US Outlaws Online Gambling 579
imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS.
To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
Circumvention (Score:2, Insightful)
Sour Grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
its all about protectionism (Score:5, Insightful)
In my state the hypocrisy is reaching new heights as the GOP governor continues to try to allow slot machines at horse tracks while it is still technically illegal to play poker among friends.
Re:I'm having a hard time caring... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotta love the system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely anyone voting against the bill will be blasted for not securing US ports, even when it was a vote in protest to the anti-gambling legislation.
The way the US government goes around telling the world how to run their 'democracy' is so incredibly laughable at this point.
Re:I Feel so much safer (Score:4, Insightful)
Another free shirt?
Pass.
Sick of that bullshit tailcoat riding they do (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its about time that Congress get off their lazy asses and start drafting their own bills for the particular agenda items they have. This sort of manipulative behavior itself should be outlawed, but find me a single member of Congress that would vote to outlaw it. In a system where checks and balances are supposed to exist, they certaintly don't here.
Re:not necessarily bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm having a hard time caring... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights do not depend on laws; either to grant said rights, nor can rights be revoked by law. If something is a right then it's something
you can do without asking anybody's permission, period. You can voluntary accept the authority of some entity (maybe called "government" or something) to restrict *your* rights if *you* want to, but don't make the mistake of assuming that govt. has any inate authority to restrict anyone else's rights.
As such, I will say that free people have a "right to gamble" and have most likely never granted the United States government - or any other government - any authority to restrict it. As far as I'm concerned, any law restricting gambling is invalid, null and void and should be ignored.
Basically it goes back to the old saw... "We have exactly as much freedom as we are willing to demand and as we can defend."
Worse Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't try to tell me that the return on investment is guaranteed, or that business ventures aren't a gamble, because they are. 90% of businesses fail in their first year.
Anyone want to bet that online casinos will be targeted by this law, but Wall Street will remain strangely exempt?
Re:not necessarily bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not necessarily bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's what The People want? Does there need to be any other reason?
Remember, government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.
Re:not necessarily bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, but they will (Score:2, Insightful)
5 will get you 10 they won't enforce it.
They'll have the legit online gaming community look after it for them -- the big casino companies, who have the most to gain from this. I bet you don't have to look very far to see who really was behind this. It's not about money laundering, it's about a big business keeping it's slice of the pie.
Shifting responsibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
If you shut down the payment options, you will greatly reduce the number of violators. It's an effective way of achieving their goal.
Re:Gotta love the system... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not necessarily bad (Score:3, Insightful)
37 states allow gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
If the federal government is in the business of outlawing gambling, they should do it across the board. Otherwise, they should stick to matters within their charter - national defense, negotiating international treaties, and protecting interstate commerce.
Re:Hello organised crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like an ideal opportunity for organised crime.
Fine with me. The mob knows how to run things when it comes to gambling. Vegas was great under them. Just don't over extend your credit. ;-)
Mr. Joe Average could show up and get treated like royalty. My dad used to get comps walking into a casino just to use the rest room. The cocktail waitresses were TOTAL whores. It was great. :)
Then the soulless hotel corps took over, and I would not be suprised if they start charging you for the air you breathe in the hotel rooms. 6-5 payoff on a blackjack? Christ, just tie me down and rape me. It's more direct.
MBAs and politicians! Exterminate! Exterminate!
Re:Circumvention (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the NSA and IRS keep a close eye on all bank transactions between U.S. citizens and foreign banks to look for money-laundering?
-Eric
Re:Gotta love the system... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm having a hard time caring... (Score:3, Insightful)
This law does, however, bring up a point that I think needs to be addressed by a constitutional amendment: All bills should be reasonably related to a single subject. Also, politicians that tack an amendment like this on to an unrelated bill should be publicly tarred, feathered, and barred from office for life.
Re:Gotta love the system... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hooray. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, they CAN host Online Casinos somewhere else, and the U.S. can't do anything about it. BUT, the government took a very smart approach, knowing that they can't enforce their laws on foreign countries (therefore foreign web-hosts), they instead are prohibiting Credit Card companies inside the U.S. to process any transactions related to online bets.
I have to say I am indeed impressed by the approach legislators took upon this issue, and IMHO online gambling isn't something I trust (with all the experienced black hats out there Im sure more than one can crack the security in those servers), and who doesn't like the free food/drinks at the casinos
Re:Damn, Gotta Love the Wording. (Score:3, Insightful)
why was a bill needed?
Because elections are six weeks away.
Social conservatives are a fickle electorate. In order to ensure they turn out, Republican strategists toss stuff like this out there to appeal to them.
Re:Gotta love the system... (Score:4, Insightful)
"at this point"? Dude, just because you've finally opened up your eyes to see it doesn't mean it's new. This has been going on for a long time.
Don't act like 90% of what slashdotters bitch about and pin on Bush is "new", it's just the fact that something has you pissed off and you finally are starting to see what has pissed the rest of us off for so long. What's the saying about those who forget the past? What about the ones that never knew the past?
The unfortunate thing? by the time the Dems take back power a new generation is going to be moving in and getting pissed at the same exact antics under a new banner and they're going to be saying the same thing and voting against President X thinking that the other side wouldn't do the same thing because they were too young/naive to remember the last time the other party did the same thing. It's a piss poor cycle of events and there will never be serious reform as long as people keep seeing politics on this same level.
Re:Sour Grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I see this as mostly about competition with brick&mortar 'destinations'.
Without a monopoly on gambling, where would Las Vegas be? Without Las Vegas, where would Nevada be?
I feel that this business model monopoly is the real reason. If you could gamble from home, you would be less motivated to visit such locations, and that would hurt other industries. The money made from the tax on actual gambling (from both casinos & patrons), while significant, is a fraction of what would be lost overall if these destinations were to lose their monopoly status. At a minimum, you'd need to also account for the sales tax lost on gas/travel, lodging & dining when doing the comparison.
And finally, include the number of voters that are employed by these industries. That number is the real currency in politics.
Anyway, there's more to this than just reduced gaming-tax revenue.
(Sorry if this post is oddly written - I blame it on the caffeine)
Re:It works in japan.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Pachinko parlors don't use items that you'll ever find in a catalog (no one's that stupid), they'll either use odd lots, where the items are all defective in some similar way, or buy the entire run of some item that flopped commercially, or I guess they could even do custom orders with an exclusive contract, but that's pricey.
As for having them fabricated yourself, oddly-shaped cast plastic doo-dads come from expensive molds, so you'd have to make thousands of dollars worth of fakes or there'd be no point. Stealing thousands of dollars from a business almost certainly connected with organized crime is perhaps not the safest way to make a living.
Re:Politically incorrect and I don't care (Score:2, Insightful)
Homosexual marriage?
Equality of the races?
Women voting?
Women working?
All the sex and violence in the media?
They may not have been fundies, but they were still proper gentlemen of the 18th century.
Re:I'm having a hard time caring... (Score:2, Insightful)
-----
As such, I will say that free people have a "right to steal" and have most likely never granted the United States government - or any other government - any authority to restrict it. As far as I'm concerned, any law restricting stealing is invalid, null and void and should be ignored.
-----
I'm closest to a libertarian in philosophy. I too do not like rules restricting gambling (along with most "victimless" crimes, e.g. seat belt laws). However, your argument is so generic as to be pointless, IMO.
-Jeff
Re:I Agree... Sort Of. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:hooray. (Score:2, Insightful)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
This law is more about PAC money than it is about morals or people.
How could anyone think otherwise? It isn't like the law effects the mother you describe. What you think she hasn't already pawned everything? Do you really think laws that involve money are passed to protect people from themselves? BS! What about this law?
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/bankruptcy.htm [ftc.gov]
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.256 [loc.gov]:
What is really telling about this law is that the wealthier you are the more debt you can escape and the poorer you are the less debt you can escape. Laws to protect people from gambling. Please. They don't care about people.
Re:I Feel so much safer (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the issues are:
That the government is not my mommy; ethically the government has no right to say what I can do with my own money until I directly use that money to hurt another citizen or it is extremely clear that I intend to do so; legally the government has no right to say anything at all with regard to gambling, because I never gave it any such right, nor have I authorized anyone to do so for me. The government is out of control, operating illegitimately, unconstitutionally, unethically, and "compliance enforcement" is in fact coercion backed by enormous, life-ruining power.
Re:not necessarily bad (Score:5, Insightful)
So while American lumber continues to destroy spotted owl habitat, all the cheap + BETTER QUALITY lumber (words of the US housing industry, not mine) remains unharvested. Congrats american consumer - you lose too!
The US always has, and always will, be a big bully on the global economic scene. The question now is whether that advantage trickles down to the american consumer, or if the new robber barons can re-establish their hoovervilles.
politics (Score:3, Insightful)
american congresscritters are not elected by british businessmen, so the heck with them. if it were american businessmen that stood to lose because of this, it would have never passed. but as it is, american businessmen can't start these sort of businesses because of laws pushed by said inbred social conservatives to begin with... inbred social conservatives usually from areas of the country with riverboat casinos. the hypocrisy of it all. it's potectionism of outdated gambling modes: las vegas, atlantic city: they serve to lose from online gambling
so this isn't about morality after all in the end folks, it's about business, and this whole bill is a giant stinking turd of protectionism. protecting us all right into luddite obsolescence, where british companies will profit from what american compnies should be profitting from in the first place!
why don't we just shorcircuit this entire retarded effort by the congresscritters and just become amish. then we will be protected from the evils of electricity too. let the british profit from evil electricity insted. pffft
Re:I Feel so much safer (Score:2, Insightful)
That was supposed to be the Second Amendment, but mommy doesn't like us playing with toys that might put somebody's eye out.
Especially if that somebody might be mommy.
KFG