Slashdot Mirror


Minnesota Latest To Try To Block Gambling Sites

BcNexus writes "A story is developing that the state of Minnesota is contacting ISPs with a request to block about 200 gambling sites online. Minnesota is claiming authority to do so under a 1961 federal law, apparently the Federal Wire Wager Act. There are a couple interesting aspects to watch as this unfolds. Will the ISPs cooperate or will they argue about applicability to casino games, as other have? Will Minnesotans lose their money or access to their money in escrow accounts like the state is warning will happen?"

33 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. is it even legal? by tritonman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it even legal to use gambling sites in states where it's illegal to gamble???

    1. Re:is it even legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's the scoop:

      - The Federal Wire Act was originally intended to prohibit betting on sports via [telephone] wires.

      - The more-recent Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was secretly attached to the 'must-pass' Safe Port Act, made it illegal for banking institutions to allow outgoing financial transactions if the bank believes the funds are intended for online gambling purposes. Each bank must determine what is legal and what is not, with no guidance from the federal government.

      - The USDOJ interprets the Wire Act as including the internet, and ALL forms of gambling, despite the fact that the internet did not exist when the act was introduced, and further despite the fact that the act only applies to 'sporting events or contests'.

      - The World Trade Organization has repeatedly found the US in violation of its trade agreements with other countries (such as Antigua, who first complained to the WTO, and the United Kingdom, where internet gambling is legalized, regulated and taxed).

      - The US continues to ignore the WTO ruling and keeps trying to eradicate internet gambling.

      Minnesota is another US state trying to protect its cash cow. Other states with similar laws include Nevada and New Jersey. (Bonus points if you can figure out why!)

      The sensible thing to do is to LEGALIZE and REGULATE the multi-billion dollar industry, especially when the tax dollars could prove so helpful during a recession.

  2. Gambling by arizwebfoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We gamble every time we buy stock, how is this any different than on a poker table. Somehow, I don't see the "fairness" in this. Personally, I think the odds are better at Black Jack than on Enron.

    And what about those sites that lets us play with "chip count" verses real money - are they going to be banned as well?

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Gambling by TinFoilMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's all about the tax money, which ain't funny.

      I also agree that if the state allows a lottery - which is gambling - they why not make gambling sites add a penny tax for each dollar bet and submit to the state from which that person resides?

      --
      In my other life, I eat cats.
    2. Re:Gambling by gnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Buying stock is tied to business success - It's "investing" rather than "gambling". Buying gas I think is a closer every-day similarity to gambling - The price could be lower tomorrow, and you would have lost out.

      The thing that bugs me, is why in the hell do we allow churches to hold bingo tournaments with cash prizes in places that ban gambling!?! It's basically Keno for old ladies (I know, I know - Keno is Keno for old ladies...) Either legalize it or don't.

      I'll stop this rant before I start in on the reservations just down the hill from here...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Gambling by Duradin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well see, in gambling, there are rules against cheating and bad things tend to happen to cheaters, therefore, gambling is bad.

      With the stockmarket, cheating is called creative accounting and cheaters get even bigger bonuses, therefore, the stockmarket is good.

      If you gamble, you can only gamble away your life savings, and that's bad.

      In the stockmarket, you can gamble away everyone's life savings and make a huge profit for yourself, so that's good.

      See, gambling is like socialism, and socialism bad. The stockmarket is like The Capitalist Free Market, and the Capitalist Free Market is good (and you're a dirty socialist commie pinko bastard hippie if you say otherwise).

    4. Re:Gambling by Dhalka226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Buying stock is tied to business success - It's "investing" rather than "gambling".

      That's only true indirectly. You actually make or lose money based on the moves of the other "players" (investors), which we hope is based on company success but isn't always in the way we would expect. You can literally lose money in the stock market if a company you invested in made $1/share last quarter if the speculation was saying it would make $1.05/share; it doesn't even take a long or detailed look into history to see many examples of exactly that. Either way the company was successful and profitable, but if people feel they can get a bigger return elsewhere they can and often do pull their money, leaving what you're left with worth less. Possibly less than you bought it for, depending on when you got in and what happened since.

      In that sense, it really is more like poker than strict investment. In an investment, I make money if you make money. In poker, I make money if I can successfully read the other players at the table and act accordingly--even if I don't necessarily have the best hand.

    5. Re:Gambling by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Gambling Doesn't Pay Dividends"

      True, but, it seems these days, most stocks don't pay dividends either.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Gambling by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Just curious, won't this law run afoul of the WTO treaties again?

      Wasn't the US ruled against on a gambling law like this recently...?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. a lesson in futility by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  4. Is there state-run gambling in Minnesota? by javacowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    If Minnesota already has some form of state-run gambling, then I understand (but don't codone) their motivations for attempting to ban online gambling. However, if gambling is totally illegal in the state, then I have no idea why they would want to ban the practise. What would they stand to gain?

    Does the state even have the authority to do this? Internet access is presumably under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the FCC.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Is there state-run gambling in Minnesota? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative
      There are casinos in Minnesota only on Native American Reservations or run by Native American Tribes. Look up Mystic Lake Casino, Jackpot Junction, etc. See here.

      Does the state even have the authority to do this?

      Once upon a time, when power was distributed more to the state (you know, how the founders wanted it) I'm sure it would have been possible. Not so certain now ...

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Is there state-run gambling in Minnesota? by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Bam!

      So gambling is OK as long as it fills their coffers and at odds that would get any casino run out of town in Vegas. I wouldn't be surprised if the odds were more in your favor at a rigged poker game than at the Minnesota state lottery. Any argument against out-of-state gambling they could make would be hypocritical at best since Joe Sixpack could just as easily blow his paycheck on lotto tickets as he could on Online poker.

      Now Utah is pretty cut-and-dried on the subject and I would not criticize them for being hypocritical if they were trying to do this. Of course, by their definition I could make an argument that participating in a 401K plan violates this statute. It seems a lot of people would be no worse off now had they put all their 401K funds into lotto tickets. But I digress...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Is there state-run gambling in Minnesota? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes they do, that's why they state the 1961 Wire Act:

      "The Wire Act was intended to assist the states, territories and possessions of the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, in enforcing their respective laws on gambling and bookmaking and to suppress organized gambling activities.[58] Subsection (a) of the Wire Act, a criminal provision, provides: Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[59]"

      However, the Wire Act mentions nothing about shutting down wire services or having wire services stopping certain transmissions based on their destination.

      In fact, all the Wire Act says is it is illegal to use a wire service to place a bet, where each state (sender state/receiver state) say it is illegal.

      It is PERFECTLY LEGAL for the wire service to place the transmission.

      Meaning Minnesota is going after the middleman and the Wire Act says nothing about that.

      Minnesota you lose. AT&T should have no problem telling Minnesota to take a hike.

  5. Federal Wire Act seems to say casual gambling okay by PoolOfThought · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the act cited in the original post:

    "In analyzing the first element, the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61] In Baborian, the federal district court concluded that Congress did not intend to include social bettors within the umbrella of the statute, even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication.[62] "

    IANAL, but I would say from that statute that it is not illegal to gamble or to use gambling cites to gamble. It's illegal to be a bookie (sp?) or facilitate organized gambling as a business. The sites themselves my be illegal, but the users seem to be okay?

    No?

    --
    My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
  6. Come on... by cwiegmann24 · · Score: 5, Funny

    5 to 1 odds they have to back down within a week.

  7. State gambling is like the mafia by Cazekiel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work in a convenience store--one of many clerk jobs I've had, and lemmee tell ya, the state does whatever it can to make sure people don't infringe on their territory. They outlawed slot machines in bars, clubs, etc. years ago.

    The interesting part is that people have found a way around it. We HAVE a machine in our store, but it's a "Skill Game". Instead of it being a chancy slot-game, you win on every spin by tapping a wild option on the screen, making three fruits/whatever else in a row. Most of the time it's a lame old two cents, but that's how they've gotten around it. It's 'skill'... y'know. Tapping a screen=deciphering the text on the Antikythera Mechanism.

    So if these online gambling sites can find a loophole, the state is boned. But they (the online gaming people) will probably have to put up a disclaimer on their site, saying that it's not linked to the state. That's what the machine guys had to do in our store.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  8. Kentucky called by shentino · · Score: 4, Funny

    They want their hair brained scheme back

  9. The real reason. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.

    While I agree with your observation, cut away all the moral and ethical bullshit "justifications", and you'll come to the bottom line as to what is really driving this. It always comes down to someone feeling like they're being robbed. In this case, likely state officials feel as if they're not getting their "cut", or this is somehow cutting into other revenues.

    1. Re:The real reason. by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I agree with your observation, cut away all the moral and ethical bullshit "justifications", and you'll come to the bottom line as to what is really driving this. It always comes down to someone feeling like they're being robbed. In this case, likely state officials feel as if they're not getting their "cut", or this is somehow cutting into other revenues.

      Precisely. Whenever the government passes a law there is always going to be something in it for whoever allowed siad bill's passing. The assumption of selfishness somewhere in any action is a useful one for determing the likely behavior of any entity which has evolved or was created by something which evolved.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  10. There was no Internet in 1961 by JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F*** · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The world has changed.
    This law is irrelevant to the current reality.
    You can censor the hell out of your citizens (like China) or you can allow them to participate in a free and open internet, not both. Unless every country on this planet agrees to this outdated law, enforcement will be almost impossible.
    The only thing they will do is turn their citizens into criminals.
    Minnesota your only choice is to either disconnect from the internet or accept that you can not control it.
    Of course to truly disconnect you would have to ban all forms of communication except for snail mail and the pony express. No phones, satellite dishes, cable, etc...


    "You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." - Morpheus

  11. A Lesson in Lobbying by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.

    There are very powerful Native American tribes in Minnesota--particularly around the Twin Cities. I should state that having lived there for 21 years, I never once heard of anything negative from them ... until now. I think this may have more to do with ensuring that their clientele (casino gambling is only legal on Reservations and Native American run businesses) remain faithful to their facilities. Having played a little Full Tilt poker myself, I think they may have noticed a tiny drop in profits in the past decade due to the internet.

    I have no evidence linking this but I think that everyone knows this won't stop online gambling in the state. I think this may just be effective lobbying of another interest group to protect its profits.

    To give you an idea, every adult member of the tribe (Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota) that owns Mystic Lake near the twin cities was paid out $400k in 1994. It would be in their interests to keep the surrounding area contributing to that sum.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  12. Big business likes big government by SonicSpike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just submitted this actually...oh well, I'm just glad it made it up here even if I didn't get the credit.

    The fundamental problem is that big business likes big government because big government can regulate and legislate in favor of big business. Online gambling is "illegal". Go back and look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bills who made it illegal, and then look at their largest donors. Guess who? Brick and mortar casinos, and Indian tribes....imagine that.

    And when the utility companies are government-granted monopolies, then they are subservient to big government too. Utilities should be forced to compete in the free and open market without government subsidies or other forms of market insulation from bad decisions.

    This is exactly a case which highlights why the government should be small and limited at all levels; when government gets big it inevitability restricts freedom either inadvertently, or on purpose either for its own ends or at the bequest of special interests.

    The slippery slope argument here is paramount too because having a State government forcing ISPs and telcos to block specific sites sets a VERY dangerous precedent! In fact I consider this outright censorship because what's illegal about visiting a gambling website, even if one doesn't use the site to gamble.

    Not to mention that making online gambling illegal violates one's right to contract which is inherent in a free society. The Constitutionality of this is questionable at best.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  13. Kidding, I know....but.... by tacokill · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, I was going to let your post slide because I know where you are coming from but...just to be clear...

    Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close. When you buy a stock, you own a piece of a company. As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.

    Additionally, the price of stocks is determined "by the market". In other words, all the buyers and sellers of stock determine the prices as they go along based on the value that they subjectively assign to each stock. That's the market we are speaking of and that's why the prices move. For every sell, there is a buy. And for every buy, there is a sell. The price is arrived at by this process and this process alone. In other words - it is not random.

    Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.


    Ok, I have to go take the stick out of my ass now....carry on. Thx.

    1. Re:Kidding, I know....but.... by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since you seem to want to share your views on this, I'd like to ask you: How do you classify "prediction market" sites like Intrade.com, where you bet on real-world events. It doesn't represent ownership rights in a corporation (though it does represent ownership right to $10 conditional on a future event), but it is coupled to a real-world non-gambling event?

      And how does US law treat prediction markets?

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    2. Re:Kidding, I know....but.... by Deag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So where does betting exchange websites fall into this?
      Sites like betfair operate on the basis of a market every transaction or bet has a buyer and a seller.

      The odds are determined by what the market dictates.

      Interestingly some of these sites (like betfair) market themselves as betting websites while others which do the same thing are calling themselves prediction markets - see intrade.

    3. Re:Kidding, I know....but.... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.

      Stock price moves may not have the same kind of "randomness" as a roll of the dice, but they're certainly not deterministic, either. If they were, we'd all be rich, except the other guy, of course. If we were to write a game based on equity trading, the "market model" used would probably be a Monte Carlo simulation.

      And what about poker and similar games? The "price" of the bet is determined the players, who are estimating their chances versus each other's predicted actions using limited information. In other words, the poker table is a market.

      I'm not arguing just to be contradictory here, but you did say: "Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close." and "Wayyyyyy different than gambling." and lastly ". . . it isn't random, like gambling." Randomness really means something is not perfectly predictable, but can only be predicted in a probabilistic sense.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Kidding, I know....but.... by vishbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would also add...how is a weather derivative any different from a bet on a prediction market?

      --
      Ride the skies
    5. Re:Kidding, I know....but.... by Madball · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.

      Not all gambling is random in the same way you describe. Some, are non-random, house-favored, such as sports/horse betting. Then, there is poker... The house takes a cut of pot. While your starting hand may be random, the winner is far from random.

      As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.

      Also, I would argue that all stock really represents is voting power. It is not an asset in any real way. Your share is not equal to Company Worth/Total Shares. It's worth either par value ($1) or whatever the market thinks it is worth--> which can be completely independent of the company's intrinsic value (if such a thing exists).

  14. Newest link to be blocked by KingPin27 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Newest link to be blocked... Google's Feelin Lucky button!! Lobbyists believe this poses too much risk and could become habit forming and addictive.

    --
    "i lost my dignity on a slippery wiener"
  15. Oh great where is my address book by DnemoniX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I live in Minnesota, I do not gamble online, but this is as stupid as it gets. There are a small handful of Indian Casinos in the state. Pressure from the tribes maybe? It just can't be "for the children". Guess I need to start making a few calls and sending a few emails.

  16. Ok, I was going to let your response slide, but by bgspence · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So where do sites like the Chicago Board of Trade fit in?

    There you bet on the future price of a stock by buying put and calls, the simplest of derivatives on assets or commodities.

    And insurance, and ...

  17. How pointless by insomniac8400 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Proxies exist. If you start forcing ISPs to block stuff, all you will do is create a standard market for proxy services. Then you lose the ability for law enforcement to track down crimes as the most popular proxies will be ones outside the US that keep no log information.