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!

U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the need-a-law-for-everything dept.

334

SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."

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

They won't get rid of it (3, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697592)

They will just find a way to tax it.

Re:They won't get rid of it (4, Insightful)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697623)

Actually in germany and the netherlands (almost) all mortar-brick gambling houses, and several lotteries as well, are state owned, and a lot of money of the poor souls that get addicted to this flows directly towards the state. As they have to get their money somewhere, and are not earning enough, they're likely to get their money in a criminal way. In effect, all this leads to state-controlled white washing of criminal money.

Don't know how it's in the US, but I don't wonder countries are against online gambling: not because of your health, or to prevent fraud, but because of all the money they'll lose their grip on.

Re:They won't get rid of it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697827)

The US uses a convenient legal fiction that Native Americans have sovereign land on which casinos can be built. As part of the agreement to allow the casinos the states get a cut of the take. The whole setup is a sham since most of the money goes to the casino operators.

Re:They won't get rid of it (2)

Alphager (957739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697830)

People who loose too much get on a do-not-gamble-list in Germany. Every Casino has to check the list, an losses of persons on that list are null (meaning the looser does not have to pay).

Re:They won't get rid of it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697714)

The power elite will impose whatever policy brings in more revenue for government. It's really that simple. Government is run as a business, and like any business, more revenue is always viewed as a good thing. The objective for the power elite is to maximize revenue and "market share" (control over the people), and that is exactly why every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, and exactly why all governments tend to expand, and never reduce, their powers throughout their existence.

Take prohibition for example: sure, they could tax drugs and "allow" us our god-given right to voluntary association, but prohibition rakes in billions per year for government, and provides them with orders of magnitude more power than regulation and taxing, which can be leveraged for even more profit. Therefore, prohibition is here to stay, at least as long as big government is here to stay.

They will literally sit down and discuss how to maximize revenue and market share, like any business would, and the answer will be determined exactly that way. Don't you love being ruled by other human beings?

Re:They won't get rid of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697887)

I thought prohibition was when they banned alcohol back in the 30's. You trying to co-opt the term for crank heads?

Re:They won't get rid of it (2, Interesting)

pedalman (958492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698035)

Government is run as a business,
No, it isn't. If it were, it wouldn't act like a teenager with an unlimited credit card. I don't know of many businesses that could run very long with a deficit such as that of the U.S. Government.

Don't even get me started on that Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

Re:They won't get rid of it (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698043)

...prohibition (sic) rakes in billions per year for government

Really? The war on drugs is profitable? I thought they did this because drugs are bad for the children(TM). Any politician crazy enough to propose legalizing drugs would get voted out so fast the following election he'd think he was a victim of redistricting.

Know why prohibition (the real alcohol one) was repealed back in the 30s? Cause alcohol ended up getting taxed through the roof and that gave the gov't a much needed revenue boost.

Re:They won't get rid of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698056)

lol, yea, that damn prohibition, i hate having to deal with that these days. whatever, man, go back to your cave

Re:They won't get rid of it (4, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697724)

Which is where the idiocy begins. You can't tax something that's illegal. Well, you can, but not many people will fess up. Right now, with the betting going on overseas, the industry is pulling money out of the US economy and adding it to other country's economies. All taxes aside, the US economy is weakening because it is illegal to gamble online in the US, but not on servers outside the US.

IF the US were to legalize online gambling, and tariff the hell out of international gambling services, they could not only keep more of the money IN the US economy, but they could still tax the gamblers (capital gains) and the profits of the online casino.

Instead the government has created a situation where they are attempting to dictate morals to the majority aged citizens and are shipping our US dollars overseas for no good reason.

-Rick

Re:They won't get rid of it (1)

pubjames (468013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697860)

You can't tax something that's illegal.

Actually you can, in the UK at least. If the tax man finds out that you've made lots of money without declairing it, then he'll want his share of it, even if you made that money through illegal means.

Re:They won't get rid of it (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697914)

Yeah, that's why I corrected myself and said that you can, but people aren't going to pay for it. Like in the US, some states have marijuana tax stamps. If you sell pot with out a tax stamp, the IRS can haul you in, but in order to get the stamp you need to prove you have the goods to sell, so if you show up at your local town hall with a few OZs of weed to get stamps for, you'll get arrested on the spot for possession with intent to distribute.

It's a fail safe, if for some reason the possession case fails, they can nail you for tax evasion. Many mobsters were brought down for tax evasion.

-Rick

Re:They won't get rid of it (2, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697922)

Right now, with the betting going on overseas, the industry is pulling money out of the US economy and adding it to other country's economies. All taxes aside, the US economy is weakening because it is illegal to gamble online in the US, but not on servers outside the US.

But doesn't the exact same thing happen with outsourcing - you move production or a call center to India, and you pay for Indian workers, therefore moving money from your domestic economy to foreign economy ? And yet the government doesn't seem to have any problems with that...

Idiots (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697594)

I guess they're just running true to form, though. They allow OTB and lotteries online, because they can tax those.

Re:Idiots (3, Interesting)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697637)

Lottery proceeds go to help senior citizens. OTB? Online gambling is not desired because it makes it way to easy for people who are gambaholics (or to become such). Travelling to a casino is at least a chore (unless you live close to one).

And why not tax....both on the side of people who win and when the house wins. That is a lot of revenue. Online casinos usually fund one small group of people (it doesn't take much to own/manage an online casino).

The gov't wants a few things
Tax the players who win
Tax the casino
Ensure that it is not so easy for people to spend their lifes earnings (and money they dont have, such as credit card money) on gambling and blowing their lives away.

remember, it is not the easiest thing in the world to legalize gambling in a state. Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.

Re:Idiots (1)

Don853 (978535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697698)

Online gambling is not desired because it makes it way to easy for people who are gambaholics (or to become such). Travelling to a casino is at least a chore (unless you live close to one).

You mean it'll help prevent cases like This Guy [lehigh.edu] ?

It also seems like it would make it a lot easier to keep gambling out of states where it is illegal.

Re:Idiots (3, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697978)

Pennsylvania just legalized slot gambling, not even table gambling, and that was a fight and a half.


While the struggle to get slot machines in Pennsylvania was, and still is, an acrimonious debate, the reason behind the debate is because of who benefits. Slots coming to PA is not to help increase revenue (though it will) nor to stop people from going to West Virginia, Delaware or New Jersey and spending their money at those gambling locations (though it will slow the exodus) nor is it to help in property tax reduction (um, yeah).

No, the one and only reason that slots came to PA was to keep the horsetrack business alive. Without the slots the horsetracks in the state would have been dead within 5 - 10 years. Don't believe me? Then why is it that all the racetracks in the state (8 total) get to have slots licenses but only fourteen total licenses, including those at the tracks, are available for the entire Commonwealth? If the Commonwealth wanted to bring gambling to the land it would have allowed slot parlors to open anywhere that one could afford to pay the licensing and other fees. You'll never see a slot parlor in downtown Harrisburg but someone is fighting to build one just outside Gettysburg.

Let us not forget also the current controversy of having a middleman buy the slot machines and then distribute them to the parlors instead of allowing the companies to sell directly to the parlors. Just another way for certain elected officials to get kickbacks and produce jobs for their connected friends.

Oh, and as far as not allowing table gambling is concerned, you do know the reason for that, don't you? It's because a table game requires the person to concentrate on the game at hand and thus wouldn't allow them to watch the horse races. A slot machine requires no concentration and one can stop playing the machine for a moment and place bets on the races then resume playing the machine.

I'm not against gambling. I used to go to Atlantic City and spend a few bucks. I've gambled in Vegas and would like to see the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut. But what I object to is the typical PA bullshit of how the process was done and will be implemented. The Gaming Control Board is a joke. It's rules are so lax that corruption in the industry will be rampant.

Not to mention that one of the employees of the board dangled his girlfriend [poconorecord.com] out their apartment window and dropped her [papundits.com] while they were celebrating his job appointment in the commission because both were drunk as skunks.

Then there's the employee [pittsburghlive.com] , an investigator no less, who was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, escape and public intoxication. Let us not forget the other folks of the gaming board who have also had issues including one who lied on his application and two others, attorneys in fact, who were involved in drunken brawls.

The real fight is not whether to allow gambling in Pennsylvania. The real fight is over how much money will be skimmed off the top for political purposes. Does the word WAM ring a bell?

Re:Idiots (0, Troll)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697699)

Idiots? You're talking about the people that vote for them, right?

Re:Idiots (5, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697723)

Idiots but for another reason.

This is a very interesting item as far as globalisation is concerned because a number of countries where gambling is a major industry have filed a WTO case against the US for restricting free trade. More specifically it is related to stopping credit card payments to entities in these countries by Visa and MasterCard. Any congress intervention before the WTO proceedings are complete is putting the US on a deliberate collision course with the WTO.

Also, it is a classic case of double standard. Free trade which lines the pockets of an American corporation is OK. Free trade which cannot line the pockets of an American corporation and goes to other nations is not OK. And god forbid if it is against the beliefs of the taleban elders.

Re:Idiots (2, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697745)

Right on - instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending they can outlaw internet gambling, the US needs to get on board and try to take some leadership in this area. Given the huge amount of cash flow involved, I'm amazed that Congress doesn't want to tap into it rather than try banning it.

Re:Idiots (1, Insightful)

Kombat (93720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698068)

Right on - instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending they can outlaw internet gambling, the US needs to get on board and try to take some leadership in this area. Given the huge amount of cash flow involved, I'm amazed that Congress doesn't want to tap into it rather than try banning it.

Just for the sake of argument, I want you to re-read the above paragraph, but replace "internet gambling" with "internet child pornography." Heck, replace it with "crack cocaine use" or "drunk driving."

Online activities can be outlawed and enforced. It's not sticking your head in the sand to try and eliminate it if it's truly something your society rejects.

Trade deficits == bad (2, Insightful)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697965)

Free trade which lines the pockets of an American corporation is OK. Free trade which cannot line the pockets of an American corporation and goes to other nations is not OK.

I know you meant that as a slam, but I absolutely agree with that statement. As an American, I am very concerned about trade deficits. Sure, it strengthens the economies of other nations, but it does so at the expense of the American economy.

It's not a double standard at all, it's just seeking a balanced economic exchange.

Re:Trade deficits == bad (2, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698083)

Wrong - if free trade results in importing from another country, that means that consumers here benefit from lower prices. The broader population of consumers benefits more than the domestic suppliers lose, so the overall population benefits.

By the way, if you're that concerned about trade deficits, then we should regulate and encourage online gambling development in the US. As this international industry continues to boom (as it will as India and China grow), I'd rather see some of that money flow through US enterprises and banks rather than Costa Rican ones.

Re:Idiots (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698013)

Also, it is a classic case of double standard. Free trade which lines the pockets of an American corporation is OK. Free trade which cannot line the pockets of an American corporation and goes to other nations is not OK.

This is not really a double standard. The "free trade" arguments have never been anything but a thinly veiled power grap, not an actual standard. "Free trade" is simply another weapon in US's arsenal, allowing it to harm other countries economies for its profit.

And god forbid if it is against the beliefs of the taleban elders.

The only thing the US elite truly believes in is lining their pockets.

Re:Idiots (3, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697930)

I call your bluff, and raise you a fact.

All individual gambling income is taxed at the federal level. OTB and lotteries are done at the state level, and not at the federal level. This is simply the latest addition to a long history of federal anti-gambling bills -- not really news at all:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1082.html [cornell.edu]
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1084.html [cornell.edu]
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1955.html [cornell.edu]
http://www.unc.edu/courses/law357c/cyberprojects/f all01/Internet_Gambling/Publish/page12.html [unc.edu]

I bet.. (4, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697595)

I bet $1 that online gambling will not be banned.

Re:I bet.. (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697619)

I see your $1 and I raise you $5
(* cue the poker face)

Re:I bet.. (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697672)

I see your poker face and I raise you an evil grin.

Re:I bet.. (1)

Ansonmont (170786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697838)

Don't give up your tell.
-A

Re:I bet.. (1)

EdwinBoyd (810701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697854)

No string betting sir, player calls.

Land of the Free? (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697601)

Whatever happened to the land of the Free? If you want to gamble your money on-line, why shouldn't you be able to?

Re:Land of the Free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697639)

Whatever happened to the land of the Free?

It died long before either of us were born. Drugs, gambling, prostitution, all illegal. Mandatory seat belt and motorcycle use. Bye bye liberty, hello nanny state.

Re:Land of the Free? (4, Interesting)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697896)

Actually, I think "the land of the free" is an intellectually dishonest catchphrase, in general.

We all would love to live in a Land of the Free. It implies we have absolute control over our own actions, and "there ain't nobody that can tell us what to do!" Reminds me a lot of that feeling you get when you turn 18 and start flipping the bird to all and sundry.

The problem is that our actions, when taken in public, can have an effect on an awful lot of people. Riding without a helmet? Great. When you wreck and live in a persistent vegetative state, the Insurance Company has to cover it. The problem is, I'm paying into the same insurance company you are, so my rates (may) go up, just because you were too stupid to put a hat on your noggin. Ditto with seatbelts, only now you may have 4 people in comas for the rest of their life, and the cost increases dramatically.

If there was no monetary pain to me, at all, because you didn't want to wear a seatbelt or a helmet, go for it. After all, it is your life. If you can ensure that I don't have to pay a cent more because you want to risk it, I'm all for you not wearing helmets or belts. Or, rather, I'm all for your freedom to do as you wish. It's not my fucking job to keep you alive. I may tell you you're stupid and to put a seatbelt on, but that's just freedom of speech. It's not like you have to do what I say.

Drugs and gambling are somewhat similar, but subtly different. The only downsides to these: people, due to their dependence upon either, breaking the law and stealing shit to fund their habit. The subtle difference is that, the act, itself, does not DIRECTLY (or as-closely-indirectly-as-seatbelts-do) cost me any money. I mean, the justification for outlawing drugs is a: social (we don't want drug use in our community), which is, in my opinion, the antithesis of a "free" community, or b: financial (we don't want drug users stealing our stuff), which, in my opinion, has some grounding. But the problem is that the habit, for all of its power over the person, is too indirect, in my opinion, to be banned. Example: if I'm a billionaire, and I want to sit in my mansion all day and do coke, who the fuck are YOU to say that's wrong? it's my life, it's my house, and I'm paying for it with my own money. Right there, whether you agree with drug use or not - doesn't matter. It's about freedom. Ditto with gambling. But when a crackhead steals my bike to pawn at a pawnshop to finance their need, I tend to get a wee bit pissed off. With that said, I'd probably be just as pissed off if it was just a bunch of punk kids on a dare. Or a hobo who thought he'd take up cycling for unspecified personal reasons. So really, in this instance, it's not the drug use, or gambling, that is bad, it's what people CAN do to finance it. Which is, in my opinion, a separate issue. They may be linked, but they're not one in the same. If you're Michael Jordan and you want to gamble away crazy moneys in Poker, go for it. You've got the money, and I'm not going to tell you what to do. But if you steal something of mine, then you're a thief, and you need a swift kick in the teeth.

Prostitution is way different. That's just the moral police acting like the world will end if they don't "protect the people". I'm old enough, thanks. I can think for myself. Are you going to protect me from credit card debt, too? No? Then shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Legalize prostitution. Tax it. Spend that tax money on setting up education programs for prostitutes. If they have a pimp who is abusing them, protect them. Mandate monthly checkups. STDs.

Nanny state, true. In some ways. However, sometimes your freedom to do something impinges on my rights. In that case, maybe a law is in order. Maybe it isn't. That's what public debate is *supposed* to be about. Instead, it's just a bunch of boiled down, trite sound bites strung together to rally the masses. Phooie.

Re:Land of the Free? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698032)

When you wreck and live in a persistent vegetative state, the Insurance Company has to cover it. The problem is, I'm paying into the same insurance company you are, so my rates (may) go up, just because you were too stupid to put a hat on your noggin.

The problem with this logic is that insurance companies are not forced (or at least should not be forced) to cover people who don't wear a helmet or seat belt. They can say, "Fine, we'll insure you, but if you want compensation you must take safety precautions." I'm against laws that protect people from themselves. There is usually no reason that others would have to pay for the stupidity of some who choose not to wear helmets or seatbelts. And if your insurance company chooses to compensate for stupidity then you should be able to go find another insurance company which does not.

Of course I'm speaking more in ideals. Laws regulating insurance companies and such do not agree with me on this. So I'm just left to dream.

Re:Land of the Free? (5, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697646)

re:"Whatever happened to the land of the Free? If you want to gamble your money on-line, why shouldn't you be able to?"

Um - some boat people you sent our way got mixed up into our politics. The one's wearing belt buckles on their heads. Thanks for starting us out with the best and the brightest.

Re:Land of the Free? (4, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698025)

Hey, don't blame us! We were setting the right example by persecuting them. After they ran away, how were we to know you guys would let them run your government?

Re:Land of the Free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697666)

No, you don't understand! That money would eventually end up with them terrorists who will eventually attack our country through psychological warfare! By making all of our countrymen depending on online gambling so that they can't be motivated for oversea warfare. Can't have that, can we?

Re:Land of the Free? (1, Flamebait)

deviceb (958415) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697763)

EXACTLY... WTF is up w/ this country??
it's getting more sickening everyday.

This will just open up third & forth party sites that handle the money flow. And then the US will just loose more money to other countries running casinos. Maybe i should throw up a site that makes a pretty proxy for casino idiots?
*bleh Support the US pirate party so we can get somebody with the mental capacity to make internet laws.

Re:Land of the Free? (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697808)

If your kid knows your credit card number, he can use it to spend all your money in online gambling. If he goes to a real casino, I'm sure he simply won't get in.
Also, certifying online casinos is much harder, especially if they are located in another country. Consider this example: you win some amount of money and you are unable to get the money you won (a specially designed 404 page or whatever) but you'll lose real money if you lose in the game. Or stuff like a software roulette that is "intelligent", e.g. isn't completely random and tries to make you rise the stake and makes sure you won't win if the stake is high enough. At least if a live person's cheating you can notice something unusual.

Re:Land of the Free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698003)

If your kid knows your credit card number, he can use it to spend all your money in online gambling. If he goes to a real casino, I'm sure he simply won't get in.

Good thinking, Pinky!

Because we all know that if online gambling didn't exist, my kid wouldn't be able to use my credit card number for anything else online.

Re:Land of the Free? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698030)

If your kid knows your credit card number and uses it then you are screwed anyway. It doesn't require a gambling site for you to lose all your money. He could spend all your money on E-Bay junk. Try getting your money back from those people.

Here is what happened (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697952)

People vote in meddling jackasses with delusions of intelligence and borderline megalomania. These are the pretty boy arseholes with rich parents who ran the major cliques back in school. Now the idiot voters have granted these lunatics the power to dictate how we have fun, who we can fuck, what happens to the money we earn, and so on and so forth.

Walt Kelley said it best:

Pogo [wikipedia.org]

Replace the physical trash with ideological pollution.

And voting out the white boys doesn't help. Here in So Cal, we have many Hispanic Democratic politicians with heavy Catholic backgrounds. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

My, I'm just full of doom and gloom and pop culture quotes today. :)

Re:Land of the Free? (2, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698017)

Yeah, what's next? Banning smoking in bars? Banning political ads? Banning inappropriate speech on campuses and in the workplace? Restrictions on selling alcohol on Sunday?

Gambling is a special case though. It's a pure government money-grab. There are zero other factors in this. Prohibit an activity, then run it as a business for your own benefit and strong-arm the competition into shutting down. That's either government gambling or something the mafia might do. You really can't tell the difference.

Question... (3, Funny)

Lobo (10944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697607)

How are they supposed to secretly monitor these transactions of they make them illegal?

That's what Baseball Games are for (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697609)

Haven't you ever gone to a Major League baseball game, signed up for like 5 credit cards, then immediately left to go home and max the cards out playing online poker? Conclusion ... baseball leads to gambling addictions.

What's the problem with gambling? (4, Insightful)

Tet (2721) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697612)

What I don't understand is... why is gambling deemed such a big deal in the USA? You allow people to drink, smoke, carry guns and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least), but not to bet on certain outcomes. It just seems really bizarre to me, particularly when you allow betting on other outcomes, such as dabbling in the financial markets.

Disclaimer: I make my income through Internet gambling. However, even before that, I just never saw the problem. Why is it so demonized over there?

But you CAN gamble on the internet! (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697643)

You can buy publicly traded stocks, you can purchase insurance of various types, and you can contribute to the politician of your choice!

Not sure why casino-game gambling is different...probably because they can't tax it.

Re:What's the problem with gambling? (4, Funny)

thebdj (768618) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697673)

A few years back I was in Alabama when they were trying to pass a lottery. One of the anti-lottery signs said, "What Would Jesus Do?" I found this sign rather telling, but also somewhat on the humorous side to an outside observer who could easily say, "He would hang there and watch. [biblegateway.com] "

This is where you are suppose to laugh...

Re:What's the problem with gambling? (1)

deviceb (958415) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697871)

If you look way back through history, governments always try to run the lotteries. States and the Federal government make $ off any gambling. They are not making any off internet gambling. -that's all there is to it.

Re:What's the problem with gambling? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697960)

What I don't understand is... why is gambling deemed such a big deal in the USA?

Because authoritarians presently rule. I'm 54, but the Bill of Rights was a pathetic, toothless joke even before I was born. We aren't the land of the free, many if not most countries are freer (Canada, right on our border, for example). It's not the home of the brave, either; at least, our politicians are all yellow, as are most of my cowardly countrymen.

You allow people to drink

Not in every county. For a couple of decades it was illegal everywhere. You can get arrested for walking down the street drinking a beer in most cities.

smoke

Not certain substances (pot, crack, meth, heroin), and in my town nowhere indoors in public.

carry guns

Not really. Walk down a Chicago or New York street with a loaded shotgun and watch how fast the cops arrest or shoot you! Plus you can't transport a loaded gun legally, it has to be unloaded, broken down or disassembled, and can't be within the driver's reach.

and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least)

Only in Nevada. You can gamble in Nevada as well (slots, cards, dice, etc). Most states have some gambling; lottery, and there are riverboat casinos in many states (mine for one) where you can play poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, craps, etc; and we have horseracing and betting on it.

but not to bet on certain outcomes.

See "smoke". Also see "prostitution", my theory is that American casinos are pushing this law. America has the best government money can buy. I have no representation at all, the only people with representation are the corporates.

What I'm sure a lot of foreigners don't understand about the US is that it's a HUGE country, over 6400 km wide and over 3200 km north-south, with its biggest state, Alaska, sitting on top of Canada and with Hawaii way off in the Pacific, halfway to Japan. Our Constitution limits (limited, no longer it seems) Federal power, leaving the individual states to pass their own laws. In theory, at least. There is at present no Federal law against gambling or prostitution.

You have to remember that most US states are bigger than most European countries. It's over 600 KM from Chicago to Paducah, and Kentucky borders Illinois. And Illinois is only a medium sized state! I live in central Illinois, and the closest legal whorehouse is in Canada 300 miles away; Nevada is almost ten times as far.

Re:What's the problem with gambling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697979)

You allow people to drink, smoke, carry guns and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least), but not to bet on certain outcomes.

Why include prostitution? Nevada allows for both prostitution and "betting on certain outcomes" so that sort of undermines your argument.

Re:What's the problem with gambling? (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698036)

Why include prostitution? Nevada allows for both prostitution and "betting on certain outcomes" so that sort of undermines your argument.

Here's a thought. Perhaps it's because I'm not American, and don't know what is and what isn't allowed in each state. Just that some states do allow such things. As to how it undermines my argument, well you've lost me a bit there...

Re:What's the problem with gambling? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698050)

hat I don't understand is... why is gambling deemed such a big deal in the USA? You allow people to drink, smoke, carry guns and prostitute themselves (in some states, at least), but not to bet on certain outcomes.

FYI, gambling is legal in the US. Have you never heard of Las Vegas? Gambling is illegal in many states, although many have exceptions.

My take on this issue is it is a clear violation of our free trade agreements. The powerful gambling lobbies in the US simply don't want to compete with offshore operations, so they want to make it illegal to gamble there (especially since online gambling would be much less lucrative for them as they can't get you to a location, give you free booze, heavily oxygenated air, no clocks and endlessly looping music to ensure you gamble away a significant amount.

Why is it so demonized over there?

This is just about money. The US has a lot of it and politicians and US casinos want to keep it there. They run PR campaigns trying to make all online gambling sites look crooked (which some admittedly are) and basically do anything to discredit them.

Personally, I don't care much about the gambling part of this. I think we should uphold our treaties (although many of those the people have been bound to were never voted on and are unconstitutional). The part of this that is blatantly unconstitutional is the part requiring ISPs to censor Websites that link to online gambling sites. This is government censorship on behalf of corporate interests and violates our freedom of speech. I'm sure every congressperson voting knows this, but it sure won't stop them. We need political reform badly so that we can stop this process of constantly passing unconstitutional laws and then having to deal with the mess for a decade before the issue makes it through the courts and is struck down.

EXCEPT (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697616)

And, uh, the bill in question carves out an exception for online horse race betting - explicitly legalizing betting on horse races online. So...well, not ALL online gambling is bad, just SOME gambling.

no gambling (5, Funny)

pubjames (468013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697626)



You guys can't gamble on the internet? [Takes long drag from joint]. I thought the USA was the land of freedom..?

Re:no gambling (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697874)

I thought the USA was the land of freedom..?


It is. We are free to do anything the government tells us we can do.

More useless legislation (3, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697636)

Great. More useless legislation from our elected officials. Must be election year.

Re:More useless legislation (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697911)

Great. More useless legislation from our elected officials. Must be election year.

To paraphrase the song, "it's always an election year somewhere..." And even if it isn't, there will be one coming up. This is just an attempt by some politicians to look like they are doing something useful that ultimately harms only a small portion of the US population, so they don't have to risk their voter base.

Nanny state? (3, Insightful)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697644)

I thought the "problem" with gambling -- like the "problems" with prostitution and street drugs -- was that casinos in your neighborhood tend to bring with them a lot of undesirable activity, e.g., the underbelly of Las Vegas. But if the casino is not in your neighborhood, why should anyone care?

Re:Nanny state? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697687)

If you're not careful, all the pimps, hookers and druggies will travel down the tubes of the internet and end up in your living room. True story.

Re:Nanny state? (1)

dedeman (726830) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697876)

Hmmm, I thought that the problem with gambling is that there is a small segment of the population that becomes easily addicted to anyth^^^^gambling. Some lose their entire savings, their livlihoods, effecting their families, loved ones.....etc

Sounds like a modified "..for the Children" argument. How can we give such easy access to vices?

Answer: If we can tax it. Every time money changes hands, the gobment likes to take a cut.

Disconcerting... (2, Interesting)

r0ach (106945) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697648)

I don't know about you, but beyond the obvious issues arrising from making the transfer of funds illegal, does this bother anyone?

The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites.

What does that mean exactly? Am I to believe that they can make the linking of sites illegal? Is this for any website? or just ISPs? And what ISPs advertise these places on their sites in the first place?

easy workaround (4, Insightful)

MooseTick (895855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697651)

"The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites"

This will just cause the creation of middleman sites where you park funds with your credit cards and then they transfer the $$ to the online casino of your choice. Paypal would be a good candidate for this. If the govt get's on Paypal's case, then some offshore holding company will come along and for a 1-2% fee do this. The sad thing is that it will probably be owned by a casino and will drive the cost up another 1-2% just to get into a game.

Re:easy workaround (3, Informative)

Valharick (903629) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697774)

They already have these. The other day I tried partypoker.com for the first time. They offer the purchase of a phone card through one site and then the credit is transferred to Party Poker via an authorization code (I had to do this after my bank denied the transaction).

Already done. (1)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697812)

Most credit card companies will decline direct payments to gaming sites, but sites like NETeller [neteller.com] already offer the middleman status and work with most banks. I don't know how this legislation would affect "middleman" sites like NETeller. FWIW, I use NETeller for my online poker playing and it works great... but yes, they do take a small cut when you pull money back to your checking account.

Re:easy workaround (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697873)

I don't think that they will charge you a fee to send money most ones give you a bonus and free Money transfers.

What about internet billing/payment companies (1)

Zyprexia (988133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697679)

What if you're using a paypal or Google Checkout account. You just deposit a amount on your paypal account and use the paypal account for paying your gamble. If this would stop gambles from gambling. But is this bill protecing the citizens of the US for gambling habets, or just the money flow?

Re:What about internet billing/payment companies (2, Interesting)

Sound of Silence (988166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697753)

Credit card companies have been blocking transactions to offshore sportsbooks for over 4 years now. There's a few out there you can still get a deposit processed, but not many. When this occurred, Paypal was the middleman for a year or so before they were bought by EBay. Ebay then shutoff payments to most bookies and porn sites. Now Neteller has stepped in and is the middleman most use... But a law like this impacts far more than just that -- it also impacts any website that has any kind of advertisement from a sportsbook or casino.

Why is gambling illegal in the states? (1)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697686)

I can't understand why it's illegal to gamble. Everyone likes a flutter every now and again. It doesn't harm people. Admitidly there are a few sad cases of people who don't know when to stop. With the underground gambling that goes on the scene can be very ugly. If it was all above board and legal it could be properly regulated.

Is this a hold over from Americas purtianical past? If enough people feel something should be legal why isn't it? Why crimialise the majority of adult males who have bet online, played card games with their pals or participated in a sports related bet at one time or another?

I am constantly surprised that there is no real policitical will for gambling to be made legal in the USA. One thing I can tell you is that the businesses in Las Vegas definately don't want it legal everywhere else because it would remove their own (near) exclusive money making operation.

Re:Why is gambling illegal in the states? (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697793)

Its only illegal to gamble if the gov't isn't getting a cut (ie. lotteries) or it isn't sponsored by religious organizations (ie. bingo). Otherwise it is immoral and just plain un-American and probably supports terrorist activities.

Re:Why is gambling illegal in the states? (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697933)

It doesn't harm people. Admitidly there are a few sad cases of people who don't know when to stop.

Just pointing out that you contradicted yourself there. Gambling *does* harme *some* people. It's also notorious for being used by organized crime. I'm not actually against gambling per se, but there needs to be a *lot* of oversight in order to keep things "clean."

Re:Why is gambling illegal in the states? (2, Insightful)

robertjw (728654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697957)

Is this a hold over from Americas purtianical past? If enough people feel something should be legal why isn't it?

I believe gambling laws are all controlled by the state legislatures. Gambling bills come up from time to time that will allows gambling, often limited stakes, in specific areas (Atlantic City, Blackhawk, Deadwood, etc...) When a new gambling bill comes up for a vote, at least in my state, the biggest argument against it is concern about the type of people it will bring in. Most local citizens are more concerned about the potential bad elements, corruption and crime that may accompany the gambling than they are the actual gaming.

...I can tell you is that the businesses in Las Vegas definately don't want it legal everywhere else because it would remove their own (near) exclusive money making operation.

Nevada doesn't have nearly the exclusivity it used to. With all of the Indian casinos, riverboats and other gambling areas many people have something available withing a few hours drive. The real problem the government has with online gaming is the loss of revenue. They don't get any tax dollars from offshore gambling. Politicians are wrapping this up in a warm fuzzy "we are protecting the children" blanket, but really it's all about the money.

Hmm (1)

certel (849946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697704)

Man, I would be worried if I ran one of those sites. As much as I don't think they'll shut it down, even just the thought of debate would scare me. Those people are banking.

What about RPG Gam(bl)ing? (4, Interesting)

Rachel Lucid (964267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697713)

What about the RPGs (Puzzle Pirates being the example that comes to mind first) that allow gambling within the game?

Money can be funneled in via purchases of credits/dubloons/tokens, which can then be used in gambling on games within the meta-game. I use YPP as an example because it just recently added poker to its arsenal, although it's had multiplayer gambling for years (especially in tournaments, where you don't even have to convert the dubloons into anything to use them as prizes).

Granted, the dubloons in YPP are meant for purchases of items such as clothing and swords, but they COULD still be used for gambling...

The eternal workaround (2, Interesting)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697717)

Whenever any aspect of computer science or telecommunications faces any form of government regulation, there are always those who cry out, "People will find a way around it!" The majority of people, however, want to work within the law or are just too lazy to circumvent it. Remember, many Internet gamblers are not even interested in spending the energy to go to a real casino. Although there are surely many exceptions, Internet gamers are largely casual gamblers and will not want to risk violating the law for a hand of Texas Hold'em.

Re:The eternal workaround (1)

ScottSCY (798415) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697855)

Whenever any aspect of computer science or telecommunications faces any form of government regulation, there are always those who cry out, "People will find a way around it!" The majority of people, however, want to work within the law or are just too lazy to circumvent it. Remember, many Internet gamblers are not even interested in spending the energy to go to a real casino. Although there are surely many exceptions, Internet gamers are largely casual gamblers and will not want to risk violating the law for a hand of Texas Hold'em.

I don't agree with this at all. Online gambling is already illegal in many states, and yet people in those states are still gambling online quite frequently. To me it seems a lot like going 5 mph over the speed limit; you're probably not going to have anything happen to you, and it really doesn't feel like you're breaking the law.

This is good. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697726)

If the efforts of the US government to get rid of Internet gambling go half as well as their efforts to stop all the other illegal stuff that goes on in this big, unregulated, worldwide network.. *struggles to keep a straight face*

So many loopholes this is laughable (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697736)

Why wouldn't the players just put money in PayPal then, transfer it for "credits" at the Casino/Poker Site and then transfer the money back to PayPal (thier winnings). Then their banks would only be working with PayPal.
I am sure all of these Poker Sites would be willing to sign up (if not already) with PayPal if it was the only way to get the American players involved.

Re:So many loopholes this is laughable (1)

RollingRock16 (988167) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697797)

paypal would be subject to the legislation as well as the legislation covers all electronic transfers. Paypal clearly falls under this.

Re:So many loopholes this is laughable (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697950)

So how about, PayPal to a third party. Third Party to the Casino then money back to Third Party, back to PayPal then back to my bank and into my pocket.

Of how about my bank to Paypal, log in to PayPal through an overseas proxy (showing them I am out of the US) then to the Casino and back through PayPal to my bank.
I have a feeling PayPal is not going to go above and beyond to help this, they are a buisness they just want their 3%.

Or maybe the Casinos set up "reputable businesses". This way if PayPal is given a "black list" by the US government the "reputable businesses" are not on it. Paypal money to them, transfer it into the Casino then back to the "reputable business" then back to PayPal then to my bank. You could even skip PayPal in this scenario, go right from bank to the "reputable business" If they (the USGov) made a black list they would have to update it constantly, the Casinos would just have to stay one step ahead, and if it meant money for them they would be willing to do it.

Another concern is how much research does PayPal or my Bank have to do? Do they have to block money going in? Block money transfers coming from? Block both? Who decides what sites are blocked? What if the Casinos sell T-Shirts, can we not buy them?

This sounds to me to be a bit like all the other Pre-Election bullshit. This is not as bad as most (gay marriage, flag burning) but they are setting up two sides. One is a Free Society, Free Market camp, the other is the Gambling is bad camp, and I guess a third side could be the Lost Tax Revenue camp.

Re:So many loopholes this is laughable (1)

RollingRock16 (988167) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698029)

This sounds to me to be a bit like all the other Pre-Election bullshit. This is not as bad as most (gay marriage, flag burning) but they are setting up two sides. One is a Free Society, Free Market camp, the other is the Gambling is bad camp, and I guess a third side could be the Lost Tax Revenue camp.
This is really what it's all about. Everytime elections roll around there is a staple of moral legislation that comes about that is easy for the masses to understand and easy for politicians to campaign on. Ridiculous really but it wouldn't be politics if they weren't trying to run society.

Ohhh, I smell a biz coming up (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697747)

Setting up some company outside the US to do the money transfer to/from the people who're not allowed to play online.

I can already see the $$$s roll in...

Re:Ohhh, I smell a biz coming up (1)

Sound of Silence (988166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697821)

These businesses have been around since the credit card companies started denying gambling transactions years and years ago.

Re:Ohhh, I smell a biz coming up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697928)

You're a little late...check out NETeller (www.neteller.com) which is exactly the business you're describing. NETeller is run out of the UK. They claim to be accepted by thousands of merchants, but near as I can tell they're all gambling sites.

As I mentioned in my standalone post, U.S. banks and credit card companies ALREADY won't do transfers to online poker or other gambling sites.

Anti-Competition (2, Funny)

End Program (963207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697784)

The Church does not want anyone moving in on their high stakes Bingo action.

Re:Anti-Competition (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698041)

This, although meant to be a joke, actually has some merit. When NY passed their "no smoking indoors" bill a few years back the loopholes started. The law was put in place to prohibit smoking in Bars, Restaurants, Clubs, etc. It was there to sheild the employees who work in those places and have to inhale all the second hand smoke.
Well Bingo took a huge hit, if you have never been to a bingo parlor they are usually so smoke filled you could barely see the board. Bingo being run by most Churchs and Schools were complaining big time to their elected officals. These places were given "test site" permits which allowed them to stay open to smokers.
There were no too many of these "test site" permits given out, but they do exist. And if you could go around the State and find where all of them exist, I am sure you will find they exist in areas where the local Politicians are active members in what ever Church got the pass. I know of two in Rensselaer county were set up in that manner.

US companies ALREADY don't support gambling. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697795)

No U.S. bank or credit card company I know of will make a transfer to an online poker site or other gambling site TODAY. This is why everybody who plays online poker uses NETeller, which is based out of the UK, for their money transfers.

I have read about this law several times, and I still don't see a single thing that it's possible to do today that the law would prevent. Am I misunderstanding something about the law?
 

History Lesson (1)

Twench (580538) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697801)

I love when Congress tries to take the "moral high ground". We all know, the best way to get rid of something immorral [wikipedia.org] is to write a law banning it. Surely, no one would want to break a law like that!

Re:History Lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15697848)

Yea, all those laws about murder and such should just be removed from the books.

Remove links, or delete DNS entries? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697807)

>It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites.

Are they really asking all USA providers to filter content to remove links? What about links from other programs (i.e. non-Web)?

Wouldn't it be more simple to ask to "not redirect to the websites"? (blank/redirect DNS entries)

The thing they're asking and the thing that should be done (in order to comply) are two different things, technically...

I don't gamble, I play poker. (1)

Slashdolt (166321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697862)

I have been playing poker online for quite awhile now. I am NOT a gambler. I do NOT like to play blackjack or other games where I do not have an advantage. I have made quite a bit of money by playing poker online, as have many others. In fact, many players have quit their regular jobs, because they can make enough money playing online poker.

To some of you, when I say "I'm not a gamber", you must think that I'm nuts. Google Chris Ferguson: he only plays poker tournaments. He's not a gambler. He's much more of a business man and all business entails some risk, but at the end of the day (well, "year" perhaps), he's making money, consistently.

Find me a slot machine player that can do that. The only way to win with slots is to get really lucky once, and then stop. The same goes for Blackjack, craps, video poker and all other casino games where the house has an edge. Poker is different. Good players can play and play continue to generate revenue for themselves.

Ok, in the strict sense of the word, I'm a gambler. But if I didn't have an edge, I would not be playing online poker anymore. I would have quit a long time ago. Instead, it's a fun way for me to make a few extra bucks.

How do they know? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697884)

If the major credit card companies are already not allowing direct payments to online gambling sites, how does the government know how much gambling is going on? Are they using illegal and unconstitutional means to monitor peoples' internet use?

Beyond the reach (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697899)

I predict that we start seeing ads for foreign banks popping up in places like Sports Illustrated.

A quick history of payment in the industry. (5, Informative)

Sound of Silence (988166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697900)

When offshore gambling sites first popped up 10+ years ago, the quick and easy way to deposit money into them was via credit card. Around 6-7 years ago, most credit card companies started denying payments to any "gaming website". While they claimed they were taking the moral high ground, the real reason is having to deal with chargebacks. Since it is against the law to collect on any gambling debt in the US, you had people running up their credit card bill at gambling sites, then protesting the charge and the card companies did not have a legal leg to stand on -- they certainly couldn't take anyone to court claiming they were owed this money that they knew was being used for gambling. When the card companies started denying payments, people started using middleman payment processors. The processor of choice was Paypal. Fees were high, but often times you could get the sportsbook to pick up the fees if you made a deposit. In 2002, when EBay bought Paypal, they decided they wanted to stop handling any grey area business since they were a large company and didn't want the legal liability. This meant dropping payment processing for most porn sites and gambilng sites. The irony of this was that Paypal made its name in the industry (and its fortune) off of gambling and porn sites, but was now ditching them now that they had achieved a higher status. When this happened, Neteller -- an offshore payment processing company -- was the one who got the biggest boost in business. With even higher fees, they essentially did what Paypal was doing (though with much less regulation and customer service). After a few years many people found they could no longer do credit card deposits to Neteller, so most have resorted to actually making direct bank deposits from their bank to Neteller. Neteller is still around today and is still what most people use to make sportsbook deposits. Western Union is also a company many people use, but people have found more and more they are asking a lot of questions on who exactly you are sending the money to -- obviously the government is putting the heat on them as well. Over the years many other small payment processing companies have popped up... All of course unregulated, but with the lack of viable options for getting money into offshore books, people have taken the chance.

No hope (2)

meburke (736645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697921)

I have no confidence in the ability of the politicians to make an informed, logical decision. I also have no hope that any ordinary, reasonable person can actually influence a politician. (Of course, I live in Texas. One look at our Representatives, and you can see why I gave up hope.

If I want to gamble in the USA I can get on a plane, train or car and go to Las Vegas, Boloxi or some other place that allows gambling. I might meet someone new in Las Vagas, and I might hear some new ideas, but they will be limited to people who can travel to Las Vegas (mosty Americans). My community at home is still "protected" from "immoral" influences. Now they want to make it so I can't do virtual travel to accomplish the same thing I could do with physical travel. (This whole concept is beyond the intelligence of the average politician, even if they didn't have special interests to protect.) Actually, since I don't gamble, I don't have a stake in this decision other than to regret that it's another sign of Big Government chipping away at individual choice.

And, it's an election year: Politicians have to be perceived as being upright and moral, so what better target for publicity than an "immoral" activity supported by a population too small to have any influence across other issues? (They're against Prostitution and Drunkeness also, but that doesn't keep them from getting laid and drunk.)

The politicians are afraid of open interchange, and are heading toward deciding that we can't travel on the Information Superhighway without a passport.

Re:No hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15698016)

I live in Texas too. If I want to gamble in the USA, I can easily find a half-dozen places in Houston that I can easily play. Yea, it is illegal, but it is all over the place.

I HATE GAMBLING! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697929)

I Hate Gambling. I Hate Gambling Spam. I hate all such business.

But, there are Spam blockers. "Adblock+Firefox" has proven to be an excellent relief from their eye-sores. And guess what? I don't go to those sites, I don't participate and I don't get involved. As far as I can tell, and unless someone has some evidence to the contrary, I am largely unaffected by these sorts of "vices." And for anyone else who despises them as I do, how does their presense affect them?

I find it "interesting" that legislators are willing to take such measures. And it'll be interesting to see how it works out. But basically, I don't approve of the measures being taken in this case. If the really hate gambling that much, they may as well set up blockades around all Indian reservations to prevent people from going there as well.

So? (1)

JKConsult (598845) | more than 8 years ago | (#15697969)

This is a really bad omen, but for right now, this means nothing. I already have to use Central Coin as a middleman for Poker Stars. I deposit $50 in my Central Coin account, which acts as an online "credit card", with which I deposit money to Stars. Withdrawal is the reverse, and takes about 6 days from the time I withdraw it at Stars to the time it hits my bank account again. This won't affect me or most people who gamble online.

Note: Central Coin sucks ass. Don't use them. If I could go back and use something else, I would.

Indian casino owners (1)

ttys00 (235472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15698045)

The Indian tribes that control casinos must have gotten hell of a deal on bulk-purchased politicians last week.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?