Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NJ Gamblers May Be Locked Out By Flaws In Virtual Fence

Posted by timothy on from the idiocracy-meets-1984-meets-mother-may-I dept.

According to an Associated Press story (as carried by the Washington Post), regulations meant to selectively allow some forms of internet gambling to take place within New Jersey (with a cut to the state, of course) are being enforced by means of "virtual fences" that fall short of the state's borders. An excerpt: "'Unfortunately for some people, there may not be sufficient verification that they are in New Jersey — even if they are — and they’ll be denied,' said David Rebuck, director of the state Division of Gaming Enforcement. 'It’s an unavoidable consequence.'" For some values of unavoidable, maybe.

24 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm.. by dale.furno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could someone ask these people to define "unavoidable" for us, please.

    1. Re:Hmm.. by jythie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Like the rest of NJ`s gaming regulation, it is whatever the commissioner and his industry buddies feel like at the time.

    2. Re:Hmm.. by icebike · · Score: 2

      Could someone ask these people to define "unavoidable" for us, please.

      If you read the story, you would understand that if you are using a portable device, connected to a cell tower, and you have your GPS switched off, or are denying use of same to your web browser, there is enough imprecision in cell tower triangulation method of location determination that your position can not be verified as being within New Jersey.

       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Hmm.. by icebike · · Score: 2

      Probably Neighboring states are the ones forcing this. NJ probably doesn't care all that much.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  2. Proxy? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it just me or does this look pretty silly? One proxy inside their virtual fence and it's utterly pointless and useless?

    1. Re:Proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      could even be made into a service and monetized for those who dont know what the fuck a proxy is

    2. Re:Proxy? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      A proxy would be pretty easy to spot and block. Many different accounts logging on from the same IP sticks out quite a bit.

    3. Re:Proxy? by Smallpond · · Score: 2

      So multiple people in my apartment can't use NAT?

    4. Re:Proxy? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it just me or does this look pretty silly? One proxy inside their virtual fence and it's utterly pointless and useless?

      Just remember that the objective of the system is to satisfy a statutory requirement. Can whoever is responsible for this 'virtual fence' system testify in court/legislative session that they are 'aggressively using industry-standard IP geolocation technology to ensure that New Jersey electronic gaming is conducted in accordance with the law'? Probably so, even without anything arising to the level of perjury. After that, why try harder? If there are lucrative, or sufficiently whiny, customers too close to the border for IP geolocation to work, maybe the ROI/flack avoidance value of working with ISPs to whitelist a few edge-case customers will be worth it; but leave crowing about having shut down somebody's trivial proxy site to the Attorney General or the DA, they get off on that kind of feel-good nonsense, and it's one less thing for you to do.

      It's like doing CISPA compliance. Do you think that the people who do that are utter morons who actually think that they can keep horny adolescents away from smut? Hardly. But they need a system that complies with that mandate, without breaking the budget or soaking up lots of admin time, and in it goes.

    5. Re:Proxy? by icebike · · Score: 2

      For a mere portion of the winnings, but none of the losses I wager. (see what I did there?)

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Proxy? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      A proxy would be pretty easy to spot and block. Many different accounts logging on from the same IP sticks out quite a bit.

      A hotel basement location might make them think guests are playing... It also provides a simple way to monetize the service, you "rent a room" and get a connection...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    7. Re:Proxy? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      A hotel basement location might make them think guests are playing... It also provides a simple way to monetize the service, you "rent a room" and get a connectionâ¦

      How sick would a person have to be to rent a hotel room so they can gamble online? How addicted? If you want to get rid of your money, go to the movies, or to some concert, or have a nice dinner, but throwing it away gambling, that's just stupid.

    8. Re:Proxy? by Imrik · · Score: 2

      They'd be renting a virtual room, much less expensive.

  3. Land of the free... by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 2

    Unless you want to smoke some hash, snort some coke, gamble, pay for sex (or indeed, be paid for sex), or many of the other little things* that the government doesn't want you to do. But, feel free to be ripped off by the banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. And feel free to pay your taxes so that the government can export that freedom.

    * Little things. Victim-less crimes. Suicide is not murder, and self-harm is not assault.

    --
    HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    1. Re:Land of the free... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      where can you do (most) of those things, in the world, and not be breaking the law?

      why single out the US?

      we have too many laws, but I would argue the WORLD has too many laws, too.

      its people. its how people (regardless of location) seem to act when they are 'rulers'. they make lots and lots of laws and prohibit anything that is fun..

      "stop enjoying what I don't enjoy!" pretty much sums it up.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Land of the free... by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The rest of the world doesn't (by and large) claim to be "land of the free". And yes, any place that outlaws victim-less activities, and claims to be free, is obviously not. But, apart from the drugs issue, there are plenty of places that allow the buying (and selling) of sex, and gambling.

      Personally, I think it's not so much as stop enjoying what I don't, but more, that's bad for you, because I said so. And I'm obviously know better than you, because.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    3. Re:Land of the free... by Aryden · · Score: 2

      Clark county NV, Amsterdam Netherlands to name a couple.

    4. Re:Land of the free... by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Because they self proclaim as "the land of the free" obviously, whereas, Saudi Arabia (for example) does not and hence there is no hypocrisy when they aren't actually free.

    5. Re:Land of the free... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      pay for sex (or indeed, be paid for sex)

      You can do both of those things, so long as you're filming them.

      Paying for sex in front of the camera == production of pornography, perfectly legal in most American jurisdictions
      Paying for sex without a camera == prostitution, and illegal in most American jurisdictions

      The law is nothing if not "consistent". ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Re:or by jythie · · Score: 2

    In this case, puritanism has nothing to do with it. This is simple power politics.

  5. Shockingly... by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 2

    ...nothing of value was lost. And I mean that in both senses.

    --
    GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    1. Re:Shockingly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Meh, some people pay good money for tix to a concert or sports game, and while there buy some food and drinks. They do that for entertainment and the performers and the venue always win, yet nobody raises an eyebrow.

      My friends and I go to the casino, spend a preset amount of money on slot machines and card games, and buy some food and drinks. We do it for entertainment too and the house always wins just like the concert/sports venue, yet somehow what we do is wrong.

      Go figure.

  6. Re:or by fred911 · · Score: 2

    "tax on people who are bad at math"

    What's even worse is that the casinos are permitted
    to not accept wagers from well funded individuals that
    ARE good at math.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  7. Re:"Unavoidable?" by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

    There is always a way around it, if you're not a lazy fucktard doing the programming.

    Doing anything is EASY (if not actually trivial), doing it well/properly/thoroughly is HARD in the same sense as "NP Hard".

    The problem is that almost everyone happy to "just do it" (as in the sense of only just barely) rather than "If a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing well".

    While it's completely off topic, this is ONE of the reasons why Apple products are very popular. Because (not always, but in most cases) the things they do are done *very* well.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.