Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

NJ Gamblers May Be Locked Out By Flaws In Virtual Fence

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the idiocracy-meets-1984-meets-mother-may-I dept.

Government 88

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.

cancel ×

88 comments

VICE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450283)

Jersey City Vice !!

Snarky timothy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450309)

For some values of unavoidable, maybe.

How very snarky of you, timothy. Do elucidate us on how electronic device geolocation can avoid denying some users close to the "fence" access.

Lemme guess, you're buthurt because you've been "unjustly" denied.

Re:Snarky timothy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450587)

Lemme guess, you're buthurt because you've been "unjustly" denied.

No, he's just not very witty. Hanlon's razor, yaknow?

Re:Snarky timothy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45453377)

Do elucidate us on how electronic device geolocation can avoid denying some users close to the "fence" access.

"Sufficient Accuracy".

Hmm.. (3, Insightful)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 8 months ago | (#45450317)

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

Re:Hmm.. (4, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#45450365)

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

Re:Hmm.. (2)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#45450869)

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

Re:Hmm.. (2)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#45450859)

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.

 

Re:Hmm.. (1)

Meski (774546) | about 8 months ago | (#45459841)

Assume then that you're in NJ unless there's proof that you are not. I almost find myself not giving a shit about it either way.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#45451407)

In this case it means no cost effective solution exists.

Otherwise you know that the additional revenues from increasing the number of potential customers would gleefully be exploited by the state of New Jersey.

Re: Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45451457)

unavoidable is what you get when put obama's freinds in charge of your website

Proxy? (5, Interesting)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 8 months ago | (#45450337)

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

Re:Proxy? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450355)

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

Re:Proxy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450371)

Have been setting one up for over a week now, still ironing out the kinks but as a NJ resident I will gladly allow my fellow ameri....humans access to NJ gambling

Re:Proxy? (2)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#45450887)

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

Re:Proxy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450443)

That's fine; if you use a proxy, then the casino has done due diligence to prevent you from gambling, and you have deliberately broken it, and accept the liability.

Re:Proxy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45455055)

Just like when i was at the Taj and they announced at least 5 times that they were going to be coming around and checking ID's at 6:00 A.M. I'm sure if there was anyone underage playing without a sufficient fake ID there would have left after the 3rd or 4th warning.

Re:Proxy? (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45450477)

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

Re:Proxy? (2)

Smallpond (221300) | about 8 months ago | (#45450489)

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

Re:Proxy? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45450529)

Less than ten may get by but 50+ is probably not going to fly.

Re:Proxy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450655)

Did those numbers stick a little bit coming out of your ass?

Re:Proxy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450761)

And when your kind pulls a one out of their ass, is it less painful than a zero? Zeros are round and smooth, but thicker. Ones are narrower, but pointy. I always wonder what the uneducated CONservatives in this country feel is the more comfortable number to pull out of their asses. My guess is that it is a one because they are such tight asses, but I'm not sure. So jklovanc, do you prefer pointy things pulled out of your ass or bigger, but round thinks pulled out of your ass?

Re:Proxy? (0)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45452277)

Posting AC and probably replying to your own post; talk to me when you get a backbone.

Re:Proxy? (1)

Meski (774546) | about 8 months ago | (#45459859)

There's a profit incentive to let it slide, how would you code it? And for the entity setting up this hypothetical proxy in NJ, perhaps they could issue an IP to each subscriber. I'm thinking IPV6 for this.

Re:Proxy? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45460937)

There is a bigger profit incentive to not let it slide; the commision may shut the gambling down completely(that is the reason for this article). One would also have to own those IP addresses to be able to allocate them. IP addresses are not free.

Re:Proxy? (2)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 8 months ago | (#45451055)

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...

Re:Proxy? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45451337)

That would be more difficult to weed out but still not impossible. A 20 room hotel with 100 simultaneous connections might be spotted. Most web pages don't care about proxies; gambling web sites do. Then there is the risk to the hotel of being charged with something like facilitating illegal gambling.

Re:Proxy? (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 8 months ago | (#45452793)

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.

Re:Proxy? (2)

Imrik (148191) | about 8 months ago | (#45453215)

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

Re:Proxy? (1)

Meski (774546) | about 8 months ago | (#45459869)

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.

Almost like renting a room for a quick fuck.

Re:Proxy? (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 8 months ago | (#45452043)

most ISP's use dynamically allocated IP addresses, not fixed. So you could have 200 people using the same one over a week or so.

Re:Proxy? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45452265)

A proxy server would be known as a service by their ISP and probably assigned a static IP. Even DHCPs are not renewed that often. It causes problems with web sites that authenticate based on IP. They are usually renewed on power up. Most cable or DSL modems don't power cycle very often. I am not saying that it is foolproof but will probably be noticed and investigated.

So you could have 200 people using the same one over a week or so.

They would all have to attempt to gamble in NJ. Two hundred people trying to gamble from the same IP is not normal even if it changed hands every day.

Re:Proxy? (1)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 8 months ago | (#45452329)

In all truth, the abundant number of legitimate reasons many users would connect from the same world-visible IP address would pretty much make blocking something on that basis alone be silly and probably anger customers with legitimate reason to be behind some IP address along with many others.

Hotels are the biggest source. If all their rooms are behind proxy and guests are coming and going, the number of 'new customers' coming from that single address would be very high.

In short, wagging around the 'large number of people from one IP' as an issue is not going to work, too many real legitimate reasons for it. It's not any kind of indication about who is behind that IP address. I wish people would figure that out one of these days. IP address != identity. Not by a long shot.

Re:Proxy? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45452593)

What you are railing at is auto blocking. What I am talking about is flagging for investigation. Lets look at this scenario;
1. 200 accounts accessing the NJ gambling servers from the same address in one day.
2. They look into the address and it is a hotel. If it is not a hotel and the investigation finds no legitimate reason for those connections they blacklist it.
3.a A 500 room hotel may be legit.
3.b A 20 room hotel, probably not so they investigate further.

For a proxy service to be profitable it would have to have hundreds of customers per day. It would be pretty easy to notice it. A proxy server is very different than a wireless router.

I wish people would figure that out one of these days. IP address != identity. Not by a long shot.

The objective is not to identify a person but to identify a server as being a proxy server. When an investigation is done and it is found that there is no way that the people gambling through that IP are on premises it is easy to prove it is a proxy. There is probably a rule banning gambling through a proxy and blacklisting a proxy is a reasonable remedy.

There is a saying; "the perfect is the enemy of the good". All there needs to be is a method that works some of the time and sufficient penalties to make the risk not worth it. They would not go after the account holders but the proxy service so individuals would not need to be identified.

Re:Proxy? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 months ago | (#45455337)

For a proxy service to be profitable it would have to have hundreds of customers per day.

I don't see why, you are not going to need a very powerful VPN to play SSL/Webproxy for a handful of users and they don't cost much, tens of dollars per month. Get just a handful of users to pay you $30 and you probably well in the black.

Suppose you did have a legitimate business to use a front? Lets say I have a motel. I could negotiate with my out of state online gambling customers to a let them book rooms at a "special g-rate", which tells me I can double book the room (ie rent it again to a physical customer) and give the grate access to my poxy (which is old linux box under the desk at the business office).

I am sure I could make plenty of money because it adds almost no additional overhead; no matter how cheap I have to make the service to find takers..

Re:Proxy? (1)

LordWabbit2 (2440804) | about 8 months ago | (#45472895)

What you are all overlooking is whether the casino will give a shit. They have their asses covered, it's yours that's on the line not theirs.

Re:Proxy? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45473649)

considering they are moving boundaries to cover their asses it is not a stretch to think they would look for proxies too. If they ignore a known hole they are not covering their asses.

Re:Proxy? (1)

LordWabbit2 (2440804) | about 8 months ago | (#45553423)

I disagree, if you are using a proxy then you are circumventing the rules. They are not. Their rules are to only allow connections within a certain IP range, which they are doing. If you proxy in then it's you who is breaking the rules. I work for a betting company, we log EVERYTHING and we don't have the time or manpower to sift through the logs looking for proxies etc. The only time we use the logs is when we are troubleshooting a problem or investigating something specific. Sure we could write something to trigger a warning, but in our specific case it would be pointless. A lot of our traffic is from mobile devices and that is NATted (sp?) to the point that it would be going off all the time.

Re:Proxy? (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about 8 months ago | (#45453623)

Hotels? Schools? Maybe the office gambles?

Re:Proxy? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#45455221)

Read the other posts under this comment as I don't see the need to repeat myself.

Re:Proxy? (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | about 8 months ago | (#45450519)

Sure there are easy ways around the "fence", but comes at the risk, especially for taxable jackpots (ie. $1200+ for slots / video poker), of forfeiting winnings.

Re:Proxy? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#45450543)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Proxy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45451755)

You might be surprised. I had a computer science professor argue the right software *could* ensure kids can't gain access (and she wasn't referring to 5 year olds). This despite that every method she argued to prevent it was easily overcome by a remotely intelligent 13 year old. I know. I did it. And most of the time I had no need. Getting around stupid filters was purely for fun.

A few examples (while these actions might be criminal minors are less culpable anyway which is the whole reason they're not allowed on these sites):

Social security numbers: Google is your friend. P2P is your friend.
Credit cards: Google is your friend. P2P is your friend. Bitcoins are your friend. Carding forums are your friend. Prepaid cards are your friend. All things that will let you avoid any such legal restrictions or filters.
Answer / response verification: Your kids don't know where to find this info already? Maybe a filing cabinet somewhere? Or they might just ask you up front. I mean really. What parent would think twice about there kid asking about family history?

And there is evidence that kids aren't that stupid. Something like 2/3rds of minors regularly check out pornography online and yet 95% of houses in the UK with children in them have filtering.

Re:Proxy? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#45453865)

A computer scientist? Wow. Where they a strong-AI believer, or just a very compelling lesson in why good software is only the beginning of 'security'?

Re: Proxy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45451827)

I'm sure they'll gladly *take* your money from anywhere in the world but good luck being paid out without proving you are a NJ resident or being physically present in NJ. You can count on them policing that end of the system hard since they get to keep forfeit winnings.

Re: Proxy? (1)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 8 months ago | (#45452341)

I'm sure they'll gladly *take* your money from anywhere in the world but good luck being paid out without proving you are a NJ resident or being physically present in NJ. You can count on them policing that end of the system hard since they get to keep forfeit winnings.

So uh, if I drive to NJ, rent a hotel room, gamble online and win, it's forfeit? How is that legal? More importantly, if I did the same thing through a proxy located in NJ, how the heck are you gunna tell the difference?

Re: Proxy? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 8 months ago | (#45453563)

So uh, if I drive to NJ, rent a hotel room, gamble online and win, it's forfeit?

No, since you are physically in NJ. Just be sure to claim your win right away, rather than after your return from your trip in NJ...

More importantly, if I did the same thing through a proxy located in NJ

In that case, the casino "won't be able" to wire your money to your out-of-state bank account. But, if it is a big win, it'd be probably be worthwhile to drive over to NJ to pick up your winning in person... (or have it wired to a Western Union branch in NJ, if the gambling joint doesn't pay out winnings in cash at their head office)

The casino would still win out, because they'd get to keep the smaller wins for which it is not worthwhile to go there in person.

Re: Proxy? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 8 months ago | (#45453925)

I'm sure they'll gladly *take* your money from anywhere in the world but good luck being paid out without proving you are a NJ resident or being physically present in NJ. You can count on them policing that end of the system hard since they get to keep forfeit winnings.

For sufficiently large payouts, that might be worth it; but it would probably be a bad strategy for low stakes wins:

On average, even without changing the rules, the house wins. That's how the game is set up. Especially for online games, where 'floor space' is trivially cheap server time, every additional sucker in the door is, on average, more money for them. If it becomes known that they bait-and-switch out of state players, how many out of state players will come through the door?

It will also create the strong (and justified) impression that they could be doing more to keep out-of-state players away; but aren't. Then the moral crusaders, DA looking to run for office, etc. will be on their backs again.

For sufficiently large wins, it can be justified as a routine "Well, of course our level of diligence for very large transactions is greater, that's just common sense!", and high-rollers probably don't slum it in an online New Jersey casino, in any case; but why spook the people playing nickle slots? On average you win, and everything stays a lot quieter if nobody comes away feeling ripped off.

Trans-Pacific? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450347)

Where are all the articles/submissions regarding the TPP?

This is an agreement that effects pretty much the entire IT industry and there isn't a single SUBMISSION in the firehose?

Does anyone else need more proof Dice Inc. is manipulating you people?

or (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450357)

we could just kill all the Christians and get rid of all our puritanical laws based on the bible.

Re:or (2)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#45450375)

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

Re:or (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 8 months ago | (#45450417)

One doesn't need to be Christian to question the wisdom of allowing the Government and for-profit corporations to profit from gambling, which is essentially nothing more than a tax on people who are bad at math.

Nor do Christians generally oppose gambling. Two words for those who dispute this statement: Church bingo.

Re:or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450447)

Don't waste your time, they already know this but their hatred exceeds their ignorance and they have no desire to remove either of them.

Re:or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450501)

I've got nothing against Christians. I have problems with people who do things in the name of Christianity.

Re:or (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#45450603)

One doesn't need to be Christian to question the wisdom of allowing the Government and for-profit corporations to profit from gambling, which is essentially nothing more than a tax on people who are bad at math.

There is a social cost to gambling. Areas with legal gambling tend to have higher crime rates, more substance abuse, prostitution, and families in poverty (many gamblers are those that can least afford it). It is reasonable to tax gambling to recoup these costs. It certainly makes more sense than taxing, say, income and payrolls.

Nor do Christians generally oppose gambling.

Does the bible prohibit or condemn gambling? I don't think so, although many people may believe that it does. This reminds me of the poll of born-again Christians that were asked to pick their favorite bible verse, and 40% (or something like that) picked "God helps those that help themselves." Of course, that "verse" is not from the bible ... and expresses pretty much the exact opposite of the central tenets of Christianity.

Re:or (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 8 months ago | (#45450663)

It is reasonable to tax gambling to recoup these costs

It might be more reasonable not to allow gambling in the first place, particularly when it's the State (via the lottery) that's promoting it. That's what I was hinting at, not specifically condemning taxing the profits from gambling where it's legal for whatever reason. The flip-side to that is you drive it underground where it's harder to regulate, with obvious consequences, though at least the underground market isn't as ubiquitous and well advertised.

It would be interesting to see some actual studies done on the societal cost of legalized vs. illegal gambling, but I highly doubt that will happen anytime soon. There's just too much money at stake, and most of the States have figured out that legalized gambling is a nice way to raise taxes without the usual political cost of raising taxes. I do love the irony of funding education (New York lottery) and elderly care (Pennsylvania lottery) on the backs of those who can least afford the income hit associated with the lottery.

Re:or (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 8 months ago | (#45450771)

Citations please, there are multiple casinos within an hour of me and they are actually in pretty good areas.

Re:or (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#45451915)

Citations please

Citation. [washingtonpost.com]

Re:or (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 8 months ago | (#45454689)

So casinos raise the suicide rate, bankruptcy rate and crime rate, but apparently only if they are in MD or are Mississippi river boats... Apparently the Vegas casinos had no impact? Seems flawed to me and I live 20 minutes from 1 casino in MD, 5 minutes from the new one they are building and less than an hour from the others.

Re:or (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#45451487)

There is a social cost to gambling. Areas with legal gambling tend to have ...... prostitution,

So, its not all bad.

Re:or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45452275)

It is reasonable to tax gambling to recoup these costs

no, it's not.

Re:or (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 8 months ago | (#45452643)

Im personally a bigger fan of the poll where 80% of respondants admitted that most of the polls statistics that they quote are actually made up on the spot.

Re:or (2)

fred911 (83970) | about 8 months ago | (#45451411)

"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.

Re:or (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#45455603)

It's possible to be good at math and enjoy gambling as a recreation or amusement.

...but stupid people dominate the gaming floor.

Land of the free... (2)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 8 months ago | (#45450373)

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.

Re:Land of the free... (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#45450679)

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.

Re:Land of the free... (3, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 8 months ago | (#45450757)

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.

Re:Land of the free... (2)

Aryden (1872756) | about 8 months ago | (#45450779)

Clark county NV, Amsterdam Netherlands to name a couple.

Re:Land of the free... (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 8 months ago | (#45451309)

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.

Re:Land of the free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450917)

I'm happy to see that those who reject modern society are not exclusively on the right. It brings back fond memories of the Sixties. Sex, dregs and rock-n-roll still have quite an appeal.

Re:Land of the free... (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 8 months ago | (#45451787)

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". ;)

Re:Land of the free... (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 8 months ago | (#45458655)

Referring to "the law" is misleading. AFAIK, the Supreme Court has said nothing about prostitution being interstate commerce, so it's a matter of state law, and that differs from state to state.

In all states, parts of Nevada excepted, it's illegal for me to pay a hot chick to have sex with me. In some states, as I understand it, it's legal for me to pay a hot chick to have sex with a hot dude, as long as I'm not doing it for my own sexual satisfaction. As long as I'm paying for sex so I can film it and sell it, I have a clear-cut financial interest, and a plausible explanation that this isn't for my own jollies, and the state gets to tax what I do, so lots of people are happy. (And I don't care about people who are unhappy because somebody else is having fun.)

Shockingly... (2)

Omega Hacker (6676) | about 8 months ago | (#45450385)

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

Re:Shockingly... (1)

mishehu (712452) | about 8 months ago | (#45450445)

The house always wins anyway. :-)

Re:Shockingly... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45450991)

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.

"Unavoidable?" (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 8 months ago | (#45450485)

"Unavoidable" means there is no way around it. That's bullshit when dealing with computers. There is always a way around it, if you're not a lazy fucktard doing the programming.

Re:"Unavoidable?" (2)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 8 months ago | (#45451481)

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.

TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45451425)

Yup

Worst of both worlds (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#45451501)

Have to live in New Jersey. Can't participate in one of the few worthwhile activities.

WTO (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 8 months ago | (#45451693)

Another fence for with USA willget slapped by WTO...

Why? (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about 8 months ago | (#45452605)

Why make it all so complicated?

- Require valid user with unique ID and password
- Allow NJ citizens to sign up
- Filter out 'undesirables' (non-NJ, banned, underage etc.)

Now, just allow anybody that's a valid user to play regardless of their location.

The only way to stream! (-1, Offtopic)

gamehayvl (3436059) | about 8 months ago | (#45453021)

Pls click here tin nhan chuc giang sinh [gamehayvl.com] . Thanks

Re: The only way to stream! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45457105)

Your spam is unwanted and offtopic. That shit belongs in your diary

Not a bit of bias in the write up at all (1)

plopez (54068) | about 8 months ago | (#45454653)

"with a cut to the state, of course"

How the good people of New Jersey want to organize their government and support their government services is their business. Perhaps we can run a government for free? Or is tax evasion a God given right?

I bet if it had been done by a private company the post would consider this "cut" to be fair, just, and natural.

warning: state's rights comment (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 8 months ago | (#45455833)

Just want to point out that if gambling were controlled via some uniform set of laws rather than varying wildly state-to-state, this sort of nonsense would be moot. And that includes the taxation laws, as it's easy to deduct a tax from online winnings, just difficult if you have to change the tax rate for every dang community or region.

Re:warning: state's rights comment (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 8 months ago | (#45458603)

However, until the Supreme Court decides that gambling that is limited to one state is still interstate commerce (they've done things like that before), the Federal government can't regulate gambling, and it is left up to the states. This feature of the US Constitution has good and bad results, and I think this counts on the bad side.

IP addresses have nothing at all to do with this (1)

ragethehotey (1304253) | about 8 months ago | (#45456271)

Proxy servers have nothing to do with this, it has everything to do with how they determine your location.

They triangulate your location using the closest cell phone towers, and get your position that way. The problem with this is that for the 300,000+ people in Jersey City or Hoboken, the strongest cell tower may be located in New York City where internet gaming is illegal, and you get shut out of using the services. Same goes for the people in Camden that may get a signal indicating they are in Philadelphia.

Yes this can be easily defeated by buying a Tracfone and leaving it at a friends house + VPN, but for non tech savvy people this is a huge deal. In Nevada when they implemented this is wasn't really a problem because besides Lake Tahoe, barely any of the population lives right on the border next to a large population center.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...