What is Digg?65 Comments
- rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I'll wager $100 dollars the gambling sites find a way around this.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21What's amusing is this was inserted into a port security bill, without debate. Most lawmakers had no idea this was even in the bill, let alone did they bother to read the actual bill.
Support the 'Read The Bills Act,' and start forcing our lawmakers to actually read what they are endorsing. Of course, you have to assume they can read.... hehe
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=27 - doubledoh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18***** the government. Vote Libertarian. http://www.lp.org
- icepick101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This is just another way the government tells us what we can/can't do with our own money. I don't even gamble online and this pisses me off.
- bmarko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Damn Bush!!! They added that bill on as a ryder to the Port security bill. That's such crap. Ryders should have to be related to the bill. F them.
- Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11A friend of mine uses an internet booky site to bet on sporting events. Shortly after this bill went into effect their website froze out people's accounts, asking them to call a number on the site for info. When he called the number he was told the booky agency was working on the situation.
4 hours later the site was back up and accepting bets. Put that one in your elaborate system of tubes and smoke it congress :-P - MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9To clarify the article for supernova17, what happened yesterday was Bush signed the law into effect... however, it was effectively law once Congress passed it two weeks ago since everyone knew Bush would not veto it.
- MagicBobert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm pissed off that the government would even consider banning online gambling, but honestly, how the hell do you enforce this? This isn't going to stop anyone, it's just useless legislation.
- Boulevard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If it's an activity politicians can't effectively get money from, they'll legislate it out of existence. "Home of the Free" my ass. One day we'll all be buying toilet paper licenses.
- rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The strange thing is that this bill was pushed by republican congressman. But republicans stance on government is that there should be less government control over everything.
- locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why can't we get a "One topic-One Bill" act through Congress? I'm tired of seeing all these little parasitic bills being snuck into larger ones that they know will pass. That's why each bill, each containing only one topic, should have to be debated on its merits before the floor. Because here, if you were against the ban on online gambling, your only choice was to vote against the larger port security bill onto which it was attached, and then fall victim to "Senator so-and-so is soft on terror because he voted against a port security bill necessary to keep you and your family safe." It's disgraceful
- bmarko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If its so uniforcable then how come banks are already rejecting deposits to gaming sites? They have already stopped taking deposits from US customers. Trust me. :)
- bmarko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It's in no way inaccurate. If you read the article it clearly states that many sites have gone under already for loosing there biggest customer..the USA.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5By that time we should have a consolidated driver/gun owner/music listener/TV and movie watcher license and interstate passport system. If congress does its job right, it should be no big deal to add "This license entitles the bearer to wipe his/her own ass".
- NTolerance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They gave up that stance long ago.
- jefferson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just another example of how the American government is protecting you by reducing your freedoms.
- spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What's the deal with gambling being such a big deal in America? It's a non-issue over here in the UK
Not trying to be insulting, just wondering why - rejectpenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It stops the companies that actually want to enforce the law. Firepay (which I use for Online Gambling) has already informed all there users they will no longer be doing transactions for online gambling in the US.
- PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only reason the government banned this is basically the same reason prostitution is illegal - they don't get a cut of the money. Why do you think people are pissed about illegal immigration? Think of all the money that's sent out of the country. It all comes down to the all mighty dollar.
The upshot of this bill is that IF you want to gamble on line, they're going to figure out a workaround like a pre-paid phone card that they'll let you use. And the feds are going to have a hell of a time banning those I'd say. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6How DARE private companies try to take away money from the governments monopoly on gambling!
- Jrr6415sun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This is how I make my spending money while in college... i'm going to have to find a real job now :(. I think the law is ridiculous though.
- DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually it would be called a "Christmas Tree" bill not a rider...
from: http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/christmas_tree_bill.htm
"christmas tree" bill - Informal nomenclature for a bill on the Senate floor that attracts many, often unrelated, floor amendments. The amendments which adorn the bill may provide special benefits to various groups or interests.
from: http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/rider.htm
rider - Informal term for a nongermane amendment to a bill or an amendment to an appropriation bill that changes the permanent law governing a program funded by the bill. - gader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This administration and the entire congress should be ***** criminalized.
- gader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have in possible every election since 1990.
- 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This new law does not do anything to change the legality of online gambling in any way.
It's only significance (and of course, it IS significnat) is that it adds regulations to teh banking industry to make various financial transactions with online gambling operations illegal, which brings international money laundering rules into effect.
The publicly traded UK gaming companies are mostly afraid of this, as their executives and board could effectively be extradited to the US under money laundering laws now.
What should be of LARGE concern to Americans everywhere is the larger picture here.. this law requires a system to be put in place so banks can track what business purpose bank wires are for, something they currently are totally unable to do. Does anyone think that once this mechanism is in place it will stop at online gambling? - shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Dabellah
thank you for clarifying what that program does, for all my life i thought it made crappy comments on digg, but apprently i was wrong. - Sizzor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5They had to do this, cuz gambling is illegal, except for scratch offs, quick pulls, Indian Casinos, the stock market, mega millions, super lotto, megabucks, megamillions, Powerball, horse racing, jai lai, dog racing, harness racing, bingo...
http://www.sizzor.net - serra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yet another way that the government has figured out how to ***** us... great.
- pauleric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More like, "land based casinos, States, and government" have now made their competition illegal. No need to get a "slice" of the pie or regulate it.
- evilgold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How are these people representing the wishes of our country's people by banning something that we spend billions of dollars on? My prediction, Forget the war on drugs, next up WAR ON GAMBLING!
If you really want to stop gambling why not start with one of the largest gambling operations in the entire country: state run lotterys.
I think congress is trying to tell us that its okay to do (bad) things, as long as the profits go to the state. - Endoplasmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I work for an online gaming company and trust me this law has put a rift through the industry. Private companies are able to conduct business as usual, but public companies (Party Poker, 888, Paradise Poker) have all shut down US deposits because of this law.
I'm not sure how the coming months will shape up with this law, but as someone said before, online poker's biggest market is the US.
The way I personally see it is that the land based casinos, States, and government are not getting a slice of this multi-billion dollar industry and are going to freeze it now while they figure out a way to regulate it. - scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Goddamnit people can be so ignorant. Don't blindly believe what the media reports, they can't even understand legal jargon. Worst part is, all these public online casinos shutting down their US business unneccessarily. Under the Federal Wire Act of the 60's it is illegal to place SPORTS bets over a wire (e.g. internet), that's why the CEO of those sports bets sites were arrested. If US players cash a 3rd party payment account (e.g. Neteller) and use those funds outside the US to fund their Casino account, then they can LEGALLY gamble.
Read this analysis from the legal counsel of CardPlayer.com to realize how this law only makes transactions between US financial institutions and Online Gambling sites illegal, not the gambling itself:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_story/1446?class=PokerNews
Need more legal analysis? Read this: http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/2006_act.htm
The media is so retarded. - bmarko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The can and do collect taxes on all gaming. If you want to risk it and not pay your taxes thats on you.
- r81984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think this is a great idea, because online gambling just ruins stupid people. I know a pot head loser who won about $20,000 from online poker and the guy he beat, who probably was a pot head loser also, said he was going to have to sell his house and his wife was probably going to divorce him for his stupidity in losing so much money
Also what is stoping people from using paypal or these gambling sites from creating their own paypal like site to act as a go between. The law does not say banks cannot do business with a paypal like business that does business with gambling sites. - Funkomoto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is it that State Governments determine whether or not offline gambling is legal, But Federal Gov't determines that on-line gambling is illegal? Can someone clarify this for me, cause this just seems hypocritical
- doc.oliver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well, no.
First of all, most gambling sites don't host in the us to start with. You need a license to run a casino/betting operations in the country where your servers are hosted, and getting one in the states is, well, more then just complicated.
Loads of the on-line gambling companies host in Gibraltar or similar countries where getting your hands on a license is: a) possible b) affordable.
Now you have to realize that what they are outlawing is _not_ the gambling per se, but the transferring of funds from financial institutions to on-line gambling companies. In effect this makes it a lot harder for the average Joe to pay for his bets on-line.
What the result of the bill will be is yet to be determined. For now most on-line gambling companies are blocking US customers from using their funds and financial institutions are blocking payments to the companies.
But where there is a will, there is a way, with a multi billion dollar stake there will be solution. Do you seriously think Americans are going to quit on-line gambling? - junk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I nominate Tom Ridge for Gambling Czar.
- Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Guess they will have to build more prisons now lol
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Well if "loosing there" biggest customer means losing their biggest customer then I guess the United States is no longer the biggest customer of Internet gambling websites.
What do I know, I bet people in Hong Kong, the Middle East and Europeans don't gamble much. - loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Last night my back wouldn't let me transfer funds between accounts to a betting site. That's how they enforce it, make it illegal for the banks to to so.
There will be a way to send money to an offshore account, and then log in to betting establishments.
***** government. - JackpotCity, on 03/18/2008, -0/+0I suspect that there are several agendas at work here. It has been interesting to see this whole saga play out, but I don't believe that we are really closer to a final resolution. This is still going to take a while to get sorted out. Even Germany and France, until recently, went against EU policy and decided to ban online gambling companies altogether - but the state run monopolies seemed to remain in operation.
- inactive, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0The Big Guys Want a Piece Of Online Casinos http://www.tlvmodels.com
- Toast1185, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ edzieba
You are correct sir - coxyiu1986, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01). People are GOING to find a way around this
2). Don't we have bigger problems to be facing then gambling over the Internet? i.e. IRAQ, NORTH KOREA, AND MARK "do you find me physically attractive" FOLEY. - arope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What ever happened to the Conservatives die hard hold on Adam Smith's invisible hand and not messing with big business, Seems to me these days they only regulate companies that don't put enough campaign money in their pockets. This kind of regulation goes against all that conservative neo-classical economic rhetoric they spend so much energy on, and it takes away the biggest waste of time i have.
- enjourni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gambling sites could get around this by simply moving their webhost to another country and forcing users to convert money into some other currency before placing bets.
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Shouldn't that be spelt 'rider'? I'm not deliberately trying to point out a mistake, I'm just curious as to if the legal term is spelt differently.
- fahadmp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1does bodog.com still work over there?
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is