Bush tries to turn Internet into nanny-state

dahamsta

Hobbes wrote:

Do you have links to cases of this? The only incident I can find is operation clambake and those pages were put back in. All other incidents I could find only related to placed adverts in google (which google would be liable for).

The "sort of thing" I mentioned referred to the topic Hobbes, not the previous sentence in that paragraph. Sorry for the confusion.

To_be_confirmed, yes, that was my conclusion, based on my experience from following these things. However I think "It's my experience" and "the natural conclusion" should have made that pretty clear. Better than "clearly in response" at least. In my view...

adam

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
Show me where what the Bush administration is doing is against the WTO agreements, rather than complaining that it might or should be, and I'll concede the point. In the meantime, I stand by what I said - a nation is obliged to enforce its laws within its borders and that is exactly what the Bush administration is doing.

Gladly, read the following:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4594859/

WTO interim report says U.S. can't ban cross-border Net bets

By Richard Waddington

GENEVA - Tiny Antigua and Barbuda, one of the world’s smallest states, proclaimed victory over the United States Wednesday in a dispute over Internet gambling that could hurt the multibillion-dollar U.S. gaming industry.

advertisement
Senior officials from the twin-island state, population 67,000, said the World Trade Organization had upheld its complaint that a U.S. ban on cross-border Internet gaming was a violation of international trade rules.

The Caribbean country says the ban is crippling its offshore casino industry which it has sought to build up to offset a decline in tourism.

“We are delighted. It is a great victory,” said Antigua’s high commissioner in London, Sir Ronald Sanders, who also represents his country at the Geneva-based WTO.

“It is also a victory for the WTO’s disputes procedures, because it shows that a small country can get redress within the system,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview.

U.S. to appeal
Richard Mills, a spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office in Washington, said, “We intend to appeal and will argue vigorously that this deeply flawed panel report must be corrected by the appellate body.”

Mills added that American commitments on services were ”clearly intended to exclude gambling when the United States joined the WTO in 1995.”

The verdict was given in a confidential interim report sent out only to the parties directly involved in the dispute.

Although gaming laws in the United States vary from state to state, the Department of Justice has declared that Internet gambling breaks a 1961 federal law outlawing the placing and taking of bets across state lines.

And in a move aimed at tightening the restrictions even further, the House has passed laws banning gamblers from using credit cards to pay for any Internet bets.

Antigua and Barbuda, which says online casinos provide jobs for young people who might otherwise be on the streets or have to emigrate, argues that the U.S. ban is a breach of WTO commitments to be open to services provided by other countries.

It sees the ban as mainly aimed at protecting the huge U.S. betting industry from foreign competition.

But the United States, the biggest single economy in the 146-state WTO, contends that Internet gambling is open to abuse by money launderers and opens a window for children to run up huge gaming debts with their parents’ credit cards.

Despite the ban, Internet gambling is a growth industry worldwide, with revenues jumping to some $6 billion last year from just $650 million in 1998, according to a recent report in The Wall Street Journal.

Under WTO rules it could be a year or so before Washington has to apply the findings. WTO trade judges will take an additional 30 days to issue a final ruling, which never varies much from the interim, and then the United States can appeal.

Should google enable people to find information on what is technically child pornography in the US, even if the content is legal where the information is being served from?

I don't see why you are bringing child-abuse into this debate. Someone gambling isn't harming anyone, unlike child-abuse. If you are not harming anyone, then shouldn't the State keep its nose out?

Hobbes

Arcadegame, do you have any news stories which are actually recent? Something less then 5 months old.

The main contention of online gambling I could find.

- US companies going off shore to avoid paying taxes.
- Gambling companies being funded by criminals.
- Gambling companies refusing to pay out.
- Can't confirm if gambling companies and/or players are cheating.
- No governing body for monitoring these companies.
- Some places install spyware/dialers onto the machine.

Someone gambling isn't harming anyone,

That is not exactly true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1872731.stm

Imposter

Hobbes wrote:

Arcadegame, do you have any news stories which are actually recent? Something less then 5 months old.

The main contention of online gambling I could find.

- US companies going off shore to avoid paying taxes.
- Gambling companies being funded by criminals.
- Gambling companies refusing to pay out.
- Can't confirm if gambling companies and/or players are cheating.
- No governing body for monitoring these companies.
- Some places install spyware/dialers onto the machine.

Unless that ruling has been overturned I can't see why it is not relevant. As for those contentious issues wrt online gambling:

- US companies going off shore to avoid paying taxes.
Most large corporations do the same.
- Gambling companies being funded by criminals.
Other companies are the same. There are also legitimate online gambling companies.
- Gambling companies refusing to pay out.
Use a reputable site
- Can't confirm if gambling companies and/or players are cheating
Most reputable sites are audited so are probably comparable to normal casinos. Players cheating is another matter but the companies do watch for this. Again sort of comparable to normal casinos.
- No governing body for monitoring these companies.
If their software has been verified to be fair then I can't see what more can be done.
- Some places install spyware/dialers onto the machine.
Use a reputable site and/or don't allow these to be installed on your system.

Hobbes

- Gambling companies being funded by criminals.
Other companies are the same. There are also legitimate online gambling companies.

What other companies?

- Gambling companies refusing to pay out.
Use a reputable site
- Can't confirm if gambling companies and/or players are cheating
Most reputable sites are audited so are probably comparable to normal casinos. Players cheating is another matter but the companies do watch for this. Again sort of comparable to normal casinos.
- No governing body for monitoring these companies.
If their software has been verified to be fair then I can't see what more can be done.
- Some places install spyware/dialers onto the machine.
Use a reputable site and/or don't allow these to be installed on your system.

There are over 2000 online gambling sites. None of these sites have an independant body governing them to ensure they are fair. You compare that to say Las Vegas or Indian reservations which do background checks on the employees, and have to ensure their are fair.

You talk about use a reputable sites. How can you claim a site is reputable when there is no system in place to confirm this? On the wander through reading about the subject I found one such "reputable" site which refused to pay out $1.3 million because they said the player was cheating, but had no evidence of it. Because they were offshore the player had no way in claiming the money.

arcadegame2004

You talk about use a reputable sites. How can you claim a site is reputable when there is no system in place to confirm this? On the wander through reading about the subject I found one such "reputable" site which refused to pay out $1.3 million because they said the player was cheating, but had no evidence of it. Because they were offshore the player had no way in claiming the money.

Well I have come across Casino review magazines that gives awards to certain online-casinos. Also, I have come across blacklists. Thankfully, none of thw websites I visited were on that blacklist.

You neglected to refer to this specific part of the article you linked to

Nigel Payne, chief executive officer of the internet gambling specialists Sportingbet Plc, said the company operated a database structure which enables it to track the behavior of each punter.This enabled it to to watch closely for any signs of abnormal behavior, excess spending.

In addition, measures were in place to restrict the amount of money a customer can deposit and win.

Mr Payne said: "Properly regulated and controlled internet gambling is far better for the punter's health than other forms of gambling."

See? Some online casinos DO have restrictions to try to avoid breeding destructive addiction of the bankrupting variety. I think http://www.nrg.to/bingo has a 150 euro limit for example on an individual bet, though I am not certain of the details.

Unlike smoking, where the smoker is harming everyone who has to breathe in their air, responsible gambling does not harm anyone other than the gambler and even then only if he loses money. That is why I feel that the State should not interfere in personal choices of this nature. No-one is going to get ill or die as a result of breathing near a gambler.

Imposter

Hobbes wrote:

What other companies?

Are you saying criminals don't use seemingly legitimate companies to launder money?

There are over 2000 online gambling sites. None of these sites have an independant body governing them to ensure they are fair. You compare that to say Las Vegas or Indian reservations which do background checks on the employees, and have to ensure their are fair.

Background checks on employees do not guarantee that the casino operation is fair. It just means that in general the employees are not dishonest. However the casino can be dishonest without the employees knowledge. How is that checked?

You talk about use a reputable sites. How can you claim a site is reputable when there is no system in place to confirm this? On the wander through reading about the subject I found one such "reputable" site which refused to pay out $1.3 million because they said the player was cheating, but had no evidence of it. Because they were offshore the player had no way in claiming the money.

A site that is used by many and has no major problems as a result of its operations to date or a casino linked to a real world business for example. If they were to screw over the users and get caught then their entire brand would be in jeoprady. Similarly any site that refuses to pay out for no good reason would more than likely suffer a backlash and lose some or all of any credibility it had.

Hobbes

Imposter wrote:

Are you saying criminals don't use seemingly legitimate companies to launder money?

No I am saying you are using spacious reasoning.

However the casino can be dishonest without the employees knowledge. How is that checked?

That is the whole point. It isn't. There is no governing body that checks this.

A site that is used by many and has no major problems as a result of its operations to date or a casino linked to a real world business for example. If they were to screw over the users and get caught then their entire brand would be in jeoprady.

Sorry but that is total bull. It is quite easy to get rid of a few disgruntled customers, failing that just open as a new casino with a different URL.

Similarly any site that refuses to pay out for no good reason would more than likely suffer a backlash and lose some or all of any credibility it had.

A number of sites already have and still remained in business.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well I have come across Casino review magazines that gives awards to certain online-casinos. Also, I have come across blacklists. Thankfully, none of thw websites I visited were on that blacklist.

Oh please... you actually think a magazine will somehow protect you from being ripped off? Some of these magazines either are released by said casinos or recieve revenue from them. How does that make them an impartial governing body?

And lets say you pick one of their good sites and you win but they won't pay you? Then what? Complain to the magazine?

I think http://www.nrg.to/bingo has a 150 euro limit for example on an individual bet, though I am not certain of the details.

ROFL. You actually even look at the sites you quote? nrg.to is an ISP provider, not a casino domain and that URL you posted is actually a click-through advertising page. It isn't a casino page.

You seem to think it is a reputable site though? How did you come to that conclusion?

Unlike smoking, where the smoker is harming everyone who has to breathe in their air, responsible gambling does not harm anyone other than the gambler

How do you figure that out? Do you even know what the effects of compulsive gambling are?

Imposter

Hobbes wrote:

That is the whole point. It isn't. There is no governing body that checks this.

You are using this in the example of online casinos. I was asking from the point of view of real world casinos. For me the two are quite similar.

Hobbes

Imposter wrote:

You are using this in the example of online casinos. I was asking from the point of view of real world casinos. For me the two are quite similar.

Except that one has a governing body and the other doesn't.

http://www.nagra.org/

So if they are similar, they both should be regulated.

Victor

Of couse I am NOT saying the US should not try to prevent child-porn being accessed!

....

Yet.

Erm, maybe you will be soon. Who knows?

arcadegame2004

Victor I did not say "Yet" at the end of the paragraph you are quoting! Just making that clear!

My "Yet" was in answer to the argument made by someone here that the search-engine listings of casino websites weren't being removed.

I contend still that the argument could in future be used that the search-engines are "aiding and abetting" illegal-gambling in the US and thus they could be under threat. And this is not welcome.

Regulation, not prohibition, is the way forward. Prohibition failed with alcohol in the 1930's.

BuffyBot

See? Some online casinos DO have restrictions to try to avoid breeding destructive addiction of the bankrupting variety.

Well, they would hardly say anything else would they? Not quite an unbiased source.

arcadegame2004

Well, they would hardly say anything else would they? Not quite an unbiased source.

Well Buffybot, the measures they have are factual. You would find out if you played. Have you ever gambled online?

BuffyBot

Well Buffybot, the measures they have are factual. You would find out if you played. Have you ever gambled online?

Factual they may be, but you can't help but wonder a) how effective they are, b) how strictly they are applied by the companies in question and c) how close reality mirrors their publicity. As they aren't accountable to anyone, who is to know?

And yes. Not that it's actually relevant.

arcadegame2004

And yes. Not that it's actually relevant.

Well it may be relevant. I mean, you were not harming anyone by gambling online. So why should you or anyone else be denied the right to continue doing so, in moderation at least?

Hobbes

I love how you dodge the actual questions you can't answer. Still no answer on how you assumed that nrg.to/bingo was a reputable site.

Regulation, not prohibition, is the way forward. Prohibition failed with alcohol in the 1930's.

Which is what the US wants, and what the online gambling companies circumvent. So you seemed to have changed your tune.

arcadegame2004

Which is what the US wants, and what the online gambling companies circumvent. So you seemed to have changed your tune.

No. The Federal Authorities contend that online-gambling sites themselves are illegal under the 1961 Wire Act. The aim is total destruction of online-gambling.

Hobbes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No. The Federal Authorities contend that online-gambling sites themselves are illegal under the 1961 Wire Act. The aim is total destruction of online-gambling.

I meant you changed your tune in that it should be regulated. When you started the thread you said the Government shouldn't touch online gambling.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Gladly, read the following:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4594859/

Hadn't seen that. Interesting.

I would point out that the WTO is saying that it is the law which Bush's current action is based on which is illegal. Bush's action is entirely legal and correct as long as offshore gambling is illegal in the US. What the WTO has said is that making offshore gambling illegal is a breach of WTO accords.

Its a subtle difference....and while the US are appealing that WTO ruling (which they are doing, yes?), they are allowed (I believe) to keep the law in place, and that makes Bush's actions correct in the current legal framework.

Its an interesting WTO case to look at tho for other reasons as well...might be worth a seperate thread when I pull a few other bits of info together.

I don't see why you are bringing child-abuse into this debate.

I'm not. I'm bringing in a situation where the US would refuse to carry information about something which is legal where it occurs.

Because it is legal where it occurs, it classifies as pornography where it occurs, not child-abuse.

I would now point you at your comments in this thread about being worried that Bush would also go after pornography, by which you] are implying (I assume) that you have no problem with legal pornography....which is exactly what I'm describing.

I'm describing something that is legal in the country in which it takes place, but which is illegal in the US.....just like your gambling situation.

Someone gambling isn't harming anyone, unlike child-abuse. If you are not harming anyone, then shouldn't the State keep its nose out?

You also defended "legal" pornography. I gave you a case where something is legal pornography where it takes place, but classified as illegal child-abuse in the US.

Its interesting to see that in this situation, you side with the US, and choose to interepret something as child-abuse and not pornography despite the laws in place where the act was comitted.

If you are not harming anyone, then shouldn't the State keep its nose out?

I gave a situation where in the country that the act occurs, no-one is harming anyone according to the relevant and applicable law, but where according to US law (which has no jurisdiction in terms of where the act was performed) it is illegal.

Either you're not applying your "as long as no-one gets hurt" standard equally, or you're not applying it in terms of the law, but rather in terms of your moral stance.

If its the former...well...I think I've proven my point.

If its the latter case, then I'd ask you why your moral stance should be the right way to do things, over anyone else's...like Dubya's?

jc

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The aim is total destruction of online-gambling.

No, its not.

The aim is the prevention of online gambling by Americans from within America.

Anything else is supposition.

jc

arcadegame2004

First of all Hobbes, I have never advocated the total absence of regulation in respect to my attitude to industry, including gambling. I just feel it should be minimal. There is no inconsistency with what I have said in my posting.

Bonkey, as far as I am concerned with respect to pornography, as long as those involved are 18 years of age or over, then it should be legal. Unfortunately, Bush's crackdown on the adult industry threatens to turn harmless fun into a crime. He seems to have a Cromwellian attitude to pleasure ,i.e. fun = bad. What a deeply depressing person!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Bonkey, as far as I am concerned with respect to pornography, as long as those involved are 18 years of age or over, then it should be legal.

By extension, as long as those involved are under 18 years of age, then it should be illegal.....regardless of whether the law says it is legal or not?

So as I expected, in a case involving (say) 16-17 year olds involved in pronography in a country where the legal age of consent is 16.....you'd still consider it wrong.

And going by your vbehemence of how such "wrong" actions should not be tolerated.......I have only one question :

How are you any different with respect to what you're saying Mr. Bush is wrong for doing...because you're criticising him for banning something that he sees as "wrong" (and which his nation's law says is illegal) regardless of the fact that its effecting other people for whom it is perfectly legal.....

Unfortunately, Bush's crackdown on the adult industry threatens to turn harmless fun into a crime. He seems to have a Cromwellian attitude to pleasure ,i.e. fun = bad. What a deeply depressing person!

And you're no different for people aged 16 and 17 in a nation where the legal age of consent is 16. You have put the lower limit of "harmless fun" at 18 and below that its just wrong......

The only difference is that Bush is in a situation where he can act on his opinions, where as you aren not.

jc

BuffyBot

Factual they may be, but you can't help but wonder a) how effective they are, b) how strictly they are applied by the companies in question and c) how close reality mirrors their publicity. As they aren't accountable to anyone, who is to know?

Oooh, how surprising this part of the post remained unanswered...

I mean, you were not harming anyone by gambling online. So why should you or anyone else be denied the right to continue doing so, in moderation at least?

As I understand it, I'm not being denied the right to gamble should I desire. The government of another country is enacting a law which affects it's citizens. As for me, I'm sure I can still go ahead a gamble should I desire.

arcadegame2004

As I understand it, I'm not being denied the right to gamble should I desire. The government of another country is enacting a law which affects it's citizens. As for me, I'm sure I can still go ahead a gamble should I desire.

Buffybot, I disagree. The threat to online-gaming stems from the basis of the legal-actions taken against search-engines in the United States, as described earlier in this thread by me. The "aiding and abetting" basis is one which, I fear, could be used to try to delist online-gambling sites from the search-engines themselves, on the basis that if they are not delisted, the SE's are "aiding and abetting illegal gambling" etc.

Let us hope it doesn't come to that.

Or are there some here who would welcome such an outcome? Am I wrong in suspecting that Hobbes might not be shedding very many tears if that happened?

Victor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Buffybot, I disagree. The threat to online-gaming stems from the basis of the legal-actions taken against search-engines in the United States, as described earlier in this thread by me. The "aiding and abetting" basis is one which, I fear, could be used to try to delist online-gambling sites from the search-engines themselves, on the basis that if they are not delisted, the SE's are "aiding and abetting illegal gambling" etc.

But surely on this basis, you would no longer be able to access "The Terrorists Handbook", what with the War on Terror being the major plank of Bush's re-elction campaign.

Results 1 - 10 of about 50,600 for The Terrorists Handbook

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Buffybot, I disagree. The threat to online-gaming stems from the basis of the legal-actions taken against search-engines in the United States, as described earlier in this thread by me. The "aiding and abetting" basis is one which, I fear, could be used to try to delist online-gambling sites from the search-engines themselves, on the basis that if they are not delisted, the SE's are "aiding and abetting illegal gambling" etc.

Let us hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, given that this is speculation to teh point of verging on a conspiracy theory, ultimately amounting to baseless scare-mongering.....I'm pretty sure it won't come to that....

jc