Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Your Rights Online

NJ Gamblers May Be Locked Out By Flaws In Virtual Fence 88

Posted by timothy
from the idiocracy-meets-1984-meets-mother-may-I dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NJ Gamblers May Be Locked Out By Flaws In Virtual Fence

Comments Filter:
  • Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    Could someone ask these people to define "unavoidable" for us, please.
    • Re:Hmm.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jythie (914043) on Sunday November 17, 2013 @04:31PM (#45450365)
      Like the rest of NJ`s gaming regulation, it is whatever the commissioner and his industry buddies feel like at the time.
      • by icebike (68054)

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

    • by icebike (68054)

      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.

       

      • by Meski (774546)
        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.
    • 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.

  • Proxy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by duke_cheetah2003 (862933) on Sunday November 17, 2013 @04:24PM (#45450337) Homepage

    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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2013 @04:29PM (#45450355)

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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • by jklovanc (1603149)

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

      • by Smallpond (221300)

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

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

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

          • by Anonymous Coward

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

            • by jklovanc (1603149)

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

          • by Meski (774546)
            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.
            • by jklovanc (1603149)

              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.

      • 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...

        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          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.

        • 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.

          • by Imrik (148191)

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

          • by Meski (774546)

            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.

      • 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.
        • by jklovanc (1603149)

          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 e

          • 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

            • by jklovanc (1603149)

              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

              • by DarkOx (621550)

                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

              • 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.
                • by jklovanc (1603149)

                  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.

                  • 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 some
      • by mjr167 (2477430)

        Hotels? Schools? Maybe the office gambles?

    • 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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday November 17, 2013 @05:12PM (#45450543) Journal

      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.

  • by magic maverick (2615475) on Sunday November 17, 2013 @04:32PM (#45450373) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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.

      • by magic maverick (2615475) on Sunday November 17, 2013 @05:53PM (#45450757) Homepage Journal

        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.

      • by Aryden (1872756)
        Clark county NV, Amsterdam Netherlands to name a couple.
      • by nedlohs (1335013)

        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.

    • by Shakrai (717556) *

      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". ;)

      • 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 an

  • by Omega Hacker (6676) <omega.omegacs@net> on Sunday November 17, 2013 @04:34PM (#45450385)

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

    • by mishehu (712452)
      The house always wins anyway. :-)
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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" 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.

    • 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.

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

  • by manu0601 (2221348)
    Another fence for with USA willget slapped by WTO...
  • by xenobyte (446878)

    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.

  • "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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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 Philade

"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27

Working...