games without playing against other people, or without real cash.

Most of the online gaming sites include demo (or practice) games. You had to have learned from somewhere before you started risking money. Then again, some people just dive in to such things without research, hoping to learn everything firsthand.

Re:Sour Grapes

[UbuntuDupe]

They don't have to know if it's "gambling-related". They see "oh, you got a mystery $600 from somewhere". Then, the IRS sees an additional $600 in income you have to pay taxes on. So, Congress is getting its cut (which was the point of this subthread, remember? Er... you did remember that this subthread originated from the allegation that Congress doesn't like these places because it's not getting any tax revenue, right?). Now, you could just not report that and "roll the dice" again, but it's as risky as not reporting independent contractor income.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, yes. In every instance you mentioned, you should be taxed."

Duh. This is what you hopefully due every April 15th. And that's what I wrote. Read and try again.

The major difference is that right now, there is no government official giving consent everytime you are to receive a single penny every single day of the year. That's retarded. Worse, you suggest that private entities (banks) do this. Sure, let's have a citizenry spying and informing on each other - we're well on our way, anyway.

"Taxing everyone fairly and equally is the only way that we will be taxed so much that people will complain and they will lower taxes for all."
Now I only have a BS in economics, but do me a favor, and find out how many Fortune 500 companies have paid ANY amount in taxes in the last year? Last 10 years? I think you will be shocked. If you want fair, don't look to the 92% of poorest Americans. The real thieves steal billions at a time in board rooms, not Johnny's lemonade stand (though as a pointed out in my post-which you clearly didn't read-, all income should be reported on 15 April.)

"I think banks should actually ask you where you got the money from, and add that to a comment field each transaction." I truly hope you are kidding. The day this starts happening is the day I leave the USA for good. Unless I am being legitimately investigated, it is nobody's business where my money comes from. Something doesn't add up? Audit me. Does that yield evidence of criminal or statutory infractions? Then try and convict me. That's the way it works (well, worked). Why treat everyone like a criminal? While we're at it, would you like to know if anything the wife and I do in the bedroom is against one of the laws in my state or city? Better get a G-man in here to watch (insert G-spot joke here).

Re:Sour Grapes

[Dan Slotman]

I can think of a dozen bars within 20 minutes of me (Saint Paul, MN, USA) that have regular poker tournaments. Some have entry fees, but most do not. The prizes differ from location to location, but most have cash prizes. The bars make money from their expensive drinks, while the contestants get a fun evening of poker. I think you are not looking hard enough for a game.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, to be insistent, but I deal in financials and taxation everyday. It. Cant. Happen.

How do they know that is $600 in "income" as strictly defined in the tax code? What schedule is that USD 600 subject to? Was it already taxed (i.e. counted as "income" such as, umm, your SALARY which is reported separately by your employer.) Is every dollar that goes through every one of your accounts income? Of course not! In fact, for the average Joe/Jane, I bet a vast majority of it isn't. Remember, in the world of taxation, you depositing your pay check isn't actually "income" - it was "income" the second your employer reported it.

If it were, then at the end of the year you could very easily be taxed based solely upon the the total mount of moneies that passed through the totality of your accounts. Your method would change the entire system of of reporting what you made at the end of the year, and making right with the IRS, to only being allowed to pre-cleared allotments by the government. There are names for a system like that.

Think about it, you want every transaction to be personally categorized and reported by a competent, government certified tax preparer or auditor in real time. We are talking BILLIONS of transaction per day. The day that happens we'll see an unofficial cash banking system spring up, a la the Arabs' Hawagli network.

This is all akin to "how many angles can fit on the head of a pin" because changing banking statutes and rewriting the tax code just ain't going to happen, not to mention adding the person-power (both private and federal) it would take to scrutinize every transaction by every person at every financial institution. As it stands, they currently computer-generate info on interest income, debt interest, and flag transactions over USD 10000 and that's pretty much it for most of their customers. Even known cases of fraud under a certain amount aren't routinely investigated because the cost of investigation and prosecution far outweigh this despicable "cost of doing business." So good luck, if you really think this has even the remotest possibility of becoming reality.

Re:Sour Grapes

[UbuntuDupe]

What the hell is your problem? I'm not advocating any kind of system here. I'd like there to be far less taxes, and far more transparency in it all. My point is just that they already have ways to detecting gambling winnings. I also noticed that in all your talk about income, you -- oops -- missed the vital case of the independent contractor, who clearly hasn't paid taxes on the income before it hit the account.

When you don't report that $600, you do still run the risk of a random audit, and you'll be in deep trouble for not reporting it. And believe it or not, while most of the money you spend from the account is not subject to a tax, very few of the transactions are money coming in. If it's the direct deposit from employer (or physical check) they have a record to match against the payrolls. If you just got a huge chunk of change that didn't make its way to your 1040, you will have to explain it.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Anonymous Coward]

> However, I see this as mostly about competition with brick&mortar 'destinations'.
> Without a monopoly on gambling, where would Las Vegas be? Without Las Vegas, where would Nevada be?

They would be in the same place as after many other states began allowing gambling. The advent of local gambling opportunities has _helped_ Las Vegas as people develop an appetite for gambling and what to go to a "real" casino.

Re:Sour Grapes

[megaditto]

I agree that it is not just about the taxes. I rather suspect it's about campaign contributions. Online gamblers are less dependent on whims of the local politicians than their physical counterparts, and hence invest less in lobbying.

I am not sure if this ban is an extortion attempt or a payback to the physical gambling industry's lobbyists, but what we know for sure is that there's some major cash involved either way. To wit, roughly half of Jack Abramoff's transactions were related to gambling of some sort.

The fact that such ban plays well with the 'family values' voters does not hurt either.

Re:Sour Grapes

[XO]

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that Binion's and Harrah's are in -with- the Internet gaming groups, as Harrah's, Rio, Binion's made more in the last 3 WSOP main events than they had in all previous WSOP main events combined.

The casinos don't make a -lot- on poker, compared to the other things that make them money, but it is absolutely guaranteed.

Re:Sour Grapes

[sehryan]

I started with the Play money games. The problem that I found is that most folks in the play money games don't play "like they should." Pushing with something like 9 high, no draws, after a raise. The only way to build better skills is to play real money, be it online or in person.

Re:Sour Grapes

[sehryan]

Great idea, if gambling was legal in the state I live in.

Re:Sour Grapes

[Ruzty]

Oh they want online poker to flourish, no doubt about it. The issue comes in controlling the flow of cash through play of the game. If they can get people excited and playing online but leave them wanting to play for real money (because it's not allowed online), their only choice will be a U.S. based* brick and mortar casino. It's all about power as having it means you get the money that follows.

* Yes I know about the corner cases for those living near Canada or the gulf. But the U.S. casino companies have their fingers in those ventures too.

Damn, Gotta Love the Wording.

[Pantero Blanco]

According to the bill's title, the act was already illegal and all it is doing is enforcing it. If that's the case, why was a bill needed? Shouldn't it have been law enforcement's problem?

Re:Damn, Gotta Love the Wording.

[shawnmchorse]

It was a giant grey area previously. The only law on the books was the Federal Wire Act, which forbids placing sports bets by phone. It took quite a stretch of the imagination to have that apply to Internet gambling. Nonetheless, companies in the U.S. were heavily pressured to not accept advertising from them with vague threats and such from government agencies. Now the gray area isn't nearly as gray. It's not like we don't have a history of misleadingly named legislation anyway (PATRIOT act, anyone?).

Re:Damn, Gotta Love the Wording.

[terrymr]

As I understand it the law isn't going to change anything, it doesn't redefine the type of wagers covered by the wire act. The only precedents involving the wire act and gambling relate to placiing bets on sporting events using the internet/telephone/telegraph/smoke signals etc. The government has not won a single case involving other types of wagers ... indeed there is a ruling (I don't have the cite handy) which says that the wire act DOES NOT apply to casino style games PERIOD. Justice unsucesfully appealled this ruling.

Re:Damn, Gotta Love the Wording.

[Marillion]

why was a bill needed?

Because elections are six weeks away.

Social conservatives are a fickle electorate. In order to ensure they turn out, Republican strategists toss stuff like this out there to appeal to them.

Re:Damn, Gotta Love the Wording.

[RpiMatty]

I think this bill/law is a DUPE.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.214 3:
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act - from 2003.

what happened, they had to keep trying to get it passed?

Yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Degenerate gamblers.

Looks like the gambling sites are cornered now..

[Jack Pallance]

If only there was some way for companies to draft money directly out of a checking account!

Second Life

[Anonymous Coward]

So one of the biggest industries in Second Life is gambling. Considering that the money used, Linden$, can be freely traded with other currencies does this apply?

Re:Second Life

[Tekoneiric]

I asked that same question a week ago and someone marked it as redundant but didn't provide any insight on why or the question in general. I think Linden Labs is seriously going to have a to take a look at the issue because they or the people providing the gambling establishments in there might find themselves in trouble under the new law.

Does this affect trying to get money out?

[bryz]

The Way I understand it is, you put in some money and play with that. Will they now block being able to get your money back out. And with online casinos looking to close their US operations will they just take the money in these accounts with them?

Re:Does this affect trying to get money out?

[voice_of_all_reason]

The same thing that happens if bookies try to do it. If you place a bet on a game and win, then the guy says he never heard of you when you show up at his place to collect, what are you going to do? Call the cops?

Re:Does this affect trying to get money out?

[shawnmchorse]

They're specifically trying to prevent funds going from the U.S. to overseas gaming sites. Taking money from them has never been and still won't be a problem (unless you fail to report winnings to the IRS of course!). It's primarily the publicly traded gaming companies that are pulling out the the U.S. market now, and you can bet (haha) that their shareholders wouldn't look favorably on them taking money and running as it were. These sites can only exist and take in profits as long as their customers trust them. There's no reason for them to steal money when the players will willingly give it to them in the long run.

Re:Does this affect trying to get money out?

[dr_canak]

It seems to me,

this law prevents the *electronic* transfer of money into or out of online, offshore gambling websites. When creating an account, you typically charge a credit card whatever dollar amount you're willing to risk. Someone posted above that credit cards don't work. I can assure you some credit cards, from US issued banks, do. As far as getting money out, online gambling sites generally pay you via a bank drawn check (from an offshore bank), which is typically fed-ex's or delivered via Western Union. It's not an electronic transfer on the backend. I suspect this is one way to put the onus of reporting winnings on the person gambling. If I run a balance of $1000.00 for sports betting and ultimately cash out at the end of the NFL season with $3000.00 worth of winnings, that $3000.00 (less the vig) comes to me in the form of a check. It's up to me to cash/deposit the thing and report the winnings.

At least that's what i've been told.
jeff

Should we fear for the Internet?

[krell]

"Congress is just upset that they can't effectively tax online gambling because most of the companies are offshore. It's a case of sour grapes - if we can't tax it, you can't do it!"

There have been movements, pretty much shot down, for Congress to tax the hell out of the Internet. (Some state governments have actually managed to add news sales taxes on out-of-state Internet sales: interstate commerce protections be damned!). Should we let Congress tax it soon so they don't end up destroying it?

Re:Should we fear for the Internet?

[jandrese]

As far as I know, almost every state tries to tax you on internet purchases. You'll see a line on your state taxes that says something like: Consumer Use Tax, and they ask you to report the value of everything you bought and didn't pay sales tax for during the year, including Internet and Catalog purchases.

From what I understand, the states have no means of tracking that information so compliance is very low.

not necessarily bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone realize how much money is flowing out of the U.S. and into the pockets of these casino operators and foreign governments? While I do not agree with the moral justification for the passage of this bill, the economic justification is quite sound. Why should the U.S. allow foreign companies to suck money out of the U.S. economy, and then not even pay taxes back to the U.S.? It makes no sense. This type of bill would do better for the country, IMO, if U.S. companies who payed U.S. taxes were allowed to operate online casinos. That way, money would be kept inside the U.S. and the casinos could be regulated by the government, like Las Vegas casinos.

Re:not necessarily bad

[PlusFiveTroll]

The hypocracy! Aren't these the same people yelling 'Global Economy' at the top of there lungs, and signing free trade agreements with every country that has cheap labor. I guess the world economy only counts if it give the U.S. and advantage.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Pantero Blanco]

I don't see a legitimate reason for gambling to be illegal. If someone wants to gamble, smoke, shoot themselves in the foot, or whatever, let them. And no, you don't have to force everyone else to support a safety net for them in the form of (publicly funded) rehab or health care. As for the "think of the children" bunch: if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.

Re:not necessarily bad

[voice_of_all_reason]

Why should the U.S. allow foreign companies to suck money out of the U.S. economy

Because that's what The People want? Does there need to be any other reason?

Remember, government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.

Re:not necessarily bad

[partenon]

Let me just remind you something: internet is worldwide. Internet is not *american*. So, if online casinos would need US government license to operate (and pay taxes), so, should I presume that online casinos also need brazilian license and, of course, pay brazilian taxes?

Re:not necessarily bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is what the people want, in a sense. People want to gamble. They do not really care whether the company that provides the service pays U.S. taxes or not - as long as it provides the service they desire. I agree with you that people should be allowed to gamble if they want to (morals are not the issue here), only I believe there is a better way - companies operated in the U.S., under U.S. regulation, paying U.S. taxes.

Re:not necessarily bad

[ADRA]

You're looking at the problem in reverse. The reason these companies are off-shore is because of the laws in place by the US. Its like me trying to open up a winery during the prohabition. It'd be plain stupid. Why would these people host gambling sites in America if its been illegal from the get go? If they're pissed off that the economy is loosing money, then they could change the laws which would encourage local gambling. They won't so this is the only viable solution to plug the hole.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the people pushing for this have been the traditional casinos, gambling is big business in the U.S. and they don't like their customers being "poached" by online gambling. So they team up with the religious right who oppose gambling om moral gounds and big business wins again.

The corporatists win again.

Re:not necessarily bad

[grazzy]

If this is new information to you my friend, I must ask you for which rock you're sleeping under. It seems like a very silent and lonely place. I have been searching for such a spot.

Re:not necessarily bad

[soft_guy]

As for the "think of the children" bunch: if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them

When President Clinton was in office, he signed legislation that makes it far easier for highly irresponsible people to permanent lose custody of their children. I wish more people who voted republican were aware of this fact.

Re:not necessarily bad

[OakLEE]

I guess the world economy only counts if it give the U.S. and advantage.

That last statement is kind of spurious. It'd be more appropriate in the case of U.S. steel tarrifs, where the primary motivation is the U.S. protecting its own over a professed committment to globalization. If this law banned gamblign using foreign owned businesses, then I would agree with you.

Instead, this law is Congress exercising its police powers enforce it's percieved notions of morality in the U.S. It's more like a country banning U.S. movies because they did not like the sex or violence present in them.

Re:not necessarily bad

[drzhivago]

Offshore internet gambling isn't taxed. There's the reason they want to block it.

Re:not necessarily bad

[daveo0331]

That used to be the case, until the B&M casinos saw how many people were going to Vegas for the World Series of Poker after winning online satellites. The whole poker boom, which B&M casinos are making a lot of money off of, would never have happened without online poker.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Surt]

take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.

The foster child care system is already overloaded, and no one seems willing to pay higher taxes to support such a position. It's net cheaper to society to ban illegal gambling than to do what you're suggesting. If you can change that equation, I think you'd find your position getting more traction.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Ubergrendle]

As a Canadian, we've learned the hard way that free trade = americans trade for free. Numerous appeals panels over the past decade have consecutively proven that Canada does not unfairly subsidize our softwood lumber, yet there's a huge tariff imposed at the border. We won all the appeals, and guess what? US policy is basically 'you can't make us stop'. WTO takes years (decades?) to allow for counter-duties and tariffs, which essentially peanlises your own citizens for unfair trade practices.

So while American lumber continues to destroy spotted owl habitat, all the cheap + BETTER QUALITY lumber (words of the US housing industry, not mine) remains unharvested. Congrats american consumer - you lose too!

The US always has, and always will, be a big bully on the global economic scene. The question now is whether that advantage trickles down to the american consumer, or if the new robber barons can re-establish their hoovervilles.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like me trying to open up a winery during the prohabition

Actually I'm very anti-habitation. I prefer to live in the trees. Oh, did you mean prohabit? Well in that case, yes, I like my habits very much! I want more habits! Habits for all!

Re:not necessarily bad

[shadwstalkr]

if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.

What a fabulous idea. Hey, everybody is decrying childhood obesity now too, so let's take kids away from fat people. The majority of Americans think that same sex couples are unfit parents, so we'll have to take their kids.

Yes, this is a ridiculous extension of what you suggested, but I think it illustrates the problem with the idea of taking children from bad parents and giving them to good parents: for the most part, nobody can really say which parents are good and which are bad until the kids are grown up.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Anonymous Coward]

So while American lumber continues to destroy spotted owl habitat, all the cheap + BETTER QUALITY lumber (words of the US housing industry, not mine) remains unharvested. Congrats american consumer - you lose too!

One of the main complaints from the US has always been that Canada gives its lumber an inappropriate advantage because they don't care as much about the environmental effects of logging.

For example, from the well-respected Sierra Legal Defence Fund, we have the report: Logging to Extinction: The Last Stand of the Northern Spotted Owl in Canada

It's been four years. Canada has done nothing to protect the northern spotted owl, and their numbers continue to dwindle in Canada as their habitat is destroyed.

But what can you expect from a country where it is legal to hunt grizzly bear, even though they are officially listed in Canada as being endangered!

Re:not necessarily bad

[mlorentz]

You've got my vote. What party are you a member of? I'm guessing the "common sense" party. Where can I sign up?

Re:not necessarily bad

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

So we need to federally fund research into a TIME MACHINE!!!

Then we can retroactively take screwed up adults from thier parents!

Re:not necessarily bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they are-- it's just that they regard that bill as "anti-family". har har

Re:not necessarily bad

[mlarios]

and as a bonus, they appeal to some in the conservative religious crowd.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Millenniumman]

Why should the U.S. allow foreign companies to suck money out of the U.S. economy, and then not even pay taxes back to the U.S.?

Because it is the people's money, and the people are actively choosing to send it out, even at their own loss. Supposedly, we have a government of the people.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Nethead]

Er, like Haliburton, Tyco, et al? It's WHOS foreign companies that make the difference.

Re:not necessarily bad

[StikyPad]

When President Clinton was in office, he signed legislation that makes it far easier for highly irresponsible people to permanent lose custody of their children. I wish more people who voted republican were aware of this fact.

We are.

      - Highly irresponsible Republicans

Re:not necessarily bad

[o2sd]

Why should the U.S. allow foreign companies to suck money out of the U.S. economy, and then not even pay taxes back to the U.S.?

I agree, in principle. There is currently 200 billion AUD leaving Australia tax free each year. Almost half of that is to the US. So if you can push this proposal forward I will support you as we would most dearly like out 100 billion back you blood sucking leeches.

Re:not necessarily bad

[mjwx]

The same over here in AU, Were "not allowed" to renegotiate the right to sell quality Australian beef and other foodstuffs on the US market for 20 years (18 now).

Re:not necessarily bad

[Jedi Alec]

The US always has, and always will, be a big bully on the global economic scene.

I doubt anyone will dispute that it is right now, but who's to say they're not cutting themselves short in the long run? For all you know 10 years from now Mexico decides they really want that Canadian lumber and big boats, just outside US territorial waters to avoid random searches, will sail north and south all the time while waving to the people peering through the tiny holes in the big concrete wall on the shore. The world economy is constantly shifting and at some point the US will have to make some changes.

Re:not necessarily bad

[BagMan2]

Perhaps if Canada would let us dump our wheat and other produce on Canada, we would let them dump their lumber on us. I wonder why Barnes and Noble and Borders don't open stores in Canada.

If not for Canadian protectionism, you Canadians wouldn't be paying so much for tomotoes. It's really the consumer that loses out. I would love to build a house for less by using cheap Canadian lumber too. What happens is both governments put into place laws that protect certain industries at the expense of their own consumers.

Now if we could only get Canada to pay their fair share for medical drug research, instead of pleasing poverty and having a government monopoly negotiate third-world pity-pricing for drugs.

Re:not necessarily bad

[DMUTPeregrine]

Actually, the government derives its power from its monpoly on violence. The people may have put it in place, but it's the fear of the police officer's gun that keeps the government in power.

Re:not necessarily bad

[init100]

Why should the U.S. allow foreign companies to suck money out of the U.S. economy, and then not even pay taxes back to the U.S.?

Good question. One could also wonder why the rest of the world should allow US companies to suck money out of the local economies and evade local taxes in the process. A certain company that is frequently mentioned on Slashdot comes to mind, namely Microsoft. I heard they had some 40 billion dollars in revenue last year, and most of those money has to come from outside the US. I'd gladly shut that stream off.

As I understand, the US has a trade imbalance in that it is receiving more foreign money than it is spending abroad, so asking to further escalate this imbalance by disallowing foreign companies to "suck money out of the US economy" seems more than a little bit hypocritical, in that US companies already "suck out" more money from foreign economies than foreign companies "suck out" of the US.

Re:not necessarily bad

[indifferent children]

I guess the world economy only counts if it give the U.S. and advantage.

No, the world economy only counts if it gives the extremely wealthy more wealth. Who is this 'U.S.' of which you speak? Do you mean the millions of workers who lost their jobs (some of whom got back 'a job', lower hourly wage, part-time, no healthcare)? Hey, I'm 'U.S', where's my benefit? Or maybe you mean U.S. companies like Stanley Tools; no, wait, they're not a U.S. company (they re-incorporated on a Caribbean island to get massive tax benefits). Maybe you mean the U.S. government that now gets less money from Stanley Tools than they used to, gets less income tax from unemployed and underemployed workers than they used to, and has to pay unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, and pick up the tab for a lot of uncollectable medical bills.

The 'U.S.' does not benefit from globalization. The extremely wealthy benefit from globalization.

Re:not necessarily bad

[indifferent children]

if they have kids whom it's negatively impacting, take them and give them to someone who can take care of them.

How many mentally impaired, crack-addicted six year-olds can I sign you up for (not even touching the issue of interracial adoption). We already have a severe shortage of foster parents in the US. Taking away every child who is 'negatively impacted' by their parents' stupidity would be disasterous.

OTOH, Congressman Foley has generously volunteered to open his home to nine troubled teenage boys.

Re:not necessarily bad

[stan_freedom]

As a foster parent, I happen to be part of the "'think of the children' bunch". As a quasi-libertarian, I also strongly disagree with government interference with on-line gambling and many other government interferences. The irony is that taking a child from his/her biological parent is a much greater government interference than restricting potentially self-destructive behavior. For the whole personal responsibility and less government mantra to work, we must either accept the fact that many children will live a childhood of abuse and neglect because it's not the government's problem, or we must have effective non-governmental measures for dealing with the fallout of free will.

The real problem today is that there aren't enough foster parents to provide meaningful and effective transitory care and there certainly aren't enough people willing to adopt 6 year old children of parents with gambling problems. In my state, Florida, there are literally thousands of children and teens stuck permanently in overcrowded foster care or group homes with no chance of being adopted. Anyone who casually suggests that the answer is to simply take children from bad parents and give them to good parents needs to put up or shut up.

Re:not necessarily bad

[Ubergrendle]

Perhaps if Canada would let us dump our wheat and other produce on Canada, we would let them dump their lumber on us. I wonder why Barnes and Noble and Borders don't open stores in Canada. Both are legitimate gripes and I agree with you -- Chapters/Indigo is a virtual monopoly, and both our countries heavily subsidize agriculture for political gain. Its a major gripe that 3rd world nations can't develop their economies, since most basic economies start agrarian based. In both of these cases, however, I'd argue Canada and the US are both guilty of protecting domestic agriculture and manufacutring/retail industries. Both are exempt from NAFTA for the most part too. If not for Canadian protectionism, you Canadians wouldn't be paying so much for tomotoes. It's really the consumer that loses out. I would love to build a house for less by using cheap Canadian lumber too. What happens is both governments put into place laws that protect certain industries at the expense of their own consumers. Agree completely. Now if we could only get Canada to pay their fair share for medical drug research, instead of pleasing poverty and having a government monopoly negotiate third-world pity-pricing for drugs. Sorry, I disagree here. Canada pays fair share for medical research. Its just we didn't extend patent protection to the drug companies in a progressive fashion since the 1950s. Its still only around 10-20 years before we allow the manufacture of generic alternatives. It should be noted that the drug companies do not HAVE to import their patents/brands/drugs to Canada, but they choose to do so knowing that they'll be subject to much more lenient patent protection. The market is still good enough. Our healthcare industries vary greatly, we're public and the US is private. But our drug laws are the same, barring the lengths acceptable for patents.

Re:not necessarily bad

[rizole]

Nice protection racket suggestion there.

Re:not necessarily bad

[shadwstalkr]

But will we have the wherewithal to go back in time to get Jean Claude Van Damme's help when rogue agents start abusing the technology for their own gain?

Predictive Markets?

[lsm2006]

The greatest loss would, IMHO, be the end of the emergence of Predictive Markets, which are uniquely suited to online application.

Has anyone seen an analysis of the impact of this legislation on Predictive Markets?

Politically incorrect and I don't care

[MalleusEBHC]

Why couldn't our nation have been started by someone cool instead of a bunch of lame Protestants.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the current crop of Republicans remind me of hypocritical Puritans of the wacko variety. They are soooo very out of touch with the American people.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[mmalove]

In other news - Sweden stealth supports software piracy, err, I mean free software!

You know - what is Sweden's immigration policy?

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[xombo]

Historically incorrect, not politically incorrect.

America was started because of unjust Taxation without representation on the colonies that were started by privateers with charters to incorporate from England.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't. The lame protestants just want you to think it was.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[CreatureComfort]

Actually, most of the 'founding fathers' who formed our original government and signed the Constitution were Deists. Even the ones who were Protestant would have vilified the current group that calls themselves conservatives. You can point your outrage at much more recent revisionism.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, according to that site most of the founding fathers were either Deists or Unitarians, both of which are Protestant religions.

In fact, the whole "freedom of religion" thing started from the desires of Protestants to be able to practice their religion in the first place. Of course, the Protestant religions in America were some of the most intolerant, brutal forms of Protestantism in the history of Christianity. This is why to this day there are still places where it's illegal to sell or buy alcohol on Sunday.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[dr_dank]

Why couldn't our nation have been started by someone cool instead of a bunch of lame Protestants.

The liberal media would have you believe that Christopher Columbus was the first to settle America, but that honor really belongs to The Fonz. He edged out Grover Washington to be our first president, but declined once he found out that he couldn't have all three Hooper Triplets as his first ladies.

Fun Fact: The indian greeting "how" is derived from The Fonz's "heyyyyyyy".

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[kthejoker]

Are you kidding? Our founding fathers would be horrified at the current group that calls themselves liberals, too.

Homosexual marriage?
Equality of the races?
Women voting?
Women working?
All the sex and violence in the media?

They may not have been fundies, but they were still proper gentlemen of the 18th century.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean unlike the sex and violence from the media back then? Like for example Shakespeare's stuff, or maybe Chaucer's? The stuff that Tipper Gore whines about is tame compared to that filth.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[HungWeiLo]

Well, Columbus-era Europeans would have been terrified at the subversive polyphony of J.S. Bach. It's all relative.

Consider for a moment - all the items you listed above were actually the norm of civilization before the founding of Christendom.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

Shame the Vikings couldn't make a go of it - a "greater Denmark" would have been interesting.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Surt]

Why couldn't our nation have been started by someone cool instead of a bunch of lame Protestants.

It wasn't. Polio really took hold years later. Nearly all of the founders of this country could walk just fine.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[PRMan]

Because "cool" societies (which I assume you to mean those not based on Biblical principles) tend to do things such as murder and torture and control people that don't agree with them, which in turn stifles the ability to innovate and create and keeps a society down.

And "uncool" societies (those based on Biblical principles) have gone on to be the world power at their respective times:

• Rome after Christianity took hold
• France after their revivals
• England after their revivals
• America after their revivals

They accomplish this by not trying to control everyone and just letting people be free. Also, they set up the rules to ensure fairness instead of their buddies getting what they want. This leads to tremendous creativity and innovation. And I, for one, think that's pretty cool.

Now that our American Christians no longer act like Christians (current administration and government, for example), look for other societies that are currently experiencing huge Christian revivals to become world powers in the next 50 years (such as China or Latin America, for instance).

You can argue with this, but a casual comparison of a church history book with the book you read in high school with all the references to Christianity removed will confirm this pattern.

Back to the subject at hand... If I thought they were actually outlawing gambling because of the harm it causes to children of irresponsible idiots and the costs of rehabilitation that are absorbed by society and so forth, I would be thrilled. But, since they stopped short of shutting down state lotteries, that doesn't seem to be the motivation here, does it?

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

WTH. Are you kidding?

"Because "cool" societies (which I assume you to mean those not based on Biblical principles) tend to do things such as murder and torture and control people that don't agree with them, which in turn stifles the ability to innovate and create and keeps a society down."

LOLOL. How about the DARK AGES. Thats what happened when christianity took hold after Rome fell. How about the continous inquisitions led by christian nations? The crusades?

The blatant discrimination of every group other than white male( of course jesus was a white male).

"They accomplish this by not trying to control everyone and just letting people be free. Also, they set up the rules to ensure fairness instead of their buddies getting what they want. This leads to tremendous creativity and innovation. And I, for one, think that's pretty cool."

ahhaahhahahahaahahahahahahaha

hahahahah.

Look at the Vatican. The pope has historically been a greedy war mongerer. So you think thats cool ? wow your retarded. You are applying your logic of believing in 2000 year fairy tales to other aspects of life. If you want to be insane, keep it to yourself.

"Now that our American Christians no longer act like Christians (current administration and government, for example), look for other societies that are currently experiencing huge Christian revivals to become world powers in the next 50 years (such as China or Latin America, for instance)."

Oh yes...latin america is doing great! I mean, look at all the americans emigrating there illegally! LOL. your so stupid.

"You can argue with this, but a casual comparison of a church history book with the book you read in high school with all the references to Christianity removed will confirm this pattern."

Umm. WTF are you talking about?

"Back to the subject at hand... If I thought they were actually outlawing gambling because of the harm it causes to children of irresponsible idiots and the costs of rehabilitation that are absorbed by society and so forth, I would be thrilled. But, since they stopped short of shutting down state lotteries, that doesn't seem to be the motivation here, does it?"

WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

RETARD

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[CreatureComfort]

Actually, it's funny how you knee-jerk reacted to assume there was any support of modern liberals in anything in my post.

In reality, most of the founding fathers would have been died in the wool Libertarians, by today's standards. But not the pseudo-anarchists that Libertarians tend to get painted as around here. The founding fathers, in everythnig they did and wrote, were completely about recognizing that there are certain things that only a government can do, and other things that only a government should do, but for everything else the government should keep their bloody hands out of it.

You might think that they would be more Constitutional Party, but from what I've seen of the Constitionalists they seem even further to the fundie Xtian right than the Republicans.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain that "Protestant" is a subset of "Christian", that is, the religion had to have been part of the Christians that split off from the Catholic church in order to be protesting the various problems with it that Protestants protested. Of course, there's always the hippies out protesting whatever just because everyone else is, and they have to stick it to the man, even if it's a protest against stinky hippies.

Deists were neither, having abandoned the very concept of miracles, holy writings, and prophecy to claim that everything knowable about God and His creation was present in the world of nature for everyone to see and measure, and not in some old book. I'm fairly certain these were not the "intolerant, brutal" people you make them out to be, though I suppose some of the great scientists of the time might have been running a side business as assassins or something. If the Deists were Protestant then you might as well call Buddhism a Protestant religion.

The Unitarians of the time were not the warm fuzzy "everyone is correct" gang they are now, they believed in the old testament God of Abraham, but refused to believe in the concept of a Holy Trinity or prophets, and therefore were not Christians any more than the Muslims were Christians.

So, no. They were not "Protestants" as such. I suppose that having started the Revolutionary War, they could be called brutal and violent, though. Intolerant is a stretch, given that they came down pretty hard on Conneticut when its legislature started to harass some Baptists (remember, this was back before we had amendments forcing the states to actually obey the rules set out for the country, so this really was a big deal back then).

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[dogmatixpsych]

I'd mod you up if I could.

Although, some of the Founding Fathers believed in equality of the races and the ones who owned slaves generally treated them quite well (do some research into how Washington treated his slaves).

Some of them also would have been quite happy to have women voting but majority rules.

Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually? Now you have reified history! Real Causes ! Well who is the child of the enlightenment? As if there is no connection between Protestanism and Deism? Well lets never forget the eternal names and divisions created from the beginning between those pure deists (without any intellectual origin)

its all about protectionism

[Facekhan]

A brick and mortar casino gaming license wouldn't be quite as lucrative a give away to the wealthy and well connected if they had to compete with online casinos that anyone can set up overseas. Lets face it, a legal casino in an area where gambling of most forms is illegal is basically an ATM machine with flashing lights.

In my state the hypocrisy is reaching new heights as the GOP governor continues to try to allow slot machines at horse tracks while it is still technically illegal to play poker among friends.

Re:its all about protectionism

[MindStalker]

Last time I visited Vegas, I actually found a slot machine with a built in ATM. No shitting you.

Re:its all about protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

In my state the hypocrisy is reaching new heights as the GOP governor continues to try to allow slot machines at horse tracks while it is still technically illegal to play poker among friends.

I sincerely hope youre not talking about maryland, but your tone seems to imply that.

First of all, its interesting that you mention it being hypocritical by comparing it to playing poker but you gloss over that this is about horse racing, which, new flash, is all about *gasp* gambling and is itself legal.

The situation there is quite a bit different and more complicated than just "lets make gambling legal." The tracks in maryland are more or less dead nowadays because people just take daytrips to the delaware or west virginia border. Simply put, maryland residents are not choosing to spend their money on other things other than slots, they just take their money to another state. The state can in no way stop people from using slots because wva and de allow them to freely do so for less than a 2 hour drive from the baltimore area. The only thing the state is doing is losing money to its borders and letting the horse racing industry fade away. Regardless of how you feel personally about gambling or slots (which lets be honest, are nowhere near full fledged casinos) the state isnt being noble or protective of its citizens, its simply failing to provide an appropriate service that its competitors already provide.

FWIW, personally I dont see the fundamental harm in slots but to be honest I dont see a definitive need for them either. In this situation, however, the potential already exists right nearby. It would be like banning the sale of alchohol throughout the state, while still freely allowing its consumption.

Of course, if you're not talking about maryland, then disregard that entirely :)

Re:its all about protectionism

[smooth wombat]

In my state the hypocrisy is reaching new heights as the GOP governor continues to try to allow slot machines at horse tracks while it is still technically illegal to play poker among friends.

That's ok. I have a Democratic Governor who signed a bill passed by the GOP controlled Congress to allow slot machines at horse tracks because the tracks would have gone out of business in another decade or so.

Think I'm kidding? The bill specifically gives licenses to six horse tracks and one harness-racing track with an additional seven going to non-track sites. Read this article and take specific note of the last few paragraphs.

Ostensibly the revenue the state gets from the slots parlors will go towards reducing property taxes and more funding for schools but most estimates have shown the average reduction to be no more than $300, probably substantially less. However, there is/was a measure in the GOP-controlled Senate to increase the property tax reduction depending on how much we, the voters, agree to raise the earned income tax. See this article on how Republicans want to raise taxes on people.

Yeah, let's allow slots but not poker or blackjack because as everyone knows, gambling is evil.

Re:its all about protectionism

[Yelnats1971]

If it is illegal in your state, come join us in Virginia where a good 'ole fashion card game is perfectly legal as long as the "house" is not making money!!! See below.....

  18.2-334. Exception to article; private residences.

Nothing in this article shall be construed to make it illegal to participate in a game of chance conducted in a private residence, provided such private residence is not commonly used for such games of chance and there is no operator as defined in subsection 4 of 18.2-325.

Re:its all about protectionism

[Facekhan]

I am talking about MD. Heres my point. I have no problem with gambling or casinos except that the gaming licenses are typically a giveaway to the wealthy and connected, in this case horse track owners. I am sorry no one cares about horses anymore, what a terrible tragedy that a business that no one goes to might not be viable anymore. I just think that if operating a game of chance is illegal for the rest of us, it should be illegal for the uber rich too.

Of all gambling slot machines are the absolute worst, they are mindless repetitive (some might say addictive) money pits with far worse odds to the player than card/table games. They represent no risk on the part of the house since the odds are guaranteed to play out in their favor. Poker and many other card games are played between players and the house need not make any money. Other table games are a bigger risk to the house since the odds are less in their favor and there is more chance of a player winning big.

If you are going to allow limited gambling, I'd recomend that only home games in which the operator receives no rake should be legal and gambling establishments should be illegal.

Re:its all about protectionism

[Monkelectric]

There is the spectre of protectionism. It is my belief that it is your right to gamble. However, can we not agree that gambling is generally very harmful?

Re:its all about protectionism

[Deliveranc3]

A brick and mortar casino gaming license wouldn't be quite as lucrative a give away to the wealthy and well connected if they had to compete with online casinos that anyone can set up overseas. Lets face it, a legal casino in an area where gambling of most forms is illegal is basically an ATM machine with flashing lights.

In my state the hypocrisy is reaching new heights as the GOP governor continues to try to allow slot machines at horse tracks while it is still technically illegal to play poker among friends.

Gambling is a disease, people lose homes and ruin lives.

So theoretically the taxation is to pay for support for the children who's father can't afford education or electricity anymore.

Conservatives also support gambling because it is a tax on the stupid, you don't win in the long run.

Casinos are very close to government institutions which is why the government collects debts for them. This is why many socialist countries don't support gambling, an addiction to gambling is not totally correllated with being a moron (Though I'd argue it often is) and the lives affected go beyond the gambler him/her self.

Cutting back on gambling is a good idea, especially gambling based on high interest debt (Credit Cards).

Kudos to the Conservatives for FINALLY getting one right.

Re:its all about protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually in MD poker is legal as long as the "House" does not profit from the game, same as in Virginia.

Re:its all about protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

You definintely bring up interesting points about who's really benefitting from it. Clearly the track owners have far and away the most to gain from this, but they certainly wouldnt be the only ones. The whole establishment needs to be staffed and supported, and imo, I think slots really could revive the racing industry with a farther reaching trickle-down effect.

I'm not 100% convinced that the horse racing industry is unable to be revived. Moreso, I think people arent interested in maryland's version of it. Lets be honest, taking the degenerate behavior out of horse racing fundamentally dilutes the product. Preakness is probably the most disgusting thing I've ever witnessed but you know what, I'm in my early twenties and when april turns to may, I start to get excited like a ten year old on christmas morning :) Really gambling (horse racing and preakness also) are fine as long as you take them in moderation but clearly this is a problem, as people are retarded and irresponsible on the whole and in modern America youre rarely held accountable for your own choices.

But really, a major problem is that once you legalize it, you're stuck with it. I definintely agree with all your points on slots and would hate to see anything remotely resembling atlantic city in my home state but I think in this case with, appropriate financial and legal regulations, it could be done. I'm talking about EXCESSIVE taxes. The bottom line is, if slots were legal and track owners could make even a fraction of what they might ask for, they'd put slots in maryland because the demand is there and, youre right, slots are basically free money. However, I think realistically we'll not see them either forever or until its too late because nobody wants to compromise on the economic and social sides of the issue.

Re:its all about protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

The sponsor of this (portion of the) bill is Jim Leach (R) of IA. I live in IA, watch IA Television. Every new casino license and casino opening is a "glorious event" according to the local media, a big "job creator" and great for the economy. Except with so many Casinos in a state that no one visits anyway, the truth is the money comes from local stupid (and usually poor people)...

It's to cut out the competition and to have absolute control of the vice. There is no doubt of this. Plus, they'll all look like "good guys looking out for all of us..."

Re:its all about protectionism

[triffid_98]

"Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor."
-Richard Brodsky

typically a giveaway to the wealthy and connected, in this case horse track owners. I am sorry no one cares about horses anymore, what a terrible tragedy that a business that no one goes to might not be viable anymore. I just think that if operating a game of chance is illegal for the rest of us, it should be illegal for the uber rich too. Of all gambling slot machines are the absolute worst, they are mindless repetitive (some might say addictive) money pits with far worse odds to the player than card/table games. They represent no risk on the part of the house since the odds are guaranteed to play out in their favor.

Re:its all about protectionism

[RedHat Rocky]

Seconding the AC, being an Iowa resident.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article ?AID=/20060901/NEWS10/609010374/1001/NEWS

"Fighting" against online gambling while promoting more brick and mortar establishments spells "HYPOCRITE".

Affects eBay and PayPal/

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Does this mean they're going to take down eBay and PayPal?

I certainly feel like I'm gambling whenever I do business there?

How about Ameritrade? Stocks are certainly gambling

Re:Affects eBay and PayPal/

[Anonymous Coward]

Stock speculation is certainly gambling..but INVESTING is not gambling. Yes I know this is off topic, sorry.

Re:Affects eBay and PayPal/

[shawnmchorse]

The bill has specific exemptions for "accepted" forms of American gambling. Such as the stock market. And fantasy sports leagues.

Re:Affects eBay and PayPal/

[shawb]

Indeed, the stock market and even insurance are viewed by some people as gambling and thus considered to be morally ambiguous or even an outright sin.

Re:Affects eBay and PayPal/

[eclectro]

Maybe if Ameritrade would open their api, someone could write a blackjack gui for it.

All is not lost.

Re:Affects eBay and PayPal/

[EVil Lawyer]

And horseracing.

Re:Affects eBay and PayPal/

[Flwyd]

The article noted that stock prices fell. Investors are worried they can't use their credit card to play the market.

Re:Affects eBay and PayPal/

[JesseMcDonald]

Stock speculation is certainly gambling..but INVESTING is not gambling. Yes I know this is off topic, sorry.

Technically even gambling isn't "gambling" (in the sense of the parent post) if you do it professionally, estimating the odds and betting consistently based on the probabilities. It becomes a simple matter of class-based risk, just like an investment or insurance policy.

it's so sad...

[jimstapleton]

the the legislature of my country is so incompetant, to get something they want passed, they have to tack it on to something completely irrelevant.

Re:it's so sad...

[shawb]

As far as riders go, this one is fairly on-topic. While the title of the act may be based on current pro-patriotism attitudes, the majority of the act covers management of international trade and closing loopholes that people use to break existing laws regarding trade. This basically says that it is now against the law to recieve money on an illegal bet. All betting that was previously legal include gambling on indian reservation land (basically the server and the computer making the bet have to be on a reservation,) horseracing, and fantasy sports games with a predetermined prize (I found it interesting that this particular form of betting is allowed, as long as the bet is not on a single game.) This act specifically does not cover intrastate gambling, where the computers involved in the betting are located in the same state (the act even acknowledges that the data can be transmitted accross state lines, but it's only the endpoint computers involved in the betting that matter. Shows a deeper understanding of the internet than I've been giving legislators.)

Yes, riders are a royal PITA, and really only serve for someone to push their own special interests through, but this one is relatively benign and on topic. More interesting topics in the act include "IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2006" which basically means the federal government is going to now be responsible for providing accurate information to IP phone companies so 911 calls can be appropriately routed. They are also going to publish the list so that if people somehow don't get through properly (whether through routing error or an overload of calls to existing 911 call centers) people can call alternate public safety call centers (emergency and non-emergency alike) directly. A very reasonable piece of legislation, but in actuality less on topic with the rest of the overall act than internet gambling is. (Although it is on topic with its own subsection, as it appears that a seperate emergency responsiveness act had previously been attached to the port security act... however port security and emergency responsiveness are indeed related topics.)

Re:it's so sad...

[crabpeople]

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town..
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield slash pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated.

Effects on Spam?

[Diss Champ]

If we're lucky, this will decrease the profitability of online gambling spam- if there isn't a convenient way for them to get your cash fast, their ability to pick up impulse bussiness should decrease.

Then again, since it's only the US, and spammers seem to prefer a shotgun approach, it might not make any difference. Since there are still plenty of people who could easily waste their money elsewhere, the spam will continue.

Gotta love the system...

[D-Cypell]

How on earth is it legit to tack a completely unrelated bill to another and pass them both under the same vote? Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably insane that is?

Surely anyone voting against the bill will be blasted for not securing US ports, even when it was a vote in protest to the anti-gambling legislation.

The way the US government goes around telling the world how to run their 'democracy' is so incredibly laughable at this point.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Pasquina]

That's how you get people to pass legislation that isn't popular - you attach rider bills to attract more votes. Some people would always vote for the "tacked on" part even if the bulk of the bill wasn't popular, while othersacceptefer the main part and simply accept the unrelated parts. I know it doesn't make sense, but if each individual idea brought before Congress was voted on its own merits, not nerely as much would make it into law.

...OK, so that barely makes any sense at all, but that's still how it is.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[CatoNine]

Yes it seems insane to me... (European). I was wondering why it took to about the 20th or someting post for someone to mention this. Bill next up: Free ice cream on for everybody on Fridays. Tacked on: No more net neutrality.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Anonymous Coward]

not nerely as much would make it into law

Good.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Poppler]

How on earth is it legit to tack a completely unrelated bill to another and pass them both under the same vote? Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably insane that is?

I've been thinking about this. Maybe we could pass some sort of "common sense" law, which would allow any one congressman to challenge a bill. Some third party, perhaps the judicial branch (or maybe even a jury), would make the judgement as to whether or not the bills are reasonably related.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh it gets worse than that.

They group lots of laws together (sometimes hundreds of pages long) and present them to the president as one law to sign or veto.

And when the president wants the ability to veto an individual law- they call it an expansion of presidential power (aka. the line item veto).

Really each law should pass solo and be signed or vetoed solo.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[bendodge]

But notice, it seems to work anyway.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this system, as long as House and Senate voters vote for parts of the bill in their head, do a logical AND operation and write the result of that on their ballot. (i.e. they pass a bill only if they accept *all* of its parts).

Re:Gotta love the system...

[paranode]

Yup it's a common scheme in Washington and it is one of the most corrupt things that needs to be fixed. Between term-limits for Congress and a new rule that says only one topic can be addressed per bill, I think we could stamp out a large part of Congressional corruption and pork spending.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[nelsonal]

What if free ice cream was preferred by everyone more than net neutrality and the providers of the free ice cream were the beneficiaries of the net neutrality bill? Bundles are not inherently evil.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[east coast]

The way the US government goes around telling the world how to run their 'democracy' is so incredibly laughable at this point.

"at this point"? Dude, just because you've finally opened up your eyes to see it doesn't mean it's new. This has been going on for a long time.

Don't act like 90% of what slashdotters bitch about and pin on Bush is "new", it's just the fact that something has you pissed off and you finally are starting to see what has pissed the rest of us off for so long. What's the saying about those who forget the past? What about the ones that never knew the past?

The unfortunate thing? by the time the Dems take back power a new generation is going to be moving in and getting pissed at the same exact antics under a new banner and they're going to be saying the same thing and voting against President X thinking that the other side wouldn't do the same thing because they were too young/naive to remember the last time the other party did the same thing. It's a piss poor cycle of events and there will never be serious reform as long as people keep seeing politics on this same level.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[mpcooke3]

How on earth is it legit to tack a completely unrelated bill to another and pass them both under the same vote? Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably insane that is?

It's called negotiation.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[cybermage]

How on earth is it legit to tack a completely unrelated bill to another and pass them both under the same vote? Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably insane that is?

They tried to tack on more than that.

I agree with you. This is completely insane and it allows bills to basically appear out of nowhere and totally bypass any sort of review. Once a bill comes out of comittee, no one reads them. The guys just vote how their told to vote - often without knowledge of things that have been tacked on at the last minute.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Atheose]

A good idea in theory... but a jury? So in other words you want to put all the power in the hands of lawyers to misguide the average joe Americans on the jury? Congress has been tacking on extra laws for years. The reverse, where someone tacks on a vastly unpopular law in order to kill the entire thing, is called a "poison-pill bill". It's actually how women got the right to vote--it was tacked on to kill the entire bill, but it passed anyways!

Re:Gotta love the system...

[partisanX]

Wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES DEDICATED TO ACTING WITH SOME COMMON SENSE? I'm not sure why people think we need to pass a law to deal with every problem we have, especially when many of the problems have been born from the laws we've passed or more specifically, born from the way we continue to vote like idiots, for the same two parties, over and over again, hoping next time it's going to get better.

/end rant

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Poppler]

So in other words you want to put all the power in the hands of lawyers to misguide the average joe Americans on the jury?

So would you dispute the value of trial by jury as well, or do you think this specific scenario is particularly vulnerable to devious lawyers in a way that a criminal trial is not?

Re:Gotta love the system...

[TubeSteak]

Someone in Congress already tried to make a bill that would prevent unrelated legislation getting tacked onto existing stuff.

It went nowhere.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Poppler]

Wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES DEDICATED TO ACTING WITH SOME COMMON SENSE?

We can't just trust our leaders to behave ethically; we need to put a framework in place that doesn't allow them to abuse their power. Even if we do elect representatives who act in a just and reasonable manner, their successors could easily be just as corrupt as what we have now. Democracy isn't perfect, sometimes bad people are elected.

many of the problems have been born [...]from the way we continue to vote like idiots, for the same two parties, over and over again, hoping next time it's going to get better.

Agreed. Which is why something like I'm proposing would never pass; the two parties have a vested interest in the status quo.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Stavr0]

That's because they didn't tack it on the right bill...

Re:Gotta love the system...

[jafuser]

I've been thinking about this. Maybe we could pass some sort of "common sense" law
It would only take about 20 seconds for 50%+1 of congress to repeal a "no unrelated riders" law, and then we are right back to where we are.

It needs to be a constitutional amendment.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Atheose]

Are you suggesting that lawyers are selfless, decent human beings that care about more than just money? Shame on you!

Re:Gotta love the system...

[freeweed]

they're going to be saying the same thing and voting against President X thinking that the other side wouldn't do the same thing

Don't blame me, I voted for Y!

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Poppler]

Are you suggesting that lawyers are selfless, decent human beings that care about more than just money?

Of coarse not :-)
I'm just saying that I don't see why it's acceptable for a jury to determine someone's fate in a criminal trial, but not for them to decide if two bills are related.
Honestly though, I'm not terribly attached to the jury idea, I'm just throwing it out there. My real point is that we need an independent third party to make the judgement; congress shouldn't be trusted to regulate itself.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[inKubus]

It's a piss poor cycle of events and there will never be serious reform as long as people keep seeing politics on this same level.

People are morons. It's pretty fucking obvious. That's why you should run for office, so at least you get a say and are not mixed in with the morons come election day.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Rotten168]

Nothing to do with our democracy, a major portion of the electorate is against online gambling, unfortunately.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[BagMan2]

This isn't really a Republican problem. The executive branch has been pushing for a line-item veto for decades to help curb this problem, but the Democrats would never go along with it. Both parties are equally guilty of tacking on completely unrelated legislation to bills they know will pass anyways.

The majority of the bills the Democrats don't filibuster is because they managed to get some unrelated pet project of theirs tacked on. It's not uncommon at all to buy individual votes by tacking on pork-barrel projects to please the voters back in the home state. Even the party out of power (the Democrats at the moment) still manage to get their fair share of it.

This particular issue isn't really even a moral issue. The conservatives don't really get bent out of shape about online gambling. This is purely a business play. I'm sure Senator Harry Reid(D) of Nevada had a lot to do with this amendment getting tacked on.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[BagMan2]

The American government overall seems to work pretty darn well, despite the occassional slashdot paranoia. While on the surface it seems like a pretty insane system, I don't think people appreciate how important it is to protecting against the tyranny of the majority. Better the beast you know I always say. You could change something like this and seriously mess things up.

While it may sound good to only vote on one thing at a time, the net result would surely be that the party in power gets their way 100% of the time. The way the house and senate rules work, the Republicans largley can't stop the Democrats from tacking stuff onto bills. The Republicans therefore have to compromise with the Democrats, giving them some things they want in return for getting the stuff they want (otherwise the Democrats could just filibuster everything for example).

Why would any senator ever vote for a bill that benefitted only one particular state? Now if you can get a bill put together where every state gets something out of it, then it might be possible to get it passed, but only if they are guaranteed that it's all or nothing. Congress could make a deal where all the individual bills pass, then the President could simply veto all the Democratic ones (hence changing the line-item veto rule would be too risky to our democracy IMO).

Re:Gotta love the system...

[east coast]

This isn't really a Republican problem.

well, I see it as a problem on both sides so I can't say the Republicans never had an underhanded dealing of this exact nature but I know where you're coming from... as a "gun nut" I can recall plenty of times where the likes of Feinstein and Boxer tried to get everything from additional gun bans and ammo taxes passed on bills that would, say, open funding for an organization most American voters are sympathetic to. It was a great way to make the Reps look like compassionless assholes but most people never caught on to what was really being shot down.

But again, I think this goes on all about so I hold neither of the major parties as blameless.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too difficult to legislate.
The theme of the bill could be anything (such as homeland security, economic reform, social services, etc...) It would be too easy to make the arguement that there is really a connection out there and if you don't see things that way then, obviously, you should vote against it. That's why things are the way things are. One party votes down the other's bills and have to make totally unrelated (yet somehow related) concessions to get the bills passed.

Q: Senator, why did you vote for idea X in this bill and against it in the other?
A: Times have changed and the solutions for yesterday simply don't fit into today's reality.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[Darby]

Why would any senator ever vote for a bill that benefitted only one particular state?

Because that State's Senators made a reasonable, honest case for it.
If they can't, then it doesn't get passed which in almost all cases is a net win for everybody.
That way we wouldn't consistently have a large number of states paying nothing into the pool and taking massive amounts from the productive members of society as happens today.

Re:Gotta love the system...

[pjp6259]

Anyone but W is ok with me.

Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[Sierpinski]

More than anything, this is a prime example of how members of Congress manipulate the legislation system to get a bill they want pass to ride on the coattails of a 'sure-win' bill. Then after that they basically pass the buck off to the courts (if it ever makes it that far) to overturn the law or declare it unconstitutional or whatever.

I think its about time that Congress get off their lazy asses and start drafting their own bills for the particular agenda items they have. This sort of manipulative behavior itself should be outlawed, but find me a single member of Congress that would vote to outlaw it. In a system where checks and balances are supposed to exist, they certaintly don't here.

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[Anonymous Coward]

Tack it on to the "Child sex offeders and terrorists should be put in jail act", and the would have to sign it.

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[Jonny do good]

The use of riders is one of the worst institutions that the government has ever allowed. It is much worse than Internet gambling. I propose that the legislature tacks two bills onto the next defense appropriations bill... each act of legislation should pertain to one issue... and for every bill that is passed one has to be thrown out (with the exception of budget appropriations which have to be recurring and essentially override the previous appropriations bills).

The tactic of using riders is just like buying off a player in an athletic event in order to influence the outcome of a game.

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[Anonymous Coward]

The south had it in their modified version of the US const. that bills had to be one-issue. So much for that...

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[mikehunt]

The checks certainly exist, but in my part of the English
speaking world, we spell it 'cheques'.

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[sfjoe]

You left out one step: after the courts throw the law out, they whine and complain about 'activist judges'.

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[michajoe]

> This sort of manipulative behavior itself should be outlawed, but find me a single member of Congress that would vote to outlaw it.

Well, now, THAT should be easy. Just attach it to another sure-win-bill. That should be fun to watch.

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[smokin_juan]

This is a testament to that "Constitution" people talk so favorably about...

If it's so great, why does it allow bullshit like this?

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[jafuser]

The problem with elminating riders is that you need to pass legislation to do so. But then it only takes a simple majority to repeal that legistation the moment it gets in the way. It needs to be a constitutional amendment, or it will just be repealed shortly after it's created.

Re:Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do

[MourningBlade]

This sort of manipulative behavior itself should be outlawed[...].

Why outlaw it? Again we're being lazy - demanding that congress make and enforce our work for us. Stop electing people that do it. Have this be one of your voting issues.

If a politician creates, co-sponsors, or votes for a rider that is unrelated, or votes for a bill that has been so ridered, no longer vote for them, and write them a letter saying so. Talk to people, try to show them that it's more important that congress be honest than any individual issue be passed.

Just like it's more important that people be allowed to speak than that they say what you want.

Without the will of the people, there will be on restraint. No matter how many laws you pass.

Hello organised crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an ideal opportunity for organised crime. High returns, high demand and a marketplace that has been cleared for them by government action. Happy times are here again. You too can buy your stake through any one of a hundred routes and gamble from your home. Who needs drug trafficing when you're given such a wonderful opportunity.

With any luck this dumb act will get struck down by the WTO for the protectionism it is - before the marketplace for online US gambling is completely owned by crime.

Re:Hello organised crime

[Quiet_Desperation]

Sounds like an ideal opportunity for organised crime.

Fine with me. The mob knows how to run things when it comes to gambling. Vegas was great under them. Just don't over extend your credit. ;-)

Mr. Joe Average could show up and get treated like royalty. My dad used to get comps walking into a casino just to use the rest room. The cocktail waitresses were TOTAL whores. It was great. :)

Then the soulless hotel corps took over, and I would not be suprised if they start charging you for the air you breathe in the hotel rooms. 6-5 payoff on a blackjack? Christ, just tie me down and rape me. It's more direct.

MBAs and politicians! Exterminate! Exterminate!

Re:Hello organised crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh.
European casinos are still PLENTY mobbed up, and comps there are bupkus.

It's not just organized crime that makes the mystique of the casino, it's organized crime in the context of American values.

Re:We have no one to blame but ourselves . . .

[fishbowl]

"We permitted the evangelical right to seize power in the United States in a coup d'etat the likes of which Machiavelli would have been impressed with!"

If it helps you sleep to believe it was a coup, so be it. I find it far more frightening to consider that the current establishment may in fact be an expression of the general will of the American People.

To really piss off the Republicans(and wimpy dems)

[antifoidulus]

we need to figure out way to combine gambling and porn.(well, more than the cliche strip poker, which I don't want to play online...ewww..)

Might I suggest games like "How many grams of heroin has this woman done in the last half hour" or "How many men has this 'virgin' slept with?"

They're not going after _you_

[JeanBaptiste]

They're going after the credit card companies.

I'll bet you 5 bucks it sticks.

Re:They're not going after _you_

[shawnmchorse]

The credit card companies have been blocking gaming transactions for years, in the U.S. Mostly out of their own self-interest since gaming transactions had much higher chargeback rates. What they're going after now are electronic fund transfers between U.S. accounts and either the gaming companies or the financial intermediaries (Neteller, Firepay, et al.).

Re:They're not going after _you_

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

I'll take that bet... let me get this straight -- you just bet that you are going to jail, right? Why don't you just give me $20 and we'll call the whole thing off.

Re:They're not going after _you_

[Anonymous Coward]

glad somebody caught that...

-JeanBaptiste

Worse Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they going to stop all that online stock market speculation?

Don't try to tell me that the return on investment is guaranteed, or that business ventures aren't a gamble, because they are. 90% of businesses fail in their first year.

Anyone want to bet that online casinos will be targeted by this law, but Wall Street will remain strangely exempt?

Re:Worse Problem

[Sierpinski]

Anyone want to bet that online casinos will be targeted by this law, but Wall Street will remain strangely exempt?

I don't know about all states, but in Ohio, the lottery is still legal, and thats definitely gambling. Maybe if some of the profits went to fund schools they wouldn't have outlawed it.

My Sim City 4 city has been thriving with a casino for quite some time. They even erected a statue of me because they love me so!

Re:Worse Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no taxes paid to the govmt by the online casinos. That's the only reason they are "bad".

Re:Worse Problem

[Xentor]

I read through the text of the law (Yes, I'm very bored), and it looks like it defines wagers specifically as those that are based on chance (i.e. roulette, cards, etc) or a single competition (i.e. betting on a football game).

It excludes things that are based on statistical returns (They're allowing stuff like fantasy football), and a few other things.

So I don't think it covers the stock markets.

Re:Worse Problem

[Faw]

Anyone want to bet that online casinos will be targeted by this law, but Wall Street will remain strangely exempt?

Didn't you read the article? Betting online is illegal...

Re:Worse Problem

[Overzeetop]

So selling short in the closing days of an option is (a) not based on chance or (b) has some statistical background?

Re:Worse Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you read the article? Betting online is illegal...

Yes, but I have found a clever loophole in the law!

I don't live in the US...

Re:Worse Problem

[Xentor]

Well, technically it's not based on chance, but on the actions of other investors. So it's not actually based on chance... In the same way that spinning a roulette wheel is actually based on velocity, friction, and other miscellaneous laws of physics.

But anyway, I checked again, and there are specific provisions allowing securities and derivatives trading.

Re:Worse Problem

[truthsearch]

If the stock market doesn't count as a game of chance for those who are not on the market floor deciding prices, then I don't know what does. Buying a stock over the internet and hoping its value goes up based on certain information is most certainly gambling. Only those on the actual stock market floor agreeing on buy and sell prices are not gambling.

Re:Worse Problem

[Durandal64]

I read through the text of the law (Yes, I'm very bored), and it looks like it defines wagers specifically as those that are based on chance (i.e. roulette, cards, etc) or a single competition (i.e. betting on a football game).

It excludes things that are based on statistical returns (They're allowing stuff like fantasy football), and a few other things.

How the hell is Roulette not based on statistical returns? The whole reason casinos are able to operate and make money is because of statistical returns.

Re:Worse Problem

[Xentor]

They mean statistics over multiple events. When you bet on a roulette wheel, you make or lose money on one spin. When you bet on fantasy football, you win or lose based on an entire season.

But then, when you bet on a baseball game, there are 9+ innings, etc etc...

Hey, I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. I shouldn't be defending this legal jargon!

Re:Worse Problem

[timeOday]

How are they going to stop all that online stock market speculation?

Reminds me of the Simpson's where Ned Flanders' home was destroyed and he had no insurance because he considers it gambling.

But there are a couple differences between the stock market and outright gambling. (1) the stock market plays a vital role in the economy by allocating resources to production, and there is some sort of skill and work involved. (Maybe not in picking individual stocks over a short period, but then you can't tell me Warren Buffet's consistency is sheer luck either). (2) the stock market is not a zero sum game. The investment results in growth in the overall economy. It's not just tranferring cash from one pocket to another, like gambling (mostly) is.

That said, yes, I know people derive a certain amount of entertainment value from gambling. I just don't think a direct analogy to the stock market is quite accurate.

Re:Worse Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can't buy insurance online anymore?

Re:Worse Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

the stock market plays a vital role in the economy by allocating resources to production, and there is some sort of skill and work involved

Yes, be sure carefully predict what other people will do, and lie carefully. That's a lot of skill and work... uh, somehow... um... no, wait. It isn't. It's just being a weasle.

Were you even paying attention during the .com boom? The stock market is just bunch of guys in suits buying worthless stocks for inflated prices, trying to pass them off for even more inflated prices to the next guy, and praying that they're not left holding the bag when the bubble bursts.

If that's not gambling, please tell me what is. It's no less gambling than a huge game of musical chairs played for money, except by guys in suits instead of children.

Re:Worse Problem

[LargeWu]

The text of the law explicitly excludes transactions covered by securities law.

Re:Worse Problem

[bezza]

It doesn't matter because you are taxed appropriately on any gains made on securities that you own. That's what the issue is here.

Re:Worse Problem

[Overzeetop]

You're right, it's really more a parimutuel betting scheme. ;-)

Re:Worse Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read through the text of the bill, then why didnt you see the part where it outright said securities are not included as wagers?

Re:Looks like the gambling sites are cornered now.

[IflyRC]

Do you REALLY trust online gambling sites to draft out of your bank account? You do realize drafts like that are pretty much non-reversable right? You signed to allow them to draft from the account - the bank can't do anything regarding a draft in a sum over the amount you agreed to. You have to take it up with the company.

I feel safer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I don't know about you guys, but I for one sure feel safer knowing our politicians are spending time outlawing gambling. (that is, unless it's government sanctioned gambling.) Al-Qaeda's got their game-face on about this jihad their waging against us, and what the hell are the people tasked with protecting us doing?? they're worried about people playing games. The prognosis for this country is not good people, things need to change.

Its that missing step again

[TheAxeMaster]

1. Make it illegal to gamble online, since you can't figure out how to tax it.
2. Force the credit card companies to enforce the law you made.
3. Profit!
 
The profit being that law enforcement doesn't have to figure out how to trace it, they just have the credit card companies monitor for the activity, and make the arrest.

Time to put my numbered Swiss account on eBay

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet I'll be able to sell my paltry $2500 numbered Swiss bank account for a tidy profit as soon as Unca W signs this into law.

Neteller?

[rnelsonee]

I thought that everyone was prepared for this - is it not still legal, or at least impossible to prosecute, using your credit card to fund a third-party online payment site like Neteller, and then pointing "gaming" site to your Neteller account? The credit card company then has deniable plausability by never knowing where your Neteller money goes/comes from.

there are a slur of other options out there to

[myfootsmells]

fund online gambling sites: neteller, firepay, etc. i'm sure these companies are happy that US customers can no longer use credit cards because customers are now forced to pay their large transaction fees.

Wow

[Moby Cock]

I'm frankly surprised that the credit card lobby didn't kick up a bigger fuss on this. They stand to lose millions in user fees and interest. While I think anyone that gambles on credit is a fool, the credit companies were happy to enable such behaviour.

Re:Wow

[LOTHAR, of the Hill]

Credit card companies aren't too keen on doing business with people who have a gambling problem. They have a strong tendancy to not pay thier debts...

I know some credit card companies are in favor of this kind of legislation because online gambling is a large source of fraud claims.

Re:Wow

[mjh2901]

Umm the credit card companies know what companies are online gambling sites, they will simply take that list and not allow any CC transactions to those companies. The hope is most of the people who loose money gambling get pulled in due to the simplicity. While there are ways around the credit card thing, it requires a lot of hoop jumping and most people will stop the minute it starts askinc for checking account info and not letting them use a credit card. And I am sure if it becomes a problem with debit transactions congress can simply pass another law making it illegal for banks to transfer money to offshore gambling companies.

Re:Wow

[shawnmchorse]

U.S. credit card companies haven't accepted gaming transactions for years now. Primarily due to their increased exposure to chargebacks, on gaming transactions. See also the various suits from people against credit card companies where they attempt to claim that they're not actually responsible for their gambling. Just try using your U.S. based credit card at basically any online gaming site, and you'll get an immediate decline. Europeans on the other hand use their credit cards for this all the time, since apparently they're more trustworthy. Or something. *shrug* U.S. players are essentially forced to use third party payment processors like Neteller, Firepay, etc. in order to fund their accounts due to this.

Re:Wow

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Credit card companies aren't too keen on doing business with people who have a gambling problem. They have a strong tendancy to not pay thier debts..."

Using a credit card to gamble does not mean someone has a gambling problem. I know I much prefer using my credit card online than my debit card.

"I know some credit card companies are in favor of this kind of legislation because online gambling is a large source of fraud claims."

Considering that most credit card companies stopped allowing charges to gambling websites a number of years ago, I question the validity of your information.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

After one CC company in US got sued and lost to a gambler racking up debt, CC companies tend to avoid doing gambling transactions. Not worth the risk.

Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[aldheorte]

So, if I pay $15 a month to subscribe to a massively multiplayher game where I get some amount of starter virtual currency, and the game has as a subset of functionality a mechanism through with I can gamble my virtual currency, and a mechanism exists to transfer that virtual currency into real currency through eBay sales or some process officially allowed or even serviced by the massively multiplayer game maker, is my subscription illegal?

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[Alamoth]

Someone mentioned the Tax issue above and this falls under the same logic. The US government taxes companies such as Blizzard, Sony of America, etc. They also tax companies such as EBay.

This is because all of those companies are American and then pass the buck to the user in the form of monthly fees (MMOs) and service charges (EBay).

Since all of those companies have to turn over a portion of their profits to the gov't they don't care what kind of gambling shenanigans are taking place in their games.

Since online gambling sites are predominantly offshore, the gov't gets no slice of the proverbial pie and therefore insists that if they don't get dessert, then NO ONE gets dessert.

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[FleaPlus]

I actually came across an extensive paper on this topic, Internet Gambling Regulation Present and Future: Technology Outpaces Legislation as the MMORPG Problem Emerges.

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[Palshife]

MMOG makers provide a way to effectively turn your money into in-game cash, but usually do no such conversion the other direction. Your MMOG company also most likely has terms of service that forbid the sale of in-game items for cash by any means.

If your MMOG company provides a mechanism for converting in-game money back into real money then, yes, that's going to be illegal when the President puts pen to paper.

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[GigsVT]

What if the venue provides only a market to sell you in-world currency to other users, not back to the company?

This is what Linden Lab does, and they claim it makes them immune from having to consider the in-world currency as real money.

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[gad_zuki!]

Also I dont see any restrictions on using a different currency to gamble (or do whatever with). An e-money company just has to be able to process credit cards and convince the gambling sites that their money is good. Joe Gambler just spends 50 dollars for 50 credits which are transfered to whatever site he likes. The site sends an invoice for those credits and the e-money place gives them cold cash.

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[Nesetril]

I can gamble my virtual currency

Yeah, now ALL BETS ARE OFF!!! sadface!

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[Deliveranc3]

No because if you use up the money you spent it's just gone.

They won't take more and more leaving you penniless.

See the diffrence.

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[melikamp]

Shhh, before they realize that MMOG companies are effectively minting their own currency.

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[FleaPlus]

No because if you use up the money you spent it's just gone.

They won't take more and more leaving you penniless.

What if an online casino only allows you to purchase a limited number of tokens/plays each month?

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[TempeTerra]

It's only illegal if the Feds are looking for a reason to arrest you ;)

Re:Not To Open A Can of Worms, But MMOG?

[Martin S.]

If your MMOG company provides a mechanism for converting in-game money back into real money then, yes, that's going to be illegal when the President puts pen to paper.

Selling game currency for real cash is against the EULA for a lot of MMOGs, but EBay provide this facility anyway.

Perhaps this will give games like Eve-Online the weapon they need to eradicate these cheaters.

Ah, but they will

[ackthpt]

5 will get you 10 they won't enforce it.

They'll have the legit online gaming community look after it for them -- the big casino companies, who have the most to gain from this. I bet you don't have to look very far to see who really was behind this. It's not about money laundering, it's about a big business keeping it's slice of the pie.

This doesnt chang a thing

[thorkyl]

"credit-card companies to collect payments for bets"

Now you just have to pay in advance, ohh wait we do that already.

kinda already is one: nakedpoker.com

[Lawmeister]

anyways, I hope all you Americans remember this as well as all the other BS that the Republicans have pulled over the last 6 years and get out and vote next month.

Land of the free.... only if you're the ones in power.

Re:kinda already is one: nakedpoker.com

[GrayCalx]

While we're all so impressed that you're keeping track of our politics, rest assured most of us don't care what you have to say on the matter.

Keep in mind, as MANY have already posted and you apparently decided to ignore in your reading, online gambling is already illegal in the United States. Its been illegal for years and very possibily made so under a Democratic President and/or House and Senate. All they've begun to do now is apply pressure to the financial system that supports it.

Also since you've demonstrated you're so up-to-date on American politics I'm sure you know of the campaign funding by Brick-and-Mortar Casino lobbyists to both Democratic and Republican representatives. Who's votes, you could argue, were bought to destroy the infrastructure supporting online casinos.

So while I appreciate so much seeing your nose in our business, I'll vote for the best candidate for me and my state be it Democrat or Republican... not because of what some foreigner tries to tell me about the laws and statutes within my own country.

Re:kinda already is one: nakedpoker.com

[Darby]

So while I appreciate so much seeing your nose in our business, I'll vote for the best candidate for me and my state be it Democrat or Republican... not because of what some foreigner tries to tell me about the laws and statutes within my own country.

By restricting yourself to those 2 choices you have refused yourself the ability to vote for a good candidate, let alone the best.
Sorry if you don't like that fact, but it is true.

Shifting responsibilities

[Petersko]

Since the bill will make it illegal for credit card companies and other financial institutions to be involved in such transactions, it seems to be a refinement of target. Formerly the individual could be targeted, but that would be expensive and ineffective. Ten thousand charges could be brought forth without impacting the number of violations significantly.

If you shut down the payment options, you will greatly reduce the number of violators. It's an effective way of achieving their goal.

Re:Shifting responsibilities

[MalleusEBHC]

This creates a nasty slippery slope argument for credit card companies. If they are forced to watch and regulate these (currently and stupidly) illegal transactions, why not make them responsible for all activity on the credit cards they issue?

Re:Shifting responsibilities

[mysidia]

Seems to me there are some problems...

• The gamblers could make sure the institutions don't know the purpose of the funds, until the funds have been placed outside the US, or in some online currency outside the hands of a bank/credit card company. If the user is asked, they'll claim they intend to buy some consumer goods with the funds (later they will change their minds and use them for something else).
• The gamblers could create a CD-secured debt or some other line of credit with a third party outside the US, use the debt for gambling, and transfer funds to cover the debt, instead of transferring funds to gamble with.

Re:your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but IMO (which is shared with MANY others) the Simpsons have been going downhill for a long time.

Not to say this point shows any disagreement with your sig except maybe the "once they go off the air" part.

Casino Gift Cards.

[arthurpaliden]

I will soon be selling Cassino Gift Cards that can be used to buy stuff in their 'gift shops'.

Gov't protect me against myself...

[ctglahn]

Why did we need a bill for something that was already "illegal"? What a waste of time, energy and talent. Could credit card companies not address this themselves? Just not allow the transaction? My guess is they weren't the ones complaining. It was probably some bleeding heart who couldn't control their own addiction that said, "I lost money, there should be a law." and unfortunately in our society someone always listens. That's just sad IMHO.

Re:Gov't protect me against myself...

[haggie]

Although time and effort was wasted in this bill, there was no "talent" used or wasted in production of this bill. On the other hand, there were measurable amounts of "bumbling" and "gross incompetence" identified with this bill.

Wall $treet

[Froze]

I suppose that I will have to satiate my gambling habits with options, futures and currencies.

Would someone please code a flash game that looks like roulette, blackjack, slots etc that was actually an interface to some brokerage for short term investments?

Stacked Deck

[Doc Ruby]

Funny how the Republican Abramoff machine that took bribes to protect casinos against new competition is still cranking out its legislation product, even after Abramoff is headed to jail. Maybe they're just hedging their bets in case they get jailed for protecting Republican boy rapists.

Why the "cause celebre" of the lobbyists who paid to elect Bush and his Republican Congress being passed by them surprises anyone is the only mystery here. Or is it pure "chance", according to some coincidence theorists?

Re:Stacked Deck

[jafuser]

Why would anyone pay one or two orders of magnitude more money to get into an office, than they are legally paid back in salary for the job--unless they were getting some kickback out of it?

Re:Stacked Deck

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    100% Troll

TrollMods can't face the truth: Republican pedophiles are raping us all, on both sides of the bars.

Re:Looks like the gambling sites are cornered now.

[Jack Pallance]

Do you REALLY trust online gambling sites to draft out of your bank account?

No, I REALLY don't. I don't think any Slashdotter would. What I do think is that people that have a gambling addition may not think things all the way through. They just know they have to put $200 on the Colts right now, becuase it's just before kick-off. And the Colts are a sure winner, so there is no chance of loosing money out of the checking account.

Or if the Colts don't cover the spread, they will be sure to make it up next weekend.

They just need to win enough to pay the rent...

Not so bad

[litewoheat]

This doesn't really matter all that much. It means that US banks and credit card companies can't process the transactions. Companies like Firepay are off shore banks that can accept lawful deposits from US banks and then in turn handle gambling related transactions.

The law doesn't impose any penalties to gamblers so there's nothing illegal about taking any winnings by using the offshore banks to funnel those winnings back to a US account.

The problem is it's just harder now for the average player to make a deposit. I think in the long run this will be better for the above average players by keeping the degenerate gamblers out.

Re:Not so bad

[raehl]

I think in the long run this will be better for the above average players by keeping the degenerate gamblers out.

Erm, how is that good for above-average players? Degenerate gamblers are where we make our money!

Re:Not so bad

[litewoheat]

If you're there for the sole intention of grinding it out and making money on the fish you encounter it will effect you negatively. For players who are there to play a game of skill for fun it sucks when a hope and a wish player catches their 5% draw on the river knocking out the good players. Same BS as what happened at the last 4 or 5 years at WSOP. The idiots out there make it suck for the real players. "Players" not "Gamblers".

Re:Not so bad

[XMyth]

Fine, keep the degenerates out of your tournaments but let them into my cash games!

Re:Not so bad

[bnenning]

For players who are there to play a game of skill for fun it sucks when a hope and a wish player catches their 5% draw on the river knocking out the good players.

Yes, but 95% of the time they don't, so you *want* them to call.

The idiots out there make it suck for the real players. "Players" not "Gamblers".

I don't understand your definitions then. Successful "players" make money by making correct decisions, and by having their opponents make incorrect decisions. Idiots make lots of incorrect decisions, thereby increasing the profits of good players. Yes, sometimes they make stupid plays that end up winning, but you want them at your table.

Re:Not so bad

[Didion Sprague]

Sklasnky all the way, baby!

Seriously -- anybody dumb enough to complain about bad players should be removed from the poker table and wonked over the head. The so-called "bad" players -- even if they suck out on the river 5% of the time -- still make mistakes that make the "good" players money.

What, you want to sit at a table with a bunch of tight Sklasnky clones folding hand after hand?

Someone wants to bet a Ace, Four unsuited because they "can't lay down an Ace?" Please, politely guide them to my table. And be nice to them. Courteous. They're the players I want to play with.

Let 'em hit their draw on the river nine times out of ten. So long as they fill up the pot, I could care less.

The new 419...

[jdumps]

Hello Sir, My name is Jacob, and I am a wealthy businessman from the United States. New laws by my government have removed my freedom to gamble my money online. I have $40 millions that I would like to use for to gamble, but unfortunately may not use a United States banking account. If you would send me your bank account information I will deposit this funds. I need you to transfer this funds to an online gambling site. In return, you may keep $2 million. I selected you especially for this task. Please reply quickly, my gambling habit is giving me fits!!! Sincerely, Jacob Rich U.S. Businessman Moneys! Come rollin' in!!!

Re:The new 419...

[arthurpaliden]

Wrong, Wrong ,Wrong.....its $40 MILLION DOLLARS ---- notice all the capital letters.

Re:The new 419...

[jdumps]

Perhaps you, sir, have interesting my my offer of $40 MILLION DOLLARS??? Please rush. If this transaction reaches complete in two days, I will allow you to keep $4 MIILION. THat is 10% of my impressive wealthy.

d'oh

[joe 155]

I've been disapointed to see that the UK government hasn't been leaning on Bush more over this issue, a lot of UK based compainies lost a lot of money today (although I think that the sensible ones have been spreading the risk). The US quite rightly leant on the EU over the MS issues because MS is worth a lot to them... I would have liked to see Blair at least being active on this issue.

Re:d'oh

[squiggleslash]

The US government had no business leaning on the EU over Microsoft, and Tony Blair would be wise to keep his nose out of US law on gambling.

While I disagree with the law itself, the notion that someone, soley for the sake of making more money, should try to use a position of privilege to have a legitimate law overturned in foreign country is absolutely wrong and counter to basic democratic and civic principles.

Sorry to be old fashioned here, but too many countries think that it's legitimate to interfere in the private affairs of other countries for all the wrong reasons. This goes on too much already. It needs to stop.

Re:d'oh

[Cederic]

Given how it was passed, I find it difficult to describe this as a "legitimate" law.

More loopholes

[Provos]

Well, you know, if you're that deperate, use an extra-territorial card backed by an extra-territorial bank. Sure, it's now illegal for US credit card companies, but try as they might, Congress can't pass a law (yet) that affects how banks and creditors in other countries do business.

Just sell goods instead of Gambling

[DieNadel]

So now a company outside US cannot use credit-card companies to collect gambling money... so what?

Really, move out of US and sell "happiness cards". The business works like this:

1) User searches a gambling site;
2) On a gambling site, the user has the option to buy "happiness cards", for 1 dollar + postage each;
3) For each "happiness card" bought, the user earns 1 playing bonus;
4) To legitimate the business, the "happiness cards" are really delivered to the user's given address.

Suggestions for "happiness cards":
- Porn;
- Landscapes;
- Puppies;
- Funny babies.

Hey, House and Senate, stop trying to regulate dumb things, and try to get a grip on Net Neutrality!

Your policestate is comming along nicely

[Snaller]

...meanwhile, hand me the dice Baby - Daddy needs a new pair of shoes!

*sigh*

[Quiet_Desperation]

I wish some of you effers out there would start voting libertarian. I'm so sick of legislated morality.

Re:*sigh*

[thrashaholic]

You're sick of legislated morality but you can't type the word "fuckers" ?

Goddamn libertarian pussies. ;)

Re:*sigh*

[jandrese]

I just wish the Libertarin party stood for what they said they stood for instead of really just being a front for tax dodging corporate fatcats.

Re:*sigh*

[Quiet_Desperation]

You are pretty much correct, but at least I'd be able to play some fucking blackjack once in a while.

It works in japan....

[Anonymous Coward]

cash gambling is illegal in japan, but guess what pachinko does?

you purchase and play with small b.b. sized metal balls, and the payout is in balls.
you can exchange these for a number of prizes, including small tokens.
within a block of the pachinko parlor, there is a shop that buys said tokens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachinko

it's already been done.

personally, though, I'm glad online gambling is illegal. i live in Vegas. the local casinos pay most of the taxes.

Re:It works in japan....

[FLEB]

My question: since these aren't "money", can you mint (or more likely, acquire from the catalog) this type of tokens and cash them in?

Re:It works in japan....

[lgw]

Can you? Sure. Can you do it and come out ahead? That's a different question.

The Pachinko parlors don't use items that you'll ever find in a catalog (no one's that stupid), they'll either use odd lots, where the items are all defective in some similar way, or buy the entire run of some item that flopped commercially, or I guess they could even do custom orders with an exclusive contract, but that's pricey.

As for having them fabricated yourself, oddly-shaped cast plastic doo-dads come from expensive molds, so you'd have to make thousands of dollars worth of fakes or there'd be no point. Stealing thousands of dollars from a business almost certainly connected with organized crime is perhaps not the safest way to make a living.

Re:we've met before

[Anonymous Coward]

Not organised crime. You've been listening to too many lying politicians and Fox broadcasts. These are listed companies with careful oversight, reporting requirements and a need to be clean. What replaces them will not be.

I'm an ok poker player

[CrazyJim1]

Its not as much gambling as it is a game. Now slots and stuff are made to take your money, but a good poker player can make a living.

Re:I'm an ok poker player

[DerekLyons]

Its not as much gambling as it is a game. Now slots and stuff are made to take your money, but a good poker player can make a living.

Only so long as there is a steady stream of people willing/able to *lose* money - Poker is a zero sum game. When the current Poker fad fades, it will be much more difficult to make a living at it.

Re:I'm an ok poker player

[XMyth]

People were doing it long before Moneymaker won the WSOP. Infact, in some ways it's more difficult now sine there is so much more literature on the topic. A lot of people say the skill level of the average player has risen in the midst of all this.

Re:I'm an ok poker player

[Dharzhak]

You wouldn't know it by the players at casinos.

Re:I'm an ok poker player

[dodongo]

I'm not being critical of your point, which is right-on (i.e., that people being willing to lose money is the key to being able to make money playing poker), but don't forget the house rake and "administration" fees and things like that, which are attached to both tournament entry fees and to individual pots. It's actually worse than a zero sum game for players, not that it matters, as you said, so long as people are willing to lose money :)

Re:I'm an ok poker player

[LesPaul75]

Actually, it's a "negative sum" game. The house takes its cut of every hand. So you have to be good enough to win more than the house take, on average. And that amount varies widely, depending on the stakes of the table. For example, at a $1 table, the maximum rake is probably $1 or $2 from each pot. But at a $50 table, the rake is still probably only $2 or $3, max.

As for the fad fading, it isn't likely. Poker is basically just the new version of the lottery, and the lottery certainly hasn't faded. The only difference is, people don't realize poker is a lottery, so it's even more addictive. They see some guy win $12 million on ESPN and think, "Hey, I know how to play poker! I can do that!" But it really is just drawing names out of a hat. Skill only takes you so far in poker -- in fact (although you'll be hard pressed to find many poker players who will admit this), random chance is by far the largest factor in poker, especially in large tournaments. Practically every pro poker player has been overheard calling the World Series "the lottery." That's not to say you can't make money in the long run as a poker player, but you just have to be willing to grind it out.

Pointless law

[Jack Sombra]

It is a pointless law really as it can be easily circumvented if someone really wishes to gamble, just insert a non US based 3rd party in the middle of any transaction (off shore bank or paypal like service)

What should be of great concern to everyone though, those for and against gambling is the way this law was passed, attaching two totally unrelated bills like this should be so illegal it should be part of the constitution because no matter how you look at it is a bad situation

Gov either get a law passed that would not on it's own make it past the finishing line by attaching it to a critical bit of legislation or possibly even worse, a piece of critical legislation does not make it into law because of the unrelated riders attached to it

Remember

[mugnyte]

  Lotteries, casinos, poker and slots in bars, horse and dog betting, general sports betting via your wookplace bookie, and playing poker with your buddies at home is still legal.

  This is just going to push the online gambling towards clearing houses for accounts overseas. If I can register to put money in offshore account, then build a paypal-like link to a site, then register for gambling using this as credential and escrow, nothing stops folks from playing (perhaps via proxy). Overall, this is just silly.

Re:Remember

[east coast]

Lotteries, casinos, poker and slots in bars, horse and dog betting, general sports betting via your wookplace bookie, and playing poker with your buddies at home is still legal.

IANAL. Normally these styles of gambling are handled on the state level (legally speaking, some of this is, of course, illegal in many areas). I wonder if this law is a way of working to protect state gaming rights in some fashion.

While I do not think this law is completely on the straight and level I'm wondering if someone with a law degree can enlighten us to why a state can run a lottery or allow a horse track but the feds need to block internet gambling?

Greater Reward

[headkase]

Anti-vice laws such as this aren't for the average person. They're to protect Society from the evils of the people on the edge of the bell curve who can't limit their own impulses. There are all kinds of walks of life and if the easily addicted we're left unsheparded the inherent evilness of their potential actions would eventually spill over into other peoples lives (embezzlement to pay for the gambling for example). Some paths through life are more rewarding than others and the people who make laws tend to think their paths are better so they create blanket laws because it's very difficult to tell which people need to be protected from themselves.

blah blah blah. Off to work.

Re:Greater Reward

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me about it - I buy around 150 lottery tickets a week. Why can't something be done about this?

Yes, you're a bit of a troll, but even you should be able to play "spot the irony".

Re:Greater Reward

[aiken_d]

...which would be a great and insightful viewpoint if it weren't for the government itself operating lotteries. As usual, the high ideals (whether or not they are correct) fall in the face of the almighty dollar. It's the "unless we can make a buck" exception to the "people need to be protected from themselves" belief.

-b

Re:Greater Reward

[headkase]

Yeah, I've been a smoker for about 20 years now. Tobacco is the most hypocritical thing going, it's killing me for a fact and yet I still smoke. When I was 15 and started wouldn't it have been better if it just never existed? And you don't even get anything off it.

Re:Greater Reward

[headkase]

I was coming more from theology than government, it's kind of a pseudo-morals comment. As for the government regulating lotteries and tobacco, remember prohibition? Once people have tried something and it resonates within them the desire for it will push some people to great lengths to re-experience it. Lotteries would be very difficult to stamp out; people would just go back to the back-room "numbers" games of the 30's. So they're kind of like a tolerated lesser evil. Yes they have the potential to disrupt lives and families and so on but, the revenue generated from regulation offsets some of the damage as ideally the money would be invested into social repair programs such as alcoholics anonymous.

37 states allow gambling

[BattleTroll]

According to http://www.polocenter.com/travel/lotteriesus.htm there are currently 37 states that allow gambling. They call it a 'lottery' but it's really just a glorified numbers racket. That doesn't stop the states from operating them, now does it?

If the federal government is in the business of outlawing gambling, they should do it across the board. Otherwise, they should stick to matters within their charter - national defense, negotiating international treaties, and protecting interstate commerce.

Re:37 states allow gambling

[jandrese]

Well obviously the states don't want competition.

More to the point, AFAIK it is not possible to buy Lottery tickets online. Granted, I've bought a grand total of 3 lottery tickets in my entire life[1], so I'm not the formost authority on this, but from what I can tell they all require you to go down to your local 7/11, Bar, Grocery Store, or whatever.

[1] Although come to think of it, I don't think I've ever spent my own money on one...

Re:37 states allow gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

"protecting interstate commerce"

Um, you're an idiot. I may be an AC right now, but still, do you even read what you write?

The point of this outlawing of online gambling is TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

I.E. Like most gambling, online gambling's main benefactors are those who run the sites. And how many of them are American companies? Pretty much none of them because those who live in the US who want to do something like this know that the FTC would slap them down faster than they can think "I want to start an online gambling company."

Keeping US money in the US, instead of allowing foreigners to dupe US citizens into basically turning over their savings, preventing the risk of online-gambling related bankruptcies? Sounds like Congress is doing the job it was entrusted to do.

Re:37 states allow gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew somebody would bring up this poor analogy. The overriding difference is that, um,...you see that the government doesn't...I mean, voters have approved, erm....regulation can be better uh....the thing with the money and the oversight....

Aw, crap! You're right!

Re:37 states allow gambling

[haggie]

Future "Onion" headline: "Terrorist Funds Attack On Sears Tower With Powerball Lottery Winnings"

Re:37 states allow gambling

[Mitreya]

They call it a 'lottery' but it's really just a glorified numbers racket. That doesn't stop the states from operating them, now does it?

Oh, it's a lot more than that. Casino's shave 1-2% from what goes through their system (not sure exactly how much, but certainly relatively little). Lotteries take something closer 50% of the cash that goes through them and generally encourage the less wealthy to participate...

Re:37 states allow gambling

[EastCoastSurfer]

Like the old saying goes. "The lottery is for people who are bad at math."

With that said I live in a state with Powerball. They have commerials all the time about playing the lottery. The problem is that gambling is illegal here.

The best part is a couple months back the police busted a small home poker game which included arresting an 80 year old lady and confiscating her $20 in chips. Guess they would rather her have spent that $20 on lotttery tickets, even though from what I hear she was pretty good at poker so it was almost certainly a worse investment.

Re:37 states allow gambling

[fyngyrz]

Like the old saying goes. "The lottery is for people who are bad at math."

The way I heard it was: "The lottery is a tax only applied to the math-impaired."

Re:37 states allow gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

If the federal government is in the business of outlawing gambling, they should do it across the board. Otherwise, they should stick to matters within their charter - national defense, negotiating international treaties, and protecting interstate commerce.

Funny--that's just exactly what they're doing here. Part of the deal with online gambling is that it's usually international and offshore, too, so it definitely falls under the federal government's purview. But even interstate gambling, within domestic borders, is in their jurisdiction. The only kind of gambling which isn't subject to federal regulation is intrastate gambling, and guess what? By your own examples, the feds don't regulate that. It's completely a state matter. Heck, so is prostitution, even though 49 out of 50 states ban that, too.

Of course, this law isn't actually making online gambling illegal; it already is, as far as I know. It's making the transfer of money (across state and international lines) illegal (in settlement of wagers), and regulating such transfers is a perfectly legitimate function of the federal government. (If you disagree with their reasons for doing so, talk with your representative. But it's undoubtably constitutional.)

The interstate commerce clause is extremely powerful because interstate commerce touches so much of our lives, directly or otherwise. Some may see that as a bad thing, but on the whole, I think we're better with the broad federal power over interstate commerce than not. Just imagine the alternative, with no single national arbiter, and everything subject to bilateral agreements, as is the case in international trade...

Re:37 states allow gambling

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping US money in the US, instead of allowing foreigners to dupe US citizens into basically turning over their savings, preventing the risk of online-gambling related bankruptcies? Sounds like Congress is doing the job it was entrusted to do.

Who's the idiot now?

Re:37 states allow gambling

[tsuess]

I agree completely. Let's outlaw all gambling and be done with it. Why should the internet gambling be singled out? Let's shut down Vegas and the Indian Reservations, see how happy the average American would be then.

Second Life?

[elrous0]

There has been debate for some time over whether all the casinos in Second Life were legal. If I were Linden Labs, I would certainly think long and hard about it--especially with their entire company and all its servers located in the U.S.

-Eric

Re:Second Life?

[Kris_J]

I think it's time to turn on that "I'm willing to mod" option again.

Mod parent up.

Credit cards were already blocked

[MattW]

Credit cards were already not accepted. This bill is aiming to stop banks from transfering money to online gaming services via Firepay, Neteller, etc. It requires a coding scheme for ETF transfers be put in place to "code" the purpose of each transaction. And it's sort of weird, really, given that if I send $x to Neteller, and I'm not specifying a purpose at the time - since they will hold funds - how can that be enforced? It remains to be seen whether this can effectively do anything at all other than burden the US banking system with an ineffective regulation which costs millions or billions to implement.

Also, it wasn't a surprise that the legislation PASSED - the Port Security bill was getting passed, period. What IS surprising is that Frist managed to attach this to it. Democrats were trying hard to attach relevant amendments, like a measure to increase security of the rail transit system. These amendments were all rejected, yet Frist manages to get his "pander to the religious right" amendment attached? The mind boggles.

Anyhow, there's a good analysis of the bill reposted here, which includes:

The great unknown is how far into the Internet commerce stream federal regulators are willing to go. The Act requires institutions like the Bank of America and Neteller to i.d. and block transactions to unlawful gambling sites, whatever they are. But, while the Bank of America will comply, Neteller might not, because it is not subject to U.S. regulations. Will federal regulators then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to Neteller? And would they then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to an overseas bank, which forwards the money to Neteller?

Re:Credit cards were already blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit cards were already not accepted. This bill is aiming to stop banks from transfering money to online gaming services via Firepay, Neteller, etc. It requires a coding scheme for ETF transfers be put in place to "code" the purpose of each transaction. And it's sort of weird, really, given that if I send $x to Neteller, and I'm not specifying a purpose at the time - since they will hold funds - how can that be enforced? It remains to be seen whether this can effectively do anything at all other than burden the US banking system with an ineffective regulation which costs millions or billions to implement

It looks like most of the gambling sites are simply pulling out of the US altogether now. So they are enforcing the law for the government.

Re:Credit cards were already blocked

[XMyth]

I used a BoA checkcard to fund an account a year ago...my local bank always would and still does decline such transactions though, but Bank of America didn't.

Reading the link you posted now (thanks) but are you SURE this is targetted at third party proxies? Like you said, how can they possibly tell what the transfer is for?

Re:Credit cards were already blocked

[MattW]

As I noted, I think this is more targetted at the religious vote than anything in reality. Frist is pandering, and I doubt he cares what the net effect is. It's not likely to do him a lot of good. There are a LOT of people playing poker online right now, and those who are "into" it are severely ticked. Meanwhile, I think the religious groups he was targeting with the move are likely to be unimpressed, because the legislation THEY were seeking was an expansion of the 1961 Wire Fraud Act into explicitly covering online gambling, so that individuals could be prosecuted for doing it.

I've seen that comment elsewhere - that some banks will and will not currently process stuff. My impression is that somehow the credit/debit system "knows" that a site is involved in gambling and MOST financial institutions in the US won't process that. IIRC, that's actually not a government mandated legal requirement, although there was some bluster about the Wire Fraud Act; it was that people were charging their cards to gamble, then refusing to pay, claiming that they weren't liable for the charges since charging up a gambling account was illegal in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if your check card worked but a credit card from BofA would fail.

I hestitate to strongly declare the net effect, though. It seemed fairly toothless in this analysis, but PartyGaming PLC basically said they're blocking US accounts the moment Bush signs it - and they are the largest poker site out there (or... were). If they really thought this was toothless and unenforceable, why would they block US accounts? And for that matter, even IF it were enforceable, they're outside US jurisdiction, so why should they care? It won't be enforced against THEM. And yet they're claiming they're going to forego millions of dollars in US revenue?

So, the ultimate answer is that the law has added a lot of grey for now, and we'll have to see how everything shakes out. The regs the US Treasury dept comes up with may make the difference. The PPA (Poker Players Alliance) is fighting hard to get Poker an exemption, and given that poker online actually has significant domestic economic benefits (ie, the throng of tourists in Vegas during the WSOP, and to a lesser extent at other major events), I could see a carve-out for "skill based games" like poker happening before the treasury implements this. (They have a 270 day window under the law)

Re:Credit cards were already blocked

[XMyth]

Do you have any references for the statement by Party? Are they going to block US credit cards or ALL US players?

Re:Credit cards were already blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

If you news search for Party, you'll see their press release, where they claim that as soon as Bush signs the law, they are pulling out. (Along with 888 and some others)

You'd think it's election season

[Rob T Firefly]

or something...

How do riders work?

[Zarxrax]

Excuse the (slightly) off-topic question, but could someone explain to me exactly how riders are attached to bills like this? I've googled around but can't come up with any solid information on it. Can any congressman or senator just add a rider to a bill? Is it really that simple? I believe there must be much more to it than that, or else every single bill would have tons of insane riders attached (more so than we have now!). I mean, if someone adds a rider to outlaw online gambling, then whats to stop another person from adding a rider that would nullify that rider?

Re:How do riders work?

[nelsonal]

Essentially that's how politics works. Leaders of both parties (espeically in the senate) meet formally and informally to communicate what's important to them during a political season. Riders are technically attached in committee (which is why senior lawmakers are said to have so much power they get to sit on committees that have the most bills go through). What happens is they will attach things (via majority vote in committee). Riders are usually attached to do one of two things, secure enough votes for passage of something that a solid minority wants (say for example, something that will benefit a region of the US say a widening of I-5 or I-95), or to sink a bill that one party opposes--if a 40 member bloc didn't want to pass a bill (and they had a friend in the committee) they would do their best to get a rider that pardoned everyone in the prison system for example.

Pity only idiots get elected.

[Kadin2048]

You want to run for office? I hear there are some tentative availabilities coming up shortly in Congress.

Re:Pity only idiots get elected.

[fyngyrz]

I hear there are some tentative availabilities coming up shortly in Congress.

Yeah. Guess they've been "thinking of the children" a little too hard.

Hypocritical fucktards.

Re:Pity only idiots get elected.

[fyngyrz]

Pretty funny how this went from +2 funny to -1 flamebait overnight. Guess we've got a real congressional page fan with mod points; five of my messages got modded down last night, after staying normal during the "heat" of the conversation. You gotta love slashdot's punitive moderators -- if your view is controversial, you'll be generally modded down by some IQ-bereft wack job. And truly, that's why I post here -- the opportunity to irritate the fundies is incomparable. :-)

Of course it's legal to play lotto

[therealking]

Fortunately for all of us, it's not wrong to play lotto or the horse races. Those types of gambling are just fine.

Money Laundering

[BeeBeard]

Peter Gibbons: I can't believe what a bunch of nerds we are. We're looking up "money laundering" in the dictionary.

Yeop.

Virtual world gambling legal or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

So where will that put all the gambling and oddness that takes place within a virtual world like second life?

I assume that since the servers are US based that gambling would be illegal under this, however the transactions are not direct (you purchase "Linden $$" in the game w/ real cash then gamble with the in world virtual $$), also possibly complicated by the option to use the cash you earn to buy things in the world itself or cash out to real currency.

Curious about others thoughts.

Business idea

[UbuntuDupe]

Actually, you remind me of this business idea I've had for a while. Basically, sell investments *as* lottery tickets.

For example, options can give very high returns, but this only happens rarely. So what you would do is:

a) Buy a high-risk option (e.g., the right to buy oil in a month at $110/barrel) which is unlikely to be worth anything but will be valuable if it is

b) Sell $1 shares in this option like lottery tickets.

c) If the option turns out to be worth anything, sell it, and distribute proportional to buyers.

You could even liven it up - buy many different kinds of options, and buyers "scratch off" to find what option they're now holding a share of.

They can't say it's illegal gambling, because that would amount to saying that "real investing" is gambling.

What could go wrong?

I think that the issue isn't ability to tax

[joeflies]

but the general unwillingness of people in the US to report winnings on their taxes through means that they shouldn't be using. How do you report gambling income if it's not legal to gamble online?

Money laundering?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Just because you think you've found a loophole does not make it legal. Passing money across state (and possibly international) boundaries to commit a crime is illegal too.

Now that you've posted instructions on how to do this, you're probably guilty of some crime or other too.

America, land of the free!

As an American, I must say

[MrPerfekt]

This political system is fucked.

No, really. The way things operate today is so far gone from what the founders of this country intended. Everytime a controversial bill is passed by attaching it to a piece of "must-pass" legisilation, I die a little bit on the inside. Why can't politicians see that they're selling out their country by trying to protect it with more non-sense laws that are only in big corporations interests and NOT the peoples? When will it end?

Re:As an American, I must say

[JimXugle]

Right after pittsburgh repeals the law that says that someone cannot sleep on a refrigerator outdoors on a thursday night.

My tax dollars at work...

Re:As an American, I must say

[Rotten168]

Why can't people stop electing representatives who tack on legislation?

Re:As an American, I must say

[Darby]

Why can't politicians see that they're selling out their country by trying to protect it with more non-sense laws that are only in big corporations interests and NOT the peoples?

They can. It's not difficult, obscure, or in any way unclear.
They know it perfectly well, but they don't care.

When will it end?

When we kill them.
That's it. There is no other way.

Send a message - stop gambling

[gorfie]

I know it's unlikely, but perhaps we should discontinue gambling activities and send a clear message that we won't stand for lobbyists controlling our state and federal leaders. Then again, maybe we should just surrender to our lobbyist overlords now and hope that they don't take away our freedom to stay home on the weekend instead of going out and giving them our money.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch, parent makes great points.

Kinda scary that parent isn't necessarily joking

[Mateo_LeFou]

...providing "material support" to organizations that have terrorist ties is -- if I understand our new insect overlords correctly -- now sufficient to classify anyone as an "enemy combatant" and basically strip himher of all habeas-type rights. Putting money in offshore accounts helps those banks to launder the money of terrorists and many other unsavory types, which I believe could qualify as material support (the law was intentionally left vague on what constitutes material support).

Step Right Up

[Zenaku]

I'm giving 5-to-1 on repeal by 2010. Any takers?

Corruption!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of bribery and political corruption. If Congress wants to make gambling illegal, then it should do just that. Outlaw all state lotteries, Indian casinos, and Las Vegas. Oh wait, they would never do that because they are getting a cut of the action.

The only reason why Internet based gambling is illegal now is because Congress didn't get a cut of the profits. This is pure corruption. Every senator and representative who voted for this bill should have their balls/cnts cut off and force fed to them.

Why do we the people continue to tolerate such blatant corruption and greed in our politicians? This law does absolutely nothing to benefit the public and exists only to line the pockets of the so called public servants. We should be up in arms against crap like this. Two hundred years ago, Americans would have dressed up like Indians and thrown poker chips into the Boston harbor because of an act like this. America has fallen so far that it's become a laughing stock of the civilized world.

How about an act that would actually benefit America? Make it illegal for banks and credit card company to collect funds that go to political advertisements. Outlaw lobbying! That would actual improve things around here. Fcking politicians.

Yawn

[deblau]

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.
(B) INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where--
(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single State;
(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of such State, and the State law or regulations include--
(I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of such State; and
(II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with such State's law or regulations; and
(iii) the bet or wager does not violate any provision of the--
(I) Interstate Horseracing Act;
(II) Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act;
(III) Gambling Devices Transportation Act; or
(IV) Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
* * *
(E) INTERMEDIATE ROUTING- The intermediate routing of electronic data shall not determine the location or locations in which a bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states.

All this law does is make internet gambling sites shell out a few (hundred) thousand dollars for server upgrades and a minor software patch. Yippee.

Re:Yawn

[bigtrike]

Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states.

The supreme court has ruled that growing marijuana for personal use and consuming it effects interstate commerce. Judges involved commented that it sets a precedent which basically allows the federal government to control everything.

It's quite amazing that they specifically grant the states rights in this bill, they didn't really have to.

Re:Yawn

[Dausha]

"Whatever. You can thank the boundaries of the Interstate Commerce Clause for defanging this beast. Expect gambling sites to set up bank accounts in each of the states where online gambling is legal under state law, and direct all traffic from gamblers in a state to servers in that state. This accounts for most if not all states."

Except, in many states it is illegal to gamble. So, setting up shop in a state merely exposes the gambling company to state prosecution. It also opens the gambing company to that state's taxation. And, a good federal prosecutor will argue that the entire transaction cycle does not end with the in-state bank account---as it will be wired to the gambling company's main account. The "sham" account issue will end up before a district or federal court judge who will clarify the understanding of the law to reflect that shams are not allowed.

Re:Yawn

[OakLEE]

`(C) INTRATRIBAL TRANSACTIONS- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where--
                        `(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively--
                              `(I) within the Indian lands of a single Indian tribe (as those terms are defined by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act); or
                              `(II) between the Indian lands of 2 or more Indian tribes to the extent that intertribal gaming is authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;

Hell, the law even allows interstate transactions between Tribal sites. While I do not see a method myself, I am pretty sure someone could figure out a way to structure online betting transactions so that it meets these requirements. That would essentially allow interstate gaming in the U.S., regardless of location.

Re:Yawn

[jjr1]

Does anyone else think that this could affect organized crime? If you live in a state where they don't have legal sports betting (all states except Nevada), wouldn't you likely increase the likelihood of someone using their friendly neighbor Vito to place the bets by passing legislation like this? After all, most of the people I know would never play slots online, but many of them like to bet on sports.

Re:Yawn

[deblau]

I think I should add that, aside from the ways gambling companies will work around this law, this move is yet another in a long series of laws passed by Congress which have the effect of driving business overseas to the detriment of our national economy, for no tangible gain. If you want to regulate my business, you better give me a good reason why it should be regulated.

Regulating businesses on moral grounds is fine, to the extent you can show there are actually morals involved. There aren't any here. Games of chance make money by redistributing wealth from those who don't understand probability (or don't care) to those who do. You aren't forced to gamble, and your rights aren't violated if you lose. Gambling is a personal choice, like buying a house outside your means, or blowing your paycheck on Saturday to go boozing with your friends. To the extent gambling is addictive and Congress wants to regulate it out of a public health concern, fine, but then why aren't they stopping suppliers of alcoholics and nicotine addicts who transport their goods across state lines? Booze and smokes kill more people every year than gambling addictions. This law stinks to high heaven of special interest groups and hypocracy.

Re:Yawn

[jus000]

I completely agree with your thoughts Deblau. This law is absolutely ridiculous. The only solution for gambling in the United States is legalization and taxation. The government would make a tremendous amount of money in taxes. Online gambling is much safer than betting with a local bookie. First off, you know you are going to get paid. I must say that I really don't think that betting with a credit card is acceptable with online gambling. Before books would take credit cards, you had to have the money up front to bet with. The advantage to online gambling was that you could only bet with what money you had up front. If you bet with your neighborhood bookie, you can easily get in over your head by betting with money that you do not have up front. However, debit cards should be allowed and Visa, Mastercard, whomever should get their fair cut. Nobody forces anyone to gamble, and nobody should be able to tell you that you cannot. This law will most certainly not stop gambling as it goes on all day every day in the United States even without the Internet. The government should make their fair cut and leave it be. They are just trying to keep people from putting their money in another country's economy. This law is ridiculous and will most certainly not solve anything. Thanks for reading, and have a good night everyone.

So...

[Mister Whirly]

Anyone want to lay down bets on how long this will last?? I'm giving 3 to 1 odds here.... If you do, please visit my online gaming site located at http://secretuspolicelist.gov/

Remember when gambling was a state issue?

[Sloppy]

What's interesting is that the states apparantly still believe they are allowed to allow/prohibit/regulate brick'n'mortar gambling, which is why you can do it in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, and I guess the Indian Casinos somehow fit into all that. But remember that it is "interstate commerce" that makes it illegal -- by federal law -- for you to grow marijuana and sell it to your next-door neighbor who lives in the same state. In order for Congress to prohibit the interstate drug trade, they say it's "necessary and proper" for them to prohibit intrastate trade.

Use the same logic, and the regulation of "online" gambling is a step in that direction, and all gambling in any form, even brick'n'mortar Casinos, is now subject to federal control.

The "interstate commerce" combined with "necessary and proper" clauses are the most powerful things in the constitution, as long as you vaguely and abusively interpret them "correctly." Nobody can name a single thing that is beyond the constitutional powers of Congress. Go ahead, try. Name anything that, from the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment, that you think might be a "states rights" issue, and I bet someone can come up with a perverted way to make it a federal issue.

"The United States" do not exist -- it is just The State. What's the capital of Texas? Washington DC. What's the capital of California? Washington DC. What's the capital of New York? Washington DC. Memorizing the 50 capitals is easy! :-)

One more reason to get a Swiss bank account

[sadler121]

One easy way to get around this law is to open up a swiss bank account. Get a debit card through such bank, and then use it at gambling sites, all while in the USA.

Fuckers fuckers fuckers

[Quiet_Desperation]

There. :-P Happy?

Goddamn libertarian pussies. ;)

Actually, cats are a great symbol for libertarian thought. :) Independent. Living by the beat of their own drum. Fuzzy. Coughing up furballs. Um. OK, so I overextended the analogy.

They're doing this for all of us...

[Churla]

They're just trying to keep the tubes clear. As we all know. poker chips clog up tubes, and there are only so many state approved lottery balls we can keep pumping through to clean out the mess.

Again, this is basically an unenforcable law from the perspective of stopping on line gambling as people will work around it with non US banks, the same way the gambling corporations get around gambling laws with non US servers.

As for coding ETF transactions, there are too many times that money is moved without a given purpose at the time other than changing where you are keeping it. Is "Moving money to a better storage facility" going to be a valid transfer code? If so, your premise is shot right there. As at that point you have to legislate thoughts of "Did you decide you were going to gamble with this money before or after transferring it to off-shore-bank.com?"

Law Of Unintended Consequences

[TonyXL]

Here are some possibilities:

1. The number of underground casinos/cardrooms/sportsbooks will grow.
2. Independent bookies will see increased business.
3. Organized crime will get in on the action.
4. Overseas banks will get more money at the expense of US banks.
5. People will be swindled by overseas business offering to hold money for internet gaming.

Not All Online Gambling is Illegal!

[Spoke]

You can still use your credit card to fund an account to wager on horse racing online.

Terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always noticed you can easily transfer money on the online poker sites to other players.. You could use these sites to easily launder money, all you'd have to do, is have your accomplice go to an empty table, raise the amount you want to transfer, have your accomplice Re-raise you, then fold. Bang, he got all the money, and it looks like a fair gamble, not an attempt to illegally transfer money.. Also, since you can easily use fake accounts, and repeat this process numerous times, how would they ever track it?

interestingly I have to use "ideology" as my word to post this message.

Interesting point - Magic Online

[Anonymous Coward]

This raises an interesting point. Magic Online is essentially an online casino, but it isn't classed as a casino because most prizes are cards, rather than cash. I wonder if any other online casinos will circumvent the new rules by changing the way that prizes are paid out?

The Congress Has Balls

[ztransform]

In spite of America's failings (the most obvious one about letting citizens own guns for the purpose of schoolyard shootings) I have to admire the balls Congress has in this situation. They just decimated the share value of a number of online gambling companies!

Too often governments fear bringing corporations down to size. There are a number of unethical industries that need to be nipped on the reproductive organs and it WILL mean a loss to the economy in terms of corporate valuations. Lately banking, telecommunications, and oil firms are just taking individuals and countries for a ride. The only ones who can stop it (the Governments) are the very same ones that profit in the back pocket from the illicit activity.

It takes a real man to lead a religion and not abuse his power. It takes a real government to lead a country and not abuse its power.

Re:The Congress Has Balls

[Mr2001]

In spite of America's failings (the most obvious one about letting citizens own guns for the purpose of schoolyard shootings) I have to admire the balls Congress has in this situation. They just decimated the share value of a number of online gambling companies!

Er, I hope you're joking. American legislators are as worried as ever about the share value of American companies, but online casinos are run out of other countries (or from Indian reservations).

Re:The Congress Has Balls

[Apocalypse111]

The citizens of the US don't have guns to shoot school children. We have guns to shoot at the government, in case they get too tyranical. In case you'd forgotten, the framers of the Constitution had just gotten done FIGHTING A WAR against a tyranical government, one that was doing its best to prevent those it ruled over from having guns, thus making them either more complacent, or just easier to control. If I were a British officer during colonial times, I would certainly rather be fighting an enemy armed with clubs and knives than one armed with a musket.

Speaking of a tyranical government, anyone up for a tea party? I hear the weather in Boston is lovely this time of year.

Re:The Congress Has Balls

[Anonymous Coward]

> We have guns to shoot at the government,

Tell that to the citizens of Waco, Texas. The guns that citizens have are no match for the guns that government has. If any citizen even jokes about using a gun against the government, he is immediately arrested for terrorism and not given access to a lawyer.

Our government does not allow it's citizens to have organized or disorganzied militias for the purpose of opposing tyranny. In fact, our founding fathers even defined treason as being the taking up of arms against the government. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Re:The Congress Has Balls

[Apocalypse111]

If any citizen even jokes about using a gun against the government, he is immediately arrested for terrorism and not given access to a lawyer.

Not exactly - they still haven't taken our freedom of speech. And yes, the founding fathers defined treason that way, but remember, they themselves were treasonous British citizens. Treason isn't always a bad thing.

Re:The Congress Has Balls

[Rotten168]

That's a failing? Right to self defense is an imporant human right and one of our best features.

Online Gambling

[TheRecklessWanderer]

hey all you American online gamblers!! Up here in Canada, we don't tax winnings. You can come up here and gamble away and keep all your winnings. I'll bet some enterprising bank will let you put your money here so you don't have to bring it into the US, but here's a bank card so it's all good.

Re:Online Gambling

[will_die]

Except to open a bank account in Canada is not that easy. First you have to have a job in Canada, this is so you can get a SIN card, then with that and forgein password you can apply for the bank account and should probably get it. However for most people just wanting for gamble it is a huge wall.
However Canada is alot easier then most of Europe. There you have to show proof of a job, and proof of residence and thoses are not easy papers to get, even when you have all the signed paperwork in your hand.
As a comparison for a non-resident to get a US bank account it use to just take a phone call and you could do it all over the phone. With the passage of the US PATRIOT law it now requires that you send a copy of your password to the bank.

Re:Online Gambling

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Well it was mostly tongue in cheek ya know, but there is a huge potential. OMG I was in Vegas at the Montecarlo, and there was a bank there that would take the deed to your house and lend you gambling money, and all you had to do was put up your house. It saddens me deeply, and that's not sarcasm.

Re:Online Gambling

[assassinator42]

Ah, but does Canada tax losses? I'd have more of those.

I said it before, I'll say it again:

[walterbyrd]

democracy simply does not work.
- Kent Brokman

H.R.4954.EAS or 4954.HARASS

[DumbSwede]

Seriously I sounded this out in my head as 4954.HARASS on the first read.

Seems it would be a more apt name.

That's because you don't understand.

[LesPaul75]

Please mod parent as ignorant. Poker is not a game played against the house. A good poker player will make money, a bad poker player will lose money (in the long run). Casino games like blackjack are, of course, designed to take your money by favoring the house. Poker, on the other hand, is played against other flash and blood players and the house just takes a small percent from each pot. That's one of the reasons why online poker has exploded and surpassed all the other online gambling. Party Poker makes FOUR MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY. It's ridiculous.

Foolishness

[WillyPete]

Your logic is exactly what drove this thing, I'm certain. It's also a foolish notion, on the face of it.

If U.S. credit card companies can't collect U.S. payments for U.S.-based online gambling, then I guess we're about to see some explosive growth in their overseas divisions.

How is my Visa card, acquired in Britain from their European division, and not subject to this law, going to prevent me from gambling myself into bankruptcy in a (now) European-based online casino? Is the Justice Department going to put Visa out of business in the U.S. over this?

This law drains whatever tax benefit Internet gambling provides to the U.S., and guarantees growth for European and Asian business.

Ah, breathe it in...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US of A becomes more and more free from "dom" each passing day. What a glorious place it must be to live - freedom never had it so good. Praise the lard.

Not.

Unanimous

[dbc001]

If I'm reading this right, it was passed almost unanimously in both the house and the senate (these things aren't terribly clear). It appears to have been sponsored by Dan Lungren (R-CA). Does anyone know how to stop this kind of crap? I don't know of a single person who would endorse this crap, but it appears that pretty much everybody voted for it (no doubt due to it's name).

I see a new SPAM-SCAM coming

[guruevi]

Dear highly honered sire,

My name is John Gumble and I am a American cittisen that just won $2m in offshore online casino. Since my bank won't proces it I would like to ask to give me your bank acount, pincode and sacrifice a goat so I can transfer the money. I will help you to get 15% out of the transaction.

God bless you, I have 2 wife and 3 kids who are hungry and this will really help me,

Sincerely,

John Gimble

There's a fly in your ointment, sir.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your packets happen to go to an out-of-state router before going to the local, in-state gambling operation, you're in violation. It's not sufficient to ensure that your Ohio server only accepts gamblers with a billing address in Ohio. You must also perform flawless geolocation of every hop between the gambler and yourself, inclusive, and ensure that they are all within state. The second your packets go out-of-state you've committed a federal felony. You must also perform this operation for EVERY packet, to account for route flap, balanced routing, etc. Also, if your packets go into an MPLS tunnel, you must geolocate all the hops inside this tunnel - an operation for which no methodology currently exists.

Good luck, sir.

And in other news... Crime Rate Increases

[Anonymous Coward]

With online gambling a person was forced to play with money they already had, or borrow from a credit card company within some limits. This was not completly harmless and has accounted for many finiancial problems for many families, but now the situation might be much worse.

Now more people will turn to local bookies to place their bets often playing with money they don't have or without borrowing limits resulting in them getting in too deep and they will have much more to answer to than a credit card company's high interest rate.

While this problem will increase, online gambling sites will also become more inventive in ways to make deposits, I have already seen where you can purchase a prepaid phone card from a company you have never heard of with a credit card and use that to instantly fund a poker account.

Welcome to the land of the free when the government gets a cut on your already taxed dollars.

How to Stop It

[Greyfox]

Register to vote and vote against incumbant. Sure one vote doesn't usually make a huge difference, though a couple hundred would have kept shrub from the presidency the first time he ran. But voter turnouts in the US are usually ridiculously low so your vote makes more of a difference than it would in other countries. If you could convince your friends to do the same thing and they could convince their friends, it wouldn't take long before your collective votes would make a difference. What doesn't make a difference is just sitting on your ass and complaining about it.

I'm voting in the November elections. How about you?

Investing isn't gambling

[jfengel]

It's not gambling, it's investing. You're actually selling something: the right to buy oil. The value of the thing you're selling is determined by an actual, real-world object: once it all settles out a real barrel of oil actually goes somewhere.

You'd get into all kinds of trouble, not because it's gambling but because it's investing. The SEC would want to have a word with you. You'd have to explain how you're planning on tracking all those lottery tickets, when they can just bypass you as the middle man and invest directly. And you'd better be prepared to fill out a lot of forms to make sure you're not skimming more than you say you will.

You're right that options are closer to gambling than regular stocks are, because what you're selling there is "risk". The real purpose of options is to manage risk. Some farmer has a bunch of oranges coming in, and he'd like to sell the juice today for a set price rather than risk the weather ruining his crop. You buy the option; you're assuming the risk and possibly getting the reward. You're helping some farmer out.

Unlike gambling risk, though, the risk isn't artificial, and the margin isn't going to the house. This is weather risk, or risk that they won't find oil, or other kinds of real-world risk on real-world objects. It's not for fun, the way gambling is. It's serious business, and farmers would be a lot worse off if it weren't for agricultural commodities hedging. (It applies just as well to spreading the risk of other investments, but it's clearest with agricultural ones.)

Re:Investing isn't gambling

[UbuntuDupe]

You'd have to explain how you're planning on tracking all those lottery tickets,

Maybe -- and this is just a guess -- with the same techniques that are now used to track lottery tickets?

when they can just bypass you as the middle man and invest directly.

Maybe -- and this is just a guess -- for the same reason people buy mutual fund shares, even though they could "just" bypass the middleman and buy 500 tiny odd lots of stocks every time they get a paycheck?

For someone who actually understands financial markets, you asked a pretty stupid question there.

Re:Investing isn't gambling

[suffe]

I'm not sure that you understand options correctly. You are right in that you are dealing with risk, but not quite in the way you see it. The farmer and his oranges would work a little bit different. He doesn't sell an unknown quantity at a fixed price (which would be the case if his harvest is ruined) but rather he is selling a right (or in the case or some other instruments, an obligation) to buy a fixed quantity at a fixed price at a fixed point. The main advantage to a farmer (and we should really talk about futures or forwards if we are dealing with farmers) is that he knows the amount of money he will be paid. He doesn't have to wonder if he can buy the new machine or if the price of oranges might fall.

As for the other party of this deal, the buyer of the option/future/forward he is not doing this out of the good of his heart in order to help the farmer. Ignoring true speculative dealings (as I did with the farmer) he is doing it for just the same reason that the farmer is doing it. Perhaps he has an OJ factory and wants to know how much he will pay for oranges 2 months from now, without actually having to buy them now, store them in a warehouse and pray that his oranges wont be bed in 2 months.

Of course, you might deal with these financial instruments for a lot of other reasons. Locking in a profit, speculate, leverage et cetera.

I Agree... Sort Of.

[Petersko]

"I don't see a legitimate reason for gambling to be illegal. If someone wants to gamble, smoke, shoot themselves in the foot, or whatever, let them. "

The problem is that people who gamble online are usually doing so with somebody elses money - i.e. their credit card providers.

One of the problems targeted by this bill is the rising volume of uncollectable debts related to gambling. I agree with you - gambling should not be illegal. But I also think gambling with borrowed, unsecured funds should not be allowed without the expressed consent of the lender.

Re:I Agree... Sort Of.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that the CC companies need this law to protect themselves? That is absurd. If they needed protection, they would have enacting this on their own and been done with it. There is no need for more useless laws.

Re:I Agree... Sort Of.

[bnenning]

But I also think gambling with borrowed, unsecured funds should not be allowed without the expressed consent of the lender.

Most credit card companies already deny transfers to gambling sites.

Re:I Agree... Sort Of.

[VendettaMF]

If a credit card company gives unchecked loans to bad debts, well, that's their own lookout, neh?

Perhaps they need to look at their business model a litle closer. Pre-approved cards being mailed to names and addresses collected pretty much randomly is the norm these days after all.

Re:your sig

[crabpeople]

The last few episodes were really smart and really funny. "whats the point, we're all slowly dying.." -homer on his lack of motivation.

Religious Hypocrites

[humankind]

What's really ironic about this is that this dingleberry attached to an unrelated bill was supposedly to appease the religious right. But nowhere in the bible... NOWHERE is gambling indicated as being against god's will or law. In fact the bible makes repeated references to gambling and "drawing of lots" throughout.

This is another classic example of religious nutjobs exploiting the stupidity of the public, hiding behind dogma to impose their own selfish agenda. They feel that internet gambling is cutting into their gambling activities like bingo... what a bunch of hypocrites. It's a shame god doesn't exist because if he did, all these asses would be burning in hell for eternity as a result of their unbridaled hubris and hypocrisy.

Way OT.

[thrashaholic]

Actually, cats are a great symbol for libertarian thought. :)

'Cause they're dependant on their owners for food and medical care? Unless you meant the feral variety, and I wouldn't exactly call them fuzzy...

I'm teasing anyhow. Burn karma burn.

This is so simple to defeat, even a child could...

[GuyverDH]

This is very simple.

Off-shore betting company, routes CC through off-shore CC processing center.

There's NO way the US can pass a law that would disallow an American from using online gambling, if they were in another country.

ie - offshore company routes traffic through an off-shore proxy, which then makes it appear that the users are in Thailand or Jamaica, or wherever.

Then they place the bets, take the money, or give it back.

No US laws to worry about.

Not that I care about online gambling, as I don't gamble, period. It's enough of a gamble just to wake up every day. I just don't like seeing tax payer money wasted on stupid legislature which restricts what we as citizens can and cannot do.

You're missing the point

[ravenspear]

Whether it could still be possible to operate casinos legally in the US is not the most important thing here, whether casinos and online gaming companies will continue to put up with the hassle involved is. Right now it's not looking like they will.

Between this bill and the arrest of betonsports CEO, the feds are sending a strong message to online gaming compamies that they are cracking down hard on this sector. PartyGaming (owner of no.1 gambling site partypoker) already announced they are pulling out of the US market. Rumors are that Pokerstars.com (no.2 site) will follow suit tomorrow or very soon.

888.com (another major online casino) and a host of smaller sites already said they are no longer going to allow US players. Now of course other sites make start up to fill the void, but make no mistake, this bill will hit the gaming sector extremely hard.

neteller

[benicillin]

wow! companies like neteller et. al. must be very happy with the passing of this new law. no more competition from credit card companies - now we (we being american online gamblers) are forced to put our money into a third party middle-man, pay them a percentage based fee, and then gamble with whats left..

thanks congress, way to accomplish absolutely nothing other than giving us a hard time.

US vs Saudia Arabia for most Puritan country

[peter303]

Lets see, the US tries to outlaw gambling, porn, booze sales on the InterNet. Doesn't sond like a very liberal country to me. Please protect me from my evil desires Uncle Sam!

What about...

[louisadkins]

...paypal?

fuck congress

[Intangion]

exactly how is this the land of the free?
we cant do shit
this whole country has lost its way

now the government tells me im not allow to gamble online, in my own home?
fuck that

alot of peoples income comes from online gambling

Pork should be outlawed instead of gambling

[nurb432]

Except for the government taking away my rights, the entire concept of tacking unrelated items on a bill to get it passed under the wire pisses me the hell off.

Bills should be about ONE subject. Period. And anyone that even tries to tack on crap should be shot on site.

We have lost control of our government, its long past time for a 2nd revolution.

Gambling On Stocks Vs. Gaming

[cmholm]

Anyone want to bet that online casinos will be targeted by this law, but Wall Street will remain strangely exempt?

When you buy share of stock, you own a percentage of the company that issued it. Your reasons for buying it (profit, loss, wipe your ass w/ certificate) are incidental.

When you game, you're wagering you'll get something for nothing. Your reasons for doing it are also incidental. Nothing is produced but extremely costly entertainment.

Re:Gambling On Stocks Vs. Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this not one in the same you buy a stock and hope it goes higher but you could also loose your A$$ also!

It affects offshore banking as well.

[Mozz Alimoz]

litewoheat says:

This doesn't really matter all that much. It means that US banks and credit card companies can't process the transactions. Companies like Firepay are off shore banks that can accept lawful deposits from US banks and then in turn handle gambling related transactions.

The law doesn't impose any penalties to gamblers so there's nothing illegal about taking any winnings by using the offshore banks to funnel those winnings back to a US account.

If what's correct, then then why did FireOne (which is FirePay's owner) says in this press release today.

The enactment of the Act will have a significant negative impact on the business and results of operations of the Company. The Company's Board is evaluating the situation and will update shareholders when appropriate.

FireOne's a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange and it dropped 66% on this news. So I'm thinking that the US laws do have a significant impact them getting US customers. If you think otherwise, take a gamble and buy their shares cheap. At least its not a negative sum game like online gambling.

responsibility

[Isthisagametou]

People need to be allowed to fall before they can learn to remain standing on their own. If we never allow them to fall we will forever be propping them up with (what should be unnecessary) crutches.

politics

[circletimessquare]

it's all about who wins and who loses. all of these gambling companies that lose because of this are offshore, a lot in the UK i believe. the winners are inbred social conservatives who will celebrate this with a game of bingo at the local church (laff!)

american congresscritters are not elected by british businessmen, so the heck with them. if it were american businessmen that stood to lose because of this, it would have never passed. but as it is, american businessmen can't start these sort of businesses because of laws pushed by said inbred social conservatives to begin with... inbred social conservatives usually from areas of the country with riverboat casinos. the hypocrisy of it all. it's potectionism of outdated gambling modes: las vegas, atlantic city: they serve to lose from online gambling

so this isn't about morality after all in the end folks, it's about business, and this whole bill is a giant stinking turd of protectionism. protecting us all right into luddite obsolescence, where british companies will profit from what american compnies should be profitting from in the first place!

why don't we just shorcircuit this entire retarded effort by the congresscritters and just become amish. then we will be protected from the evils of electricity too. let the british profit from evil electricity insted. pffft

Re:politics

[/dev/trash]

church bingo is not gambling. It's just a fun way to get people to doante to the church.

Re:politics

[BagMan2]

I believe you will find Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid(D) from Nevada is the one most in favor of this bill, not the conservatives.

Re:They didn't think it would pass

[ahalf]

Neither the credit card companies, nor the electronic money transfer agents (e.g. Neteller, Firepay), nor the online poker companies (e.g. PartyGaming, Poker Stars, Paradise), nor the sportbetting companies (e.g. Sportingbet, etc.) thought the bill would pass.

They mostly predicted it would pass the House, but stall at the Senate owing to various objections from well-lobbied Senators.

But what they didn't expect was the underhand way in which Frist would wait until the very last minute before recess (when everyone was tired and just wanted to break up to start campaigning) and attach it to a piece of legislation that no-one was going to object to (i.e. an anti-terrorist act).

Many of the Senators had not even had a chance to read the bill that they ended up voting through by a majority of 470 to 2.

Opium wars and Internet gaming

[slew]

I wonder how many people remember their history enough to recall that small little episode called the Opium wars?

Perhaps the US should worry somewhat about this. As I recall, most of the internet gaming sites are based in the UK. When China decided to banned opium, the Brits came in and forced them to accept it... ;^)

On a more serious note, I think the US probably owes the UK for the iraq war (at least Blair) and reversing this could be a small favor. On the other hand, since Blair is a short-timer, perhaps there isn't anything to lose to pass this ban now...

Hypocricy at its best

[Hoi Polloi]

Why is it ok to bombard the public with scratch tickets, numbers games, and casinos yet for some reason doing it on the web is bad? Either they are all bad or none of them are.

I call BS

[MooseTick]

"I constantly see the people with tattered clothes sitting at the machines, the mother with her 6 year old sleeping on the carpet next to her at 2 AM."

I live near Tunica MS and have been to Las Vegas and do not believe you have constantly seen "the mother with her 6 year old sleeping on the carpet next to her at 2 AM."

I have taken MY 6 year old to several casinos in order to enjoy the restaurants and other offerings and just the act of walking through a casino with such an obvious minor usually either requires an escort or us being watched very closely. There are laws against gambling with your children present to prevent this kind of thing. I suspect the various state gambling comissions don't take kindly to violators since the casinos enforce it VERY strictly.

Re: Firepay and Neteller are probably affected

[ahalf]

The bill is deliberately vague in its language, and states that a "financial transaction provider" must block payments to online gambling companies. Both Firepay and Neteller would be considered to be "financial transaction providers". This langauge will be deliberate, as many, if not most, credit companies stopped allowing transfers to online gambling operations a while ago, and so Firepay and Neteller have been very heavily used in recent years. This bill aims to stop that.

Of course, the question is whether Firepay and Neteller would comply. Given they have no physical presence in the US, they are beyond US regulatory control. Neteller, for example, is based in the Isle of Man. Would the Isle of Man judiciary enforce an order on one of its own companies that is served up by the US? Will be interesting to see what happens.

A good start

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we just need to get clamp down on pornography, evolutionism, heliocentrism, socialism, liberalism, humanism, atheism and non-Christian religions, and finally the US will be a country worth living in again.

Of course, it'd be difficult to get an outright ban on these things past the supreme court. But if congress made it illegal to handle money transfers to support organizations or buy books and films that supported these things, and also made it illegal for banks to hold accounts for organizations and businesses involved with these things - that'd work.

Imagine how hard it would be for somebody to open an adult bookstore, or run a pro-evolutionist museum, if they weren't allowed to use the banking system!

Is this locally or internationally enforced?

[dwarfsoft]

So, if it is illegal for Credit Card companies to collect payments for bets, then how does this affect the international community? Are they merely imposing this kind of closed-minded gambling scheme on only local uses of Credit Card companies? Or are they instead imposing their narrow view onto the international community for credit card companies that are based in the US?

The reason I ask is, how on earth do they intend to determine if a customer is in the US or not, and does it matter if the person is travelling Internationally or not? This seems like a breach of jurisdiction to me.

If person A were travelling out of the country, and went to a country where they were allowed by law to gamble online. Does that not seem like a breach of jurisdiction? What if, hypothetically, there exists a country where you are required BY LAW to gamble online at least once during your trip? Who would be in the right?

Surely though this means that people could travel overseas, get themselves another credit card, and use it for whatever means when they get back. I'm sure there will even be mail-order credit cards from god knows where before long that will totally circumvent this entire gambling issue.

Re:Kinda scary that parent isn't necessarily jokin

[Amazing Proton Boy]

This is incorrect. You can only be classified as an "enemy combatant" or "illegal enemy combatant" if you are NOT a US citizen. This new law does NOT apply to US citizens.

My eyes!

[Trogre]

Does this mean that people with lesser browsers will no longer be subjected to epilepsy-inducing banner ads inviting them to give all their money away?

Wait, this move could really hurt firefox adoption.

govt will finally have a stronger hold on liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a read:

love this line

Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) spoke out today on his recent triumph in attaching his much maligned Internet Gambling Bill to the Port Security Bill today issued the following statement:

"With this new legislature, the government will finally have a stronger hold on it's citizens personal liberties."

http://bluffmagazine.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID =5249

It's official, americans now live in a cold-war era state.

US's political system has been broken for decades

[AnyoneEB]

So true, I recently read a piece by Engel's from 1891 where he took a pot shot at the US for having a corrupt government with two parties that are really two sides of the same coin. It's nothing new. (It goes without saying that anything written by Engels should be taken with at least a few grains of salt.)

Ah, I found an online copy of Engel's 1891 postscript to Marx's The Civil War in France :

Nowhere do "politicians" form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions.

It is well known that the Americans have been striving for 30 years to shake off this yoke, which has become intolerable, and that in spite of all they can do they continue to stink ever deeper in this swamp of corruption. It is precisely in America that we see best how there takes place this process of the state power making itself independent in relation to society, whose mere instrument it was originally intended to be. Here there exists no dynasty, no nobility, no standing army, beyond the few men keeping watch on the Indians, no bureaucracy with permanent posts or the right to pensions. and nevertheless we find here two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends -- and the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians, who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality exploit and plunder it.

Thank you!

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Thank God the Congress had the balls to stand up to this un-American betting on the Intenet pipes thing. The idea of people sitting around in their underwear gambling in the privacy of their houses is disgusting. Youse bums should get out more and support your local businesses, like for example, Earl the Bookie down at Ichabod's Billiards. Earl has a daughter he's trying to put through college and needs the local trade to get by. Money spent locally gets recirculated locally, like for example Big Mike's 10% skim of the action, which has been down lately. If you like poker or craps, youse should knock on the door to the back room and tell Large Arnold that Ralphie sent you.

Basis of Classical Liberalism

[Fei_Id]

You've hit the core of what classical liberalism really is; I refuse to define it as Libertarian because the current party is nothing but a group of crazies in their own right. Modern liberals are actually classical socialists more or less. Its a pity Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic Party.... his values held NOTHING in common with the modern party.

This is honestly how most of the country feels... moderate libertarian or centrist to the left or right with libertarian influence.

I believe a country should be founded upon one central natural truth. Its liberal in its content and even possibly delusional;but I still stand by it:

People should be free to live their life how they choose; as long as that same right is not taken from someone else, including their descendants.

Re:Basis of Classical Liberalism

[Nefarious Wheel]

Need a different, catchy name then. Classical Liberals is descriptive, but not evocative. Hmm....

How about the "Laissez Faire" party? Nope, too Foreign (not that there's anything wrong with that, I be highly foreign).

How about the "Boone" party, after a certain early American frontiersman? I don't know his politics very well but the image is very self-reliant.

Re:Basis of Classical Liberalism

[orderb13]

His politics were "Drink, have sex with anything that can't get away, shoot was does get away from the sex."

Not a bad philosophy as far as it goes.

Re:Basis of Classical Liberalism

[Fei_Id]

Funny. I'm actually related to Daniel Boone through my mother's side. He's a cousin of some sort. Not that distant though. Boone party... hmm I like that heh

it IS a fun way to donate to the church

[circletimessquare]

but, it's also gambling

you put money down on a game of chance in the hope of winning back more money

ie, gambling

according to you, if i show you a picture of naked chick, it's not pornography if she's naked in the basement of a church

pffft

credit card companies were *already* doing this

[prospero14]

I know because I gamble online. I tried to buy-in using my credit card -- doesn't work because the credit card companies *already* block charges to online gambling companies. Instead I funnel my money through PayPal or something similar, and everything works fine. I don't see how this law will change anything.

Re:Kinda scary that parent isn't necessarily jokin

[Mateo_LeFou]

"human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html

"José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is an American citizen of Puerto Rican descent "

"On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(al leged_terrorist)

Not quite outlawed

[kevjava]

Many states have outlawed using credit cards for lottery tickets, which could be construed as gambling, I suppose. Colorado is among those states.

Thus, the rule itself may not have been for the express purpose of eliminating gambling, but to keep people from putting themselves even further in debt to pay for their gambling habit.

It doesn't even need to be a law

[gwyrdd benyw]

It doesn't even need to be passed as a law. All you need is one of the parties to stand up and say "we will ALWAYS vote against any legislation with unrelated riders on it, and we won't write any of our own". And then stick to it. Other countries don't have to outlaw this nonsense, because if anyone tried to pull it they would be laughed out of town. All you need to do is announce it for the foolishness that it is, so it will no longer be tolerated.

Okay, call me naive.. but then, I'm Canadian.

Bread and Circuses.

[jacks0n]

I play a little poker online. I generally win, and am up 3K so far this year.

Mainly I play for entertainment.

Bread and Circuses. That's what the politicians are taking away from me.

That's not very smart, historically speaking.

Re:Bread and Circuses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they taken away your food then?

I think not!

It's just circuses then.

Except for the fact that most people's circuses, aren't gambling. TV, films, books, music, sports, and a bunch of other activities are all more popular leisure activities.

So, it's just a minority's of people's circuses then.

And the last gladitorial combat in Rome (which is where the circus came from) was in 401 AD, and the end of gladitorial combat had little to do with the fall of the empire 75 years later, which was caused by Barbarians invading the empire, and the Goths taking over Italy.

So, what was your point again?

Re:Kinda scary that parent isn't necessarily jokin

[Amazing Proton Boy]

The un-named and unsourced "human rights experts" are incorrect as is the article you link to. The linked article is from September 26th, long before the bill was finalized. Here is the relevant section directly from the act itself:

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

An alien is:

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

Linky

That is it. No interpretation needed. US citizens are simply not subject to these commissions. Period.

The rest of the information you provide is about Jose Padilla. This legislation does not and will not apply to Padilla. In fact the Padilla case was transferred to a court with full civilian control and oversight. He now has full rights to challenge his detention. Additionally it was the seemingly unfair treatment of Padilla and others that prompted this bill.

Note that I'm not attempting to support the aims of this bill, just pointing out the facts. The fact is that it does NOT apply to US citizens.

What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this had ANYTHING to do with concern for the weakest and poorest members of society, then we should start by banning the lottery, and for that matter, predatory tactics used by banks and credit card companies.

After the dot com crash, my business failed and I went largely unemployed for almost two years. I went from having stellar credit and over $50,000 in cash in my bank account to ruined credit and about $40,000 in debt, with interest continuing to accrue. Not a week goes by that I don't receive several offers in the mail for "pre-approved" credit cards, offering minimal $300 credit limits in exchange for annual fees of as much as $80, interest rates of 21%, increasing to 30% if I so much as make a single late payment or go a penny over my limit, and acknowledging that they can increase my interest rates at any time if they see fit, even if I am making timely payments to their account.

All this, while Congress voted to restrict my ability to declare bankruptcy and make a new start. Notice how crooked companies got no new restrictions on their ability to go bankrupt and swindle millions from their customers, investors, and customers.

I have no interest in gambling, but it is insulting to suggest that this anti-gambling law has ANYTHING to do with concern for the little guy. This is all about protecting THEIR TURF..

Re:What?!

[tinkerghost]

Not a week goes by that I don't receive several offers in the mail for "pre-approved" credit cards, offering minimal $300 credit limits in exchange for annual fees of as much as $80, interest rates of 21%, increasing to 30% if I so much as make a single late payment or go a penny over my limit, and acknowledging that they can increase my interest rates at any time if they see fit, even if I am making timely payments to their account.

They call it 'general default' and it can be tied to as much as a disputed phone bill that gets posted to your credit report.
Also note that CC companies are exempt from state usary laws. Due to the interstate nature of the CC industry the courts decided in 1974 that only the usary laws in the state they are incorperated in apply. Hence Dellaware is a very popular place since it has no usary law.
Thus while MA caps interest at 29.4%, Citibank can happily charge 32% because they are not incorperated in MA. Note that a mortgage company from Dellaware would not be able to do that since they are required to get a state liscense in order to do business in MA. No such need for a CC.

OT: Rights

[stinerman]

I would be interested to hear your theories on where rights come from. For instance how is property a right and killing people not a right? How does one know what is a right and what is a privledge? Is there an exhaustive list of rights? How would one go about adding or subtracting (if possible) rights from that list?

I'm not trolling or trying to bait you. I just am interested in your ideas.

Re:OT: Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, you dirty little goy. I can do what ever the fuck I want, when I want, because I ain't some stupid goy like you!

Re:OT: Rights

[stinerman]

It'd be a better troll if I was Jewish.

Re:OT: Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

UR jUsT jelious CAuse Pope Nazi getz more PUSSAY then U!

hey I'm not the Pope.

[/dev/trash]

I didn't make the rules.

Time to go?

[datamyte]

The biggest gamble might be remaining in this country.

Of course they won't enforce those orders

[grahamsz]

They'll go out of business if they do. They just need to make sure that their directors don't ever visit the US.

However, if the penalty for disobeying the bill rests with the US banks then they'll probably feel compelled to block transactions to Neteller and Firepay.

Either way, there's really nothing stopping you from setting up an offshore account with a bona-fide bank and using that to fund your accounts. I'm sure some enterprising bank in the caymens will start accomodating this $12bn niche.

Re:This is so simple to defeat, even a child could

[swordgeek]

You might want to check your legal jurisdiction, before shooting your mouth off.

If the money can be traced back to someone residing in the US, they can be prosecuted.
Besides, when has the US government EVER worried about jurisdiction?

Gambling Illegal...

[RexRhino]

But if you purchase a lovely T-shirt from the caymen islands for $1000 on your credit card, you get online gambling credits free with your purchase!

Seriously, the law won't actually do anything to stop gambling, but it will acomplish two very important things:

1. You can know that your elected representatives are "doing something" about gambling! It is very, very, very important that your elected officials are seen as "doing something" about a "problem".

2. The laws are probably written loosly and vaugly enough to allow the government to arbitrarily punish any credit card company they want. This is good for politicians, as credit card companies have a lot of money to give to political campaigns in exchange for protection.

Being Officially Off The Plastic Standard

[jman.org]

Have not waded through all the verbiage of H.R.4954.EAS (and really, no, really, what does securing our ports have to do with web-based poker players, anyway?), but one must wonder why our beloved Legislators continue to prove their shortsightedness.

Surely, if the bill merely states that credit card companies are no longer allowed to act as the middleman for any wager, this will only create opportunities for non-U.S. companies to act as the moneychangers.

As it is estimated that 70% of online gambling comes from American shores, the problem is not how will it be stopped, but how will it be spent.

Re:hooray-your a moron

[Oldav]

And thats why there is so much crime in the US, the welfare system and public healthcare is the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

When people are desperate they commit crime, and fill your jails up. Keeping prisoners in jail is more expensive than welfare.

Morons argue against welfare. Civilised countries look after their people.

I sure wish...

[commisaro]

... I lived in the United States... Then I wouldn't have to develop all this self-control and responsibility crap... The government would do it for me by making illegal anything I could possible enjoy, and therefore become addicted to!

very interesting

[zxscooby]

Perhaps some congressmen have racked up a super dept by gambling online and are now making it illegal for it to be collected.

Nah, just move to the UK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing, just with more CCTV which is now being "improved" to send remote control admonishments (they're getting speakers).

And, like the US, it only /pretends/ to be a democracy, although I don't know to what extend the voting system is rigged (they're not fully on Diebold yet AFAIK).

I'm getting the feeling that nobody ever told Tony Blair & cronies that '1984' was a novel, not an instruction book...

Great job, Congress!

[1310nm]

Now no one can say you're do-nothing, just do-nothing-smart. Thanks for wasting the money we all pay you for making these idiotic decisions.

Am I the first to ask....

[photomonkey]

How is this possibly enforceable?

Wait! I know! It's not!

It's only another chapter of the book they can throw at you when you're indicted for tax evasion, being a deadbeat parent or some other Federal-level financial crime.

Also, when will someone get the power of line-item veto so that our ratfucking legislators will stop tacking 'It's ok to remove civil liberties' measures onto bills 'opposed to the wholesale murder of schoolchildren and cute little puppies'?

WTF does port protection have to do with online gambling? No, really, I'd love to hear about it.

Re:Kinda scary that parent isn't necessarily jokin

[z0idberg]

So it's not so much
"If you are not wish us you are against us"
as it is
"If you are not one of us you are against us"

Charming.

foolish belief

[vague_ascetic]

The Big Corporate Casinos would jump at the chance to open their own internet sites, even under heavy government regulation, and fair taxation.

They have the trademark names that people associate with gambling, and they could reap their profits without the heavy outlay in employee costs that are associated with physical Hotel/Casinos.

If you are looking for opposition to online gambling, maybe the tribal casinos would be a better start. They have much more to lose.

what will happen....

[acidvoid]

International net gambling companies will either go broke or will become rather small, US government "rethinks" it's decision and allows internet gambling again. In the mean time the US gambling corps will have had enough time to create competing products or prepare hostile takeovers which will go live when the law is cancelled. Well done US!

Re:Kinda scary that parent isn't necessarily jokin

[Cederic]

As a non-US citizen that really makes me feel happier.

Shit, it's enough to make me _want_ to destroy the US. It presents a far greater threat to my life and liberty than anything else on the planet.

I deposit money in an offshore bank every month. I have gambled online in the past. I fully expect to again in the future. No wonder I'm refusing to go to the US..

TAXES

[LongTimeReader]

Vagas is pissed they weren't getting the money and lobbied congress, telling them all the tax dollars they were missing out on. There's no need for this bill other than to try and capture tax dollars here in the US.

Piece of the action

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason this law passed is that Congress does not get a part of the action. Off-shore betting will become legal once Congress (and the state governments) figure out how to collect taxes.

Poker is NOT gambling...

[UttBuggly]

First, I am biased. I've been a poker player for 40 years now. I don't play any other casino games, bet on sports, horse racing, etc. There are 3 casinos with 10 miles of my home. In the last year, I've played poker tournaments and cash games in casinos all over the U.S.

While I'm not ready to quit the day job, I have submitted 1099G forms and paid taxes on my winnings for the last 3 years. Before that, I didn't win enough money to need to file a 1099G. This was a function of not having casino poker in my state until last year and the fact that I was playing in private games. Now technically, those "home games" were and are illegal. My win rate is about 85% in the private games and I do very well at the casinos...about $150 an hour playing $1-2 and $2-5 no limit hold 'em.

I have no issue paying taxes on poker winnings.

I've also been playing on-line poker on Ultimate Bet, PokerStars, and Full Tilt on a daily basis. The advantages are many. I can play 3-5 tables at the same time, listen to music or T.V., get a snack, etc. I also GREATLY improved my game by virtue of being able to play thousands of hands much more quickly and cheaply than driving to a smokey, crowded, loud casino.

Poker is unquestionably a game of skill. Yes, there is an element of luck, but it's very, very small. Playing poker at a high level requires concentration, memory, and very good math skills. There's also the psychological component of reading your opponents and making plays designed to make them make mistakes. At some level, poker is simply making fewer mistakes than your opponent. Even the supposedly random element of shuffling and dealing the cards can be adjusted for. There is something known as "shuffle tracking" which involves recognizing repeatable patterns of card distribution by a human dealer or an automatic shuffler. That's one of the reasons there's a dealer change every 30 minutes...to defeat shuffle tracking.

There are two primary problems with the government prohibiting on-line poker.

First, they're pissing away several billion dollars in tax revenue that will only increase. Real money that could help offset deficits, the cost of the stinkin' war in Iraq, fund social programs, go to education (like lottery dollars in my state) and so on.

Secondly, this legislation puts private industry...banks and credit card companies...in the position of enforcing the law. That's just plain wrong. Their business is money, not enforcing gambling laws.

Now, is gambling bad? I don't know personally...I don't gamble. My standard response when someone says "oh, you're a gambler" is "no, I'm a poker player...and since you don't understand the difference, how about a game?"

Personally, I've never met anyone with a gambling problem, but then I don't know any meth heads or heroin addicts either. I've known a fair number of alcoholics...and there are more of them than any other addiction out there. And yet, liquor stores are still open. You can buy beer and wine at the grocery store. Most restaurants have a bar area. Hmmmm....what exactly is the new online gambling law really supposed to achieve? Prohibition in the last century actually created many more problems than it supposedly solved. I'm betting (pun intended) this new law has a similar effect. When some grandma in Des Moines gets busted for playing nickel poker on PartyPoker, can anyone say, with a straight face, that she's a criminal?

Well, my thoughts on it. If you do play poker on the Internet, you might check out the Poker Player's Alliance. They are actively seeking an exemption for poker in the new law. I've given them money, sent letters to my congressmen, and called their offices. So far, they're climbing a steep hill in Crisco boots, but I support their efforts just the same.

Re:This is so simple to defeat, even a child could

[GuyverDH]

Even if it's a US resident, if they are overseas, there's NOTHING to prevent them from gambling.

Are they now going to track down travel itineraries before allowing a bet to be placed?

May want to see about getting your hands broken before you type shit about something you obviously are clueless about.

If a US citizen does something overseas, that is legal overseas, then the US can't do a damned thing about it once the citizen is back in the states.

Time to look for foreign banking ...

[hadaso]

Just as the US cannot regulate gambling outside its borders, it cannot regulate financial services outside its borders (or can it???)

So now there are new opportunities to get American money: American gamblers would need a non-US credit card number so they can use it on gambling sites. There's a whole world outside the US and there will be those that are willing to adopt US gamblers that need a midleman that their US financial institution is allowed to transfer funds to...

Offtopic...

[werewolf1031]

If we really want the country to be able to defend itself, put infantry weapons in every person's closet and we'll have that force for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Now there's an interesting idea. Let's follow this line of reasoning. My suggestion: Make it strictly voluntary. Anyone can choose not to participate in recieving weapons who doesn't want them. A recipient must be a legal, fully emancipated adult citizen. Nobody with any violent criminal background can recieve one (eg. speeding tickets don't matter, criminal assault does). To receive a firearm, one must agree to be trained by a military instructor experienced in its proper use, safe handling, maintenance, etc.; only after the training will you be allowed to take possession of the firearm. There is no personal up-front cost, other than the time required for the training in proper use/safe handling of the firearm. Ammunition is at your expense. As with any other firearm in your possession, you WILL be held fully responsible for its use.

Most importantly, this absolutely must be strictly voluntary. There should be no compulsory reception of the firearm, nor should anyone be punishied in any way for choosing not to receive one.

Of course there are more possibilities here, like voluntary tactical training and contingencies for optionally reporting to military command in the event of an invasion (as opposed to defending the area around your residence), but you get the idea. On a broader level, what it really boils down to is permitting properly trained citizens to become properly armed soldiers in times of domestic conflict (ie. invasion). This is only one possible means of achieving that; I'm sure there are countless others.

Re:Offtopic...

[fyngyrz]

Sounds pretty good to me. Though as you say, there are probably many other ways to manage it. I agree with the violent assault, but people will generalize that to "felon", and felon is a term that has lost any meaning in terms of defining a person you would worry would do you harm, so I'd resist that (I do realize you didn't say that, I'm just thinking at the keyboard.)

What bothers me is, for instance, seeing the feds claim they can't help the people and infrastructure in New Orleans, but then they turn around and spend unbelievable amounts (and go into unbelievable debt) on raping Iraq. Sometimes I feel like I'm in a country ruled by a race of aliens instead of just plain incompetents. Build serious levies? Rebuild a vital US city? Ohhhh Noooo.... but, put more troops into Iraq? You GO, boy! And all this when I can't even really work up a belief that we actually need a standing army. Mmmmf.

National government following Washington State

[AncientPC]

Washington State made playing online poker a class C felony (same as a registered sex offender) in June 2006:
http://washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6613

Now the state has extended the law to prosecute those who even write about online poker:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 2003062386_danny15.html

Industry is expected to lose around $10 billion

[jacon]

Just last year, online gambling generated around $12 billion. Without United States gamblers, the international online gambling industry is expected to lose around $10 billion a year. With that kind of revenue, it is only a matter of time before a way to get around the law is found and put to use.

https://secure.partyaccount.com/faq/us_legislation

[thebaron2]

https://secure.partyaccount.com/faq/us_legislation .htm