Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

Internet Gambling Law Resurfaces 16

Posted by timothy from the you-can't-take-away-the-state-monopoly dept.
hayek writes "The on again off again Internet gambling prohibition act is apparently on again [story from CNN]. The bill, which passed the house, apparently stops credit card companies from completing transactions with offshore casinos. Of course, since these debts are apparently unenforceable anyway, its unclear what the point of the law would be, other than to make clear that lowly college students wanting to gamble over the internet will need to find legal alternatives that are well regulated by U.S. authorities and safer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Gambling Law Resurfaces More

Internet Gambling Law Resurfaces

Comments Filter:
  • How do you really plan on getting someone to give you money from an online casino? A large number of them are based in foreign countries, and there's not really any way to make them pay you. You can always try and open up a law suit against someone else in another country, but I don't think it would work too well.... nems
    • On the other hand, how do they get your money?

      In some places (i.e. California) it is illegal to collect gambling debts. A while ago a woman ran up a $70,000 gambling debt and the judge said she didn't have to pay see here [slashdot.org].

      • There are, however, irrevocable internet currencies out there (I sell one, actually) and casinos [thegoldcasino.com]... tend to gravitate toward Better Money, even if the news media ignore us (we don't spend much anything on ads, preferring to hire smarter nerds instead). I have seen this casino in operation over a few years, and they DO pay (instantly!) IF you win. (But it's a casino, so on average, you're gonna lose unless you're the house).

        If anyone here wishes to try e-gold I'm willing to click you a SMALL quantity. Who knows? I once turned a half gram into a quarter ounce at the casino above, and I like their attitude a lot. (I pay all required Sealand taxes when I play! I tend to lose most times, but it's still fun.).

        In truth, as others have commented, this is all about taxes, and when politicians couch it in terms of morality instead of their own raw greed, it's annoying -- but that's US politicians for ya! They're certainly not worried too much about REAL crime (the kind that involves actual victims, instead of willing participants).
        JMR

        • There are, however, irrevocable internet currencies out there (I sell one, actually)

          Imagine a digital rights management infrastructure [microsoft.net] that requires you to pay per view using a metal as currency [e-gold.com]. Not just any metal, a precious [lysator.liu.se] metal.

          That's e-Palladium.

          • Heh.

            Actually, e-gold is a family of four currencies. Gold is by far the most popular (see stats.e-gold.com for details) and silver is next. Platinum and Palladium are both quite UNpopular (and probably either break-even-barely or lose money for us).

            Anyway, I'd be shocked if Microsoft or any "major" internet business mentioned us just yet. All revolutions have to seem impossible before they appeared inevitable in hindsight. While it's not anonymous cash (the US Federal Reserve prints that variety, in green paper) e-gold IS more privacy-friendly than plastic cards are, not that people actually care as much as they SAY they care about privacy, if experience is any guide...
            JMR

  • This bill would have to get through both the Senate and White House before it could become law. Rumor has it that both of 'em are preoccupied with higher priority government business just now, and all the elected officials are thinking about the November election most of the time anyway.

    In GeekSpeak: looks like vaporware, smells like vaporware, ...
  • While I really admire the desire of Our Brave Leaders(tm) to take away my rights...
    "It may be impossible to keep illegal gambling sites off the World Wide Web, but it is entirely possible to prevent American credit card companies from completing these transactions that these crooks need to make their money, and that's what this bill does," said Rep. Joseph Pitt, R-Pa.
    Yes, only crooks gamble...
    "Internet gambling serves no legitimate purpose in our society [...]
    I guess porn also serves "no legitimate purpose" -- let's ban that too. Also drugs. Oh wait, we already banned those.
    [...] it is a danger to the family, it is a danger to society at large," Leach said.
    Won't somebody please think of the children!?! Thank you, Rep. Leach, for restricting my rights to what is appropriate for children!
    Lawmakers said Internet gambling especially preys on college-age youth who have access to credit cards and computers but no way to pay the bills they run up. "I think this is an extremely important bill for all America, but especially for our youth, who use computers for hours and hours per day," said Rep. Jim LaFalce, D-NY
    Oh no! If we don't make this illegal, college students will waste money on fun shit, instead of alcohol! We must support our friends in the alcohol industry...

    [/sarcasm]

    • Re:Disgusting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      It's unfortunate. If this bill had been justified as a consumer protetction law to protect people from offshore casinos that don't pay out even though they collect then he may have had a point, but justifying this law with a claim that something doesn't serve a legitimate purpose in our society, he's lost the argument. (Well, IMHO. There are people in congress that matter infinately more than me because they get to vote on this thing, and they may be just as brain dead.)

      What else doesn't serve a legitimate purpose in our society? Homeless people? We don't need them, they have no purpose. I guess he thinks we should deport them. Other forms of entertainment (Obviously purposeless, since casinos are entertainment, and they have no purpose)? Music, Movies, Playing cards? Well, I guess we don't need DRM laws or extended copyright, because entertainment is illegitimate, and only entertainment companies are pushing for these things.

      Ah, the hypocrisy.
    • Actually, this is all about protecting the credit card companies, and (indirectly) you. Consider this: Joe Deadbeat maxes out all his credit cards gambling online. His credit card companies dutifully pay out the money he spent to the casinos. Then when the bill comes due, Mr. Deadbeat decides that he's not going to pay it. The credit card company can try to recover the money from the casino, but that's expensive (lawyers, time, lost interest) and not a sure thing. So, what does the credit card company do? Well they could take it on the chin and post a loss, but that's about as likely as a snowstorm in hell. So what alternative do they have to cover the loss? That's right, they stick it to their customers who actually pay their bills, raising their interest rates and charging them more fees. Yeah, that's fair.

  • The US attitude on gambling sickens me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @04:32PM (#4376300) Journal

    It's not a moral objection to gambling (most of the states either have legalized casinos, legalized dog/horse racing, or state lotteries).

    In the case of casinos and dog tracks, very few of those exist. In most cases, there are a fixed number of licenses, and the only way to start a new casino is to buy an existing one and demolish it.

    In the case of state lotteries, they are quite obviously the worst method of gambling (from the perspective of how likely you are to come out with more money than you put in). In most states, a sales tax is charged on the ticket. Further, a portion of the remaining bet is deducted for "administrative expenses". And then 50% of the remainder is placed into the prize pool. If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 10, a winning $1 bet will pay about $4 (including the $1 bet being returned). This means that you have to be 2.5 times luckier than dumb luck to break even. That's an insane house advantage.

    Contrast this with casino games, where the house advantage is significantly smaller, on the order of 5-10%. In sports betting (assuming standard Vegas payout rates, which you should be able to get from whatever bookie you choose; if the book don't offer Vegas payouts, take your money elsewhere), the vig is 4.5% (1/22), meaning that only being slightly better than randomly making bets will break even.

    Basically, the only reason that sports betting is illegal in most states is because it would drive state lotteries out of business.

  • You forgot something (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sdjunky ( 586961 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2002 @05:40PM (#4376822)
    "...make clear that lowly college students wanting to gamble over the internet will need to find legal alternatives that are well regulated by U.S. authorities and safer."

    You forgot to add "Taxable" to the list

Slashdot Top Deals

"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben

Close