Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Prediction Market Site InTrade Bans US Customers

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the baptists-and-bootleggers dept.

Censorship 260

MyFirstNameIsPaul writes "In an announcement dated Monday, Nov 26, 2012, Dublin-based InTrade stated 'that due to legal and regulatory pressures, InTrade can no longer allow U.S. residents to participate in our real-money prediction markets.' The Washington Post reports that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a complaint in federal court against InTrade for 'illegally facilitating bets on future economic data, the price of gold and even acts of war,' demonstrating just how far the long arm of U.S. law can reach."

cancel ×

260 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107089)

"InTrade can no longer allow U.S. residents to participate in our real-money prediction markets"..."demonstrating just how far the long arm of U.S. law can reach"

US law being applied to US residents?! Outrageous!

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107255)

You're dumb.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (1, Redundant)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107257)

How are they stopping US residents? I assume they will just block US IP addresses. If that is the case, then the US is acting on InTrade (probably indirectly) in order to stop business from happening directly between the US and InTrade. It does not stop US residents currently outside of the US or those using proxies outside the US. So no, it likely isn't a US law being applied to US residents. It is a law being applied to foreign governments, which are applying their laws to domestic companies, which are then blocking US traffic, whether the traffic is from a US resident or non-US resident.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (5, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42107379)

The key word is right in the summary "pressure". Think of how MS packages windows for euro use, yep the door swings both ways. They didn't have to ban U.S. customers, but rather than dealing with the U.S. , they chose to do so, just like google, MS, and a plethora of other companies have in the past. This is hardly news.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (5, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 years ago | (#42107449)

Err, with rare exceptions, most national laws apply to people (citizens, residents, and visitors) within the national borders, but don't apply to people currently residing or visiting a different country. As a quick example, it's illegal for U.S. citizens, residents, and visitors to possess marijuana while in the U.S., but it's not against U.S. law for them to possess marijuana while in the Netherlands (unless Netherlands law makes it illegal).

So in this case, blocking by U.S. IP address effectively stops people in the U.S. from doing something illegal for people in the U.S. to do, while not preventing those in other countries (including U.S. citizens in other countries) from doing that same thing if it's legal where they currently are.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (0)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107521)

True; I was just calling out that it isn't US law being applied to US residents. It is US law indirectly being applied to people currently in the US.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (3, Insightful)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107747)

Why the fuck would you "call that out", though? That's an absolutely stupid point to make. Of course US law is going to apply to people inside the US. Just like German law would apply to me if I went and visited Germany.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (2)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 years ago | (#42107771)

Yes, as is true for most all U.S. laws. Were you to visit the U.S., you would not be able to do things that are currently legal in your home country, unless they are also legal in the United States. Were you to do one of those things (smoke pot in the U.S. as a Dutch citizen, to continue my previous example), you could be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for doing so.

Again, I'm not making any claims as to whether this should be illegal or not.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#42107637)

Exceptions like taxes.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (2)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 years ago | (#42107801)

Indeed, like taxes, though as you can deduct foreign taxes paid, you might not owe anything to the U.S. government. Providing support to terrorists or engaging in child trafficking also pop to mind as things illegal for U.S. citizens to do whether they are in the U.S. or not at the time. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions, but they are dwarfed by the large numbers of federal, state, and local laws that only apply to people currently within the jurisdiction (citizen, resident or visitor) and don't apply to those outside the jurisdiction.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107765)

1. Who's blocking the IP? Somehow I don't think it is the US government or ISPs
2. There is also the issue of proxies outside the US

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#42107653)

How are they stopping US residents? I assume they will just block US IP addresses. If that is the case, then the US is acting on InTrade (probably indirectly) in order to stop business from happening directly between the US and InTrade. It does not stop US residents currently outside of the US or those using proxies outside the US.

The fact that law enforcement cannot prevent all violations does not invalidate or make illegitimate a law or attempts to enforce it. Personally, I think it's a stupid law, but using a stupid argument against it does not help...

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#42107991)

they aren't. The kind of people who can handle a prediction market can afford a VPN + an offshore banking account, assuming they don't already have one.

"Dublin-Based" InTrade (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | about 2 years ago | (#42107295)

Yeah so when the German government decides to go postal on Google for not censoring Nazi-related searches on Google.de, which may or may not be hosted from US territory, I'm sure you'll be more than fine with Google having to bend to the will of Germany, right? Or how about China...? Ohhhh and what about when Pakistan decides to charge YouTube executives with blasphemy for being "incorrigible" about allowing blasphemous videos on YouTube?

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (5, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 2 years ago | (#42107343)

No, US law is being applied to a non-US company because they offered services to US residents.

In a sane setup, the US regulators would go and prosecute US residents who used illegal services, not foreign companies with foreign owners who are not in US jurisdiction. However, prosecuting lots of ordinary Americans is not politically attractive to these sorts of regulatory bodies, so they try and impose US law on foreigners instead. Now maybe these InTrade employees will have to avoid ever flying near the USA again in case their plane is forced to land and they're arrested.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107485)

The civil services have little concern for politics, outside of the legislature letting their budget exist.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (1)

Metahominid (1368691) | about 2 years ago | (#42107645)

I see your point, but going after the individuals is likely to take much, much longer and also due to how small the trades were, their likely ignorance of their wrong doing, the difficulty in gathering all the financials records and proving the culpability is insane. The potential political blow black is likely minor compared to being stuck in court for ten years. Instead using their political power and knowledge of the InTrades negligence in handling the situation the CFTC made the correct choice of attempting to cut the problem off at the head. Someone will figure out how to do it under the noses of the CFTC sooner than later.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107345)

The middle east bans Muhammad satire and the US bans gambling and other vices. Somehow it all goes back to religion.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#42107403)

The US doesn't ban gambling, they protect the government's monopoly of it.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107505)

The same goes for prostitution. If you get a marriage license, prostitution is legal.

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (2)

BlueStrat (756137) | about 2 years ago | (#42107455)

The middle east bans Muhammad satire and the US bans gambling and other vices. Somehow it all goes back to intrusive, authoritarian governments.

FTFY

Strat

Re:Yes, a truly shocking abuse of gov't power. (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#42107721)

Since it's The Washington Post, they buried the lead at the very very end of TFA.

Monday's complaint includes charges that TEN violated that earlier settlement. The company used Intrade to offer illegal options including on the future prices of gold, changes in the unemployment rate and a measure of U.S. economic output, the complaint said. It said TEN failed to provide the pop-up notices mandated in the 2005 order.

Intertrade had already been charged with the exact same offense, had agreed to stop doing so, but didn't.
Somehow this is an issue with intrusive, authoritarian governments?

/And I don't think anyone is arguing that commodities futures should not be regulated, because they would be wrong.

That's not very far at all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107101)

If they want to deal with customers, they have to deal with the local legality of their product and/or service. It's not like the US getting mad at online gambling sites is new, you know.

Hmmm ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#42107105)

Why is it illegal to wager on a prediction?

Or is this just being treated as a special case of on-line gambling, which apparently the world would end if allowed.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#42107161)

I think they're afraid of people getting rich of insider trading, which seems very popular this year.

Re:Hmmm ... (5, Insightful)

LaminatorX (410794) | about 2 years ago | (#42107201)

The Feds' problem is that it's effectively a futures/options market in many respects, and such instruments are to be traded on regulated exchanges. Intrade is not so regulated, thus they are being excluded from the US market.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107353)

Then why can I trade on the London Stock Exchange? It is not a US regulated market. Is it that we consider UK regulated markets as US regulated markets? What about Irish regulated markets? I'm sure InTrade is regulated by Ireland... Can US residents not trade on the Ireland Stock Exchange?

Treaties (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42107503)

Then why can I trade on the London Stock Exchange? It is not a US regulated market. Is it that we consider UK regulated markets as US regulated markets?

I'd assume so, given all the treaties that the USA has with Great Britain.

Re:Hmmm ... (4, Informative)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 2 years ago | (#42107395)

To put a finer point on this, Standardized derivative contracts that trade on an exchange are heavily regulated. Option and future markets tend to be abused by inside traders, fast talking high pressure brokers, etc.

Most derivative contracts (by notional amount), however, trade OTC and are lightly regulated. Think SWAPs, CDOs, etc. However, the traders are large companies which are heavily regulated and are (supposed) to have sophisticated risk and capital controls.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107937)

But it seems that there are far reaching consequences for offering anything around financial investments to US citizens. When I (German in Germany) visit a german website of german (even top of the line) investment bank or fond to get some information about certificates, fonds and other derivates I first have to confirm that I'm neither a US citizen or resident (indepent of being in the US or abroad), being in the US right now and forbidden to making that information available to US citizens/residents. I have seen this also in other european countries.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#42107467)

And you, as an individual, accept this violation of your rights because.... why again?

Re:Hmmm ... (2)

HiThere (15173) | about 2 years ago | (#42107507)

Because they're bigger than I am, and could beat me up if they wanted to.

It's not illegal. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107223)

You can wager on where the price will go on Gold, the economy, interest rates, etc ....

It's called the options and futures market here in the US. It's heavily regulated and requires capital.

The thing is with this site is that I wouldn't trust it. At least here in the States, something nefarious happens on an exchange or with a broker, I can at least get arbitration packed with industry insiders via FINRA (Finra.org)

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107639)

Why is it illegal to wager on a prediction?

Because nearly-but-not-quite all of us, vote for the kind of people who both 1) arbitrarily outlaw things 2) award monopolies based on convoluted hoop-jumping in order to prevent free markets.

Remember: it's "throwing your vote away" to vote against these people, because.. um, because .. someone said so, and believiong that democracy is a bad idea, causes the belief to become true.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107815)

Remember: it's "throwing your vote away" to vote against these people, because.. um, because .. someone said so

No, it's not. However, it is quite useless to vote for a minor party candidate, given the First Past the Post system we have, which devolves into a two party system.

Most people feel its far more practical to vote for the major party candidate that somewhat matches their views and have them win, than vote for the 3rd party candidate that closely matches their views, and have the major party candidate that is directly opposite of their views win.

Re:Hmmm ... (2)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 2 years ago | (#42107839)

It's sort of like the Prisoner's Dilemma writ large. It's throwing your vote away to vote 3rd party unless 50 million other people do it too.

Re:Hmmm ... (2)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107777)

It's not that it's illegal. There are regulations governing the trading of futures, which is what these are marketed as. The site is likely not following those regulations.

How far is too far? (3, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 2 years ago | (#42107111)

Is the long arm of the law reaching too far? Sounds like a gambling company was operating in the US, or at least for US customers. Gambling is illegal (unless the government is in on it, a discussion for another day :) in the US. Therefore they filed a complaint. Sounds like everything is legit.

Re:How far is too far? (4, Insightful)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about 2 years ago | (#42107273)

InTrade is an Irish company, founded by an Irishman, with a HQ in Dublin. They also banned the use of US credit and debit cards in 2010 - so cannot be actively seen to be soliciting business from the US.

Considering these facts, I'm not entirely comfortable with an unrelated country being able to have such an impact on a foreign company, which only operates overseas.

Re:How far is too far? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107411)

Considering they had to do business with US banks to deal with what would likely be the vast majority of US citizens they were in fact doing business on US soil.

Re:How far is too far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107775)

Awww- no. Doing business with a foreign entity does not put you on foreign soil. That is absolutely insane. It would mean I could essentially by in multiple places nearly simultaneously all because of a few electrons being sent overseas on my command.

Re:How far is too far? (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#42107799)

Considering these facts,

Next time try reading to the end of TFA, where they mention that the Irish company, founded by an Irishman, with a HQ in Dublin, had settled the exact same charges (with the CFTC) in 2005.

Awkward.

Re:How far is too far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107383)

Is the long arm of the law reaching too far? Sounds like a gambling company was operating in the US, or at least for US customers. Gambling is illegal (unless the government is in on it, a discussion for another day :) in the US. Therefore they filed a complaint. Sounds like everything is legit.

No, a non-US entity operating outside of the US. As far as am concerned the US vastly reaching too far. Its mot their issue the US has some really backward issues about gambling and prediction. Its up to the US to stop their own citizens from get out to that site, not the site itself. But I thought American were all about freedom, im always getting it rammed down my throat at every other opportunity....

Re:How far is too far? (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 2 years ago | (#42107853)

Americans used to be all about freedom. Actually, we still are if you understand that the majority of the citizens don't know what freedom is.

Re:How far is too far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107405)

The actual answer is gambling by wire is illegal in the US, since the federal government as jurisdiction on most communications infrastructure. A case could be made to allow it within a state, but even if made successfully it still can't cross state lines.

Local gambling is controlled by state law.

Re:How far is too far? (0)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107465)

Then why can futures be bought on the London Stock Exchange? Are they not just gambling? And isn't that allowing US residents gamble online?

Re:How far is too far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107537)

Because regulated markets are not gambling. We have our own futures markets and they are not counted gambling either.

Notice US is blocking due to lack of regulation not due to it being a kind of a futures market.

Re:How far is too far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107597)

First of all, the CFTC's "complaint" says nothing about gambling. They specifically call these Intrade contracts exactly what they are: binary options contracts. Where they overreached was in blatantly protecting the turf of the US domestic futures exchanges - the SAME folks that the CFTC looked the other way as they brought down the world economy in 2008.

Worse, the CFTC is on a jihad to keep the entire innovative, fascinating world of prediction markets - which the American public, media and investors have used for years now to gauge the likelihood of events of importance to them - from taking hold. They stomped out the nascent NADEX earlier this year. The CFTC is nothing more than well-dressed vandals who are protecting the turf of the very same friends of theirs who wrecked the economy several years ago and caused so many millions misery.

They're a disgusting horde of sociopaths that needs to be dimantled. We need useful regulation, not protection rackets for criminals.

Another stupid summary (3, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | about 2 years ago | (#42107129)

The US law affecting the US citizens, what's that got to do with "long arm"?

Re:Another stupid summary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107293)

Apparently the idea that US citizens are subject to US law and that that includes people who willfully do business with them is unfathomable to certain anarcho-libertarians who just don't get the purposes of government including regulating individual behavior. For the benefit of all, not just their own gain.

Re:Another stupid summary (1)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107421)

So you think the US can stop you from purchasing wine while in Italy on vacation?

This is a question of a foreign government's encroachment on the sovereignty of a business. Or, it is a question of a domestic government's encroachment on the domestic business' right to customers. I seem to remember when certain government entities didn't allow businesses to deal with women and certain minorities...

Re:Another stupid summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107705)

I'm sure the US could, were it worth the bother.

I can't see any reason for it to be worth the effort though, not for buying wine. Then again, I never would have supported Prohibition.

Child sex? Now that would be worth the effort of prosecuting. See the difference?

Nice try on the false equivalency on segregation, but you know what? We can tell the difference between unjust and just laws without getting caught in some absolutist mental trap where we confuse the two.

Heck, did you know the US military was ordered to exert coercive pressure against segregated companies? That such anti-discrimination policies are part of gov't contracts today?

My word, it's like murder is wrong, but some homicides are lawful!

Re:Another stupid summary (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107855)

So you think the US can stop you from purchasing wine while in Italy on vacation?

No, but that's an absolutely fucking retarded comparison. 1). Purchasing wine is not illegal in the US or Italy. 2). The transaction occurs on Italian soil, therefore the participants are subject to Italian law.

This is a question of a foreign government's encroachment on the sovereignty of a business.

A business is NOT sovereign in any sense of the word.

And this is not stopping the business from doing business, except with citizens of a nation which has not allowed it. There is no problem here.

Or, it is a question of a domestic government's encroachment on the domestic business' right to customers.

No business anywhere has any kind of "right to customers".

Re:Another stupid summary (1)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107997)

Who cares if purchasing wine was legal or illegal in the US. Use the same example, but for pot in the Netherlands. The InTrade transactions are on Irish soil.

I mis-worded the sentence. No need to go haywire. Can a foreign government encroach on the business within another sovereign country? They should not be stopping a business from doing business with certain people. They should be stopping the people from doing business with that company. There is a HUGE difference.

No person anywhere has any kind of right to life. But many governments are there to attempt to provide that right. A business should have the right to serve any person they want. This is similar to the US going into Columbia to stop drug trafficking. You stop it in your own country! You don't violate another's sovereignty to attempt to solve domestic issues and enforce domestic laws. This is the kind of crap that motivates terrorists to attack the US.

Re:Another stupid summary (0)

jbengt (874751) | about 2 years ago | (#42107895)

This is a question of a foreign government's encroachment on the sovereignty of a business.

A business does not have sovereignty.

Re:Another stupid summary (0)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107297)

Is a Chinese law that requires Macy's Department stores in the US to stop Chinese people from shopping there not a "long arm"?

Re:Another stupid summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107367)

Is a Chinese law that requires Macy's Department stores in the US to stop Chinese people from shopping there not a "long arm"?

Yes, it would be, but a Chinese law requiring Chinese citizens to not trade in US stocks because they don't adhere to or meet Chinese market regulations would not.

Re:Another stupid summary (1)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#42107481)

I would have to disagree then. This is a simple question of whether government controls their territory and the people in it or controls their territory and residents, no matter where they are located or conducting business. I wouldn't expect the US government to prosecute fraud when I conduct business in Prague. I would expect that to be in the CR jurisdiction, even if both ends of the transaction were US residents.

Re:Another stupid summary (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107863)

That is nowhere near what this is like, and you know it. Quit being a dumbass.

Re:Another stupid summary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107611)

If silly American laws were applied across the board you wouldn't be so quick to scoff.
 
Don't carry weed in Holland or the DEA can throw you in jail for possession. If you're from Nevada, prepare for life imprisonment.
 
You wouldn't be able to gamble in Taipei. They don't have ANY US-licensed casinos, can you believe it.
Don't score cheap drugs in Canada, you get to pay full price because of your clever American patent system.
 
Imagine if the opposite scenario played out. All of a sudden any gays in America would be up for the death penalty because that's the penalty for (butt) piracy in Nigeria. You wouldn't be able to gamble ANYWHERE because it's illegal in some little backwater shithole Muslim country. Goes on an on. You should be outraged about USA putting a finger in everybody else's pie at the cost of YOUR freedoms.

Vote Libertarian (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107139)

This is a great example of Republicans and especially Democrats limiting your freedom.

--libman

Re:Vote Libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107399)

"Especially Democrats"? Nevada votes Democrat and they have gambling AND prostitution over there. Democrats love limiting freedom, but this specific case is a great example of Democrats and especially Republicans wanting to ru[i]n your life.

That's excessive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107163)

The least they could do is still allow us to wager on sports. That's still legal last I checked.

Re:That's excessive. (2)

z_gringo (452163) | about 2 years ago | (#42107301)

Not really. The CEO of Bet on Sports, was a UK Citizen, living in Costa Rica and was arrested while changing planes in the US just because some of his customers turned out to be US citizens. He spent 33 months in jail, as I understand it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carruthers

Lets hope thats enough. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107165)

I still done think I'd fly though US controlled air space or airport if I were the managing directors of InTrade.

USA citizens used to be first class (2)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#42107173)

USA citizenship used to be similar to having a first class ticket, today....

You can't open a foreign bank account (and they taught you to believe that if you have a foreign bank account you are unamerican). Now you can't be on Intrade? Try and set up your own Intrade in USA, you'll be shut down.

Why is this all happening? As the government gets bigger and bigger, it gets into more and more aspects of people's lives. Individual freedoms are important, I know many here believe that individual freedoms means 'freedom for business to abuse you', however business cannot abuse you if you don't want it to, you can simply not deal with an abusing business, see how it turns out for that kind of business in a free market.

But where are you going to go if your government abuses you? They are certainly now making it harder and harder to drop US citizenship. There are now fees associated with that, not much for now, only about 400 bucks, but that only means they are going to raise it eventually much higher than that, maybe to your portion of public debt? How about your portion of unfunded liabilities? Contingency liabilities? If that's the case, there will be no difference between the iron curtain and the IRS curtain, and IRS already can deny you your passport or even revoke your passport so you can't go outside of country if you owe more than some dollar amount in taxes (25K or so).

Ron Paul was laughed at when he said that the wall at the Mexico border may just be used to hold Americans in.

How do I read this from these Intrade news? It's one step at a time, that's what it is. Prevent you from having a bank account outside, prevent you from dealing with companies outside, eventually prevent you from being able to exchange your currency, have capital and exchange controls; US border patrol is already crazy, it's not a stretch.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#42107213)

I have said it and will say it again. You with your vote (or your non voting) got the people into Congress who limited your ability to bet on future events. Don't complain about the laws Congress makes!

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107259)

I get your point, but it was the majority of people that voted so-and-so into Congress. Don't complain about the complainers that complain about stupid voters and those elected.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (1)

Sique (173459) | about 2 years ago | (#42107355)

Then you failed to convince others that your choice is better. If the majority has a different opinion than you, your opinion is per definitionem a fringe opinion.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107385)

Whoops! I guess I didn't realize it was my job to convince others, sway their opinion, and not let them have an opinion of their own.

I don't have to agree with their opinion, just like they don't have to agree with mine.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107909)

Nobody has to agree, that is true. However, it IS your job to convince others that your opinion is better, if you want your opinion to gain traction.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107671)

One of the problems with America is that we don't allow people to have fringe opinions without ridiculing them or punishing (outlawing) them. There is also a disconnect in our understanding of what it means to be free. We are free to do a lot - so long as what we choose to do is the current majority position or sanctioned by our dear leaders.

I wouldn't expect you to understand though, since you blame the victim for the bad laws.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107277)

Not my vote.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107373)

I have said it and will say it again. You with your vote (or your non voting) got the people into Congress who limited your ability to bet on future events. Don't complain about the laws Congress makes!

Voting or not voting has nothing to do with complaining. At this point, we are too far gone for 'elections' to make any difference. Our freedom went out the window when we decided that 50+1 % can make law. That is called the tyranny of the majority. For some it takes away freedom to intrade, for others freedom to smoke pot, for some the ability to buy and sell raw milk, or sleep on a mattress without fire retardants, or continue to purchase incandescent light bulbs.

It is becoming more and more obvious that these restrictions are not for our own good, or even for the children. It is simply about control - getting millions of people to do or not do something at the will of our leaders. When we as people do that to animals, it is called a farm - and they are called cattle. What does that make you?

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (5, Insightful)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | about 2 years ago | (#42107471)

"Listen, the government gave you a choice between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in the last election, so you can't complain that Goldman Sachs is raping your future!"

Yes, that follows logically . . .

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107311)

We poor people get trickle-down civilization for free; you rich people are supposed to pay for it with taxes.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107497)

Ron Paul was laughed at when he said that the wall at the Mexico border may just be used to hold Americans in.

I though that that comment was a little off. Some weeks later one of Facebook's early investors renounced his US citizenship. That young man was publicly attacked by some US congressmen because he moved to Singapore. Thats when I realized how right RP was.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107681)

I'm sick and tired of rich people whining about the government closing tax loopholes.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107935)

I fail to see how that does anything but prove RP completely wrong. Are you saying that those people are not able to have their own opinion on current events? I notice you didn't say anything about them actually doing anything.

USA citizens were never first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107805)

Whatever false sense of prestige you think US citizens had was manufactured through exploitation if not outright oppression of other people (done by the US government). US didn't get ahead by being better than others. US got ahead because other people fell behind

US citizens in 18th and 19th century was first class because the blacks, Indians, Asians and other minorities were discriminated and pushed down to become de facto second classes.

Then the world wars happened, and US citizens became first class simply because the rest of the world was in shambles. Plus, people where taught that the communists were evil inferior beings, so clearly the free and capitalist (ha!) Americans were first class.

But now that the rest of the world got back up on its feet, America is now seen for what it really is all along: the backwater former colony that it was prior to its Civil War and Industrial Revolution.

Capcha: "insecure", which is what many Americans are going to feel when they realize that they and the system their Founding Fathers created aren't that special

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107883)

How do I read this from these Intrade news?

You went from a law that requires futures markets to be regulated (which has been true for decades if not centuries), to saying the Mexico border law will be used to keep people in. You did that by being extremely paranoid.

This is the same kind of slippery slope argument that shows porn will turn you into a serial rapist.

Re:USA citizens used to be first class (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107885)

and IRS already can deny you your passport or even revoke your passport so you can't go outside of country if you owe more than some dollar amount in taxes (25K or so).

You mean there are punishments for breaking the law? Oh my God, that is just draconian! /s

But where are you going to go if your government abuses you?

I'm going to realize that this is not abuse, and quit being a pussy.

It begins~ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107187)

It begins~ [youtube.com]

And so begins the downfall. Baby steps.

That's it, making a cave society.

Re:It begins~ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107209)

Get back under your bridge. [codinghorror.com]

Reaching Yourself Means Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107189)

Blocking your residents from using a website is not a long reach, as enforcing any law within your borders does not constitute a long reach.

Good riddance! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107235)

I, for one, am very glad these unlicensed options traders are getting stamped out! There's no room in the economy for these shenanigans! Just think what could happen if people started massively trading options on unregulated exchanges - people would start speculating, maybe betting on, say, housing prices going up or down, and before you know it, we could have a housing assets bubble that would burst, bring down the economy and require massive government bailouts! I'm so glad that options trading is restricted only to regulated, licensed exchanges where such things couldn't ever happen......

The lesson here is this: if you're a small person trying to speculate - that's bad! If you're a giant investment bank trying to speculate - go right ahead, just as long as your dealer^H^H^H exchange is "regulated".

Re:Good riddance! (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#42107519)

First of all: I say, let them trade. Its not a US exchange. If it or its participants go under, tough luck.

Second: For banks and other regulated institutions, let them trade. On their own accounts, that is. And, oh by the way, for the purposed of minimum capital requirements, unregulated and unregistered securities are worth zero. You can stuff your vault full of them, but when the regulators come to do an audit, they are just so much toilet paper.

Third: Why does the IRS allow capital gains to be calculated on only the profits realized from trading unregulated, unregistered securities? Last year, you bought a piece of paper for $100. Today, you sell it for $105 and pay (15%) on $5. Sorry, we don't really know what that transaction was. For all we know, that $100 you spent last year was for hookers and blow. You just received $105. You owe taxes (at income rates, not LT cap gains rates) on $105. If it was still a profitable transaction, no problem. We're not disallowing it.

All easy fixes without bringing in the heavy hand of law enforcement.

Re:Good riddance! (5, Insightful)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#42107965)

I'm perfectly fine with the taxes being paid on only the profit. I'm just wondering why the hell simply having money to invest is rewarded more than actually doing work. Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, if not higher. There is no reason whatsoever that we should be rewarding people for simply having money.

Re:Good riddance! (1)

Duhavid (677874) | about 2 years ago | (#42107983)

You invest 100, and receive back 105, nominal profit of 5.
Assuming you are taxed at 15% ( at capital gains rates, income rates would be more, I presume ) on the 105.
If I have done the math right, tax is 15.75, 10.75 more than your profit.

Re:Good riddance! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107667)

Hello, anyone in there??? How would people buying and selling EVENT futures based on housing prices, on an Irish exchange, affect the ACTUAL prices of housing? Housing prices were driven up by low interest rates, lax credit qualifications putting more people into the market, and HOMEBUYERS SPECULATING on the homes themselves. No futures market is going to affect that. The only affect is in the other direction. That's by design.

Do you have any idea what Intrade does, and what their contracts look like? It sounds like you don't.

Oil and Gold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107263)

It says here that the restriction came after Intrade allowed predictions on gold and oil prices even after agreeing to prevent US customers from doing so. The general ban came later but might be a response to this CFTC suit.

http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/494909.page

How to break U$A: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107271)

Stop doing business with 'em.

Try getting a brokerage account in the UK from USA (3, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 2 years ago | (#42107335)

No brokerage in the UK will allow a "US person" to open an account. This has been true for at least 3 years and probably more.

It's really because (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 2 years ago | (#42107357)

What is "really" happening, is that someone posted another video to YouTube which showed Mohammed in a bad light, so, according to Obama's rules he specified to the UN, he is punishing InTrade. Even though they had no relation to the video, someone had to be punished to appease Al Queda, so they were randomally chosen. Someone else will be chosen to spend a year or two in jail on another random charge.

almost as bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107361)

almost as bad as what the US is doing to Kim Dotcom

Damn, this sucks (5, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#42107389)

I had money down at InTrade betting that this was going to happen. Now how am I supposed to get my money!?

Re:Damn, this sucks (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42107679)

western union or moneygram it's what the on line sports books and poker sites use.

Put your hand up if you supported this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107609)

Have the dweebs who were jacking off to "financial markets reform" showed up yet?

(Or are they collecting their bribes from the rentseekers at Goldman Sachs, who wrote Dodd-Frank?)

we need an internet that can't be regulated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42107701)

governments and corporations cannot be trusted to control communications

we the people need an internet that no government or corporation has any control over

there are various mesh network projects out there, please consider running a node, or at least a tor passthrough, freenet node, and/or i2p router

if we make these networks robust and ubiquitous enough then the powerful people wont be able to shut them down without giving up their pretense of legitimacy

Bitcoin sidesteps another US regulation (2)

Teppy (105859) | about 2 years ago | (#42107861)

http://betsofbitco.in/ [betsofbitco.in] has no restrictions on location. They're probably totally legal here as well, because except for sports gambling, and futures markets specifically, there are no US federal laws prohibiting gambling. Several laws (The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, The Federal Wire Wager Act, 18 U.S.C. 1084) prohibit the transfer of funds by wire for purposes of gambling, but gambling itself is only regulated at the state level (with the two specific exemptions above.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?