What can a ISP do to stop you from playing online poker (long)

[Percula]

Well in the wake of the online bill to "ban" online poker passing the house this week, I have seen a lot posts from people saying things to the effect that there is nothing that can be done to really stop someone from playing online. I addressed this from a technical stand point in this thread 2p2 post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6506969&an=0&page=0#Post 6506969) But I wanted to make sure the information was out there, so everyone can be sure of what they are talking about.

First a little background. I have been a network engineer since the early days of the Internet. I have built and ran IPS's, datacenters and worked for several fortune 500 companies in this capasity. I currently work for a company that makes the best of breed IPS appliance and have worked for a major firewall manufacture.

I am not going to go into the bill (wording and implications of the bill) too much, other than to point out that part of the bill talks about "access to" gambaling servers.

Now a little technical background. The Internet is built on the TCP/IP protocol. Each resource on the Internet has an individual IP address, e.g. 4.2.2.2. Your PC has an IP address that is presented on the Internet as does any server on the Internet. Traffic is transfered in the form of packets of data. Each packet contains information for the funtion of TCP/IP, like the source and destination IP address, e.g. from your IP to PokerStars game server. All IP addresses on the Internet are registered; basically your IP along with basic information from your ISP indentifies you, to the point that if a court ordered your ISP to turn over their records they could see that you were assigned IP X.X.X.X on any given hour of any given day, i.e. you are trackable.

TCP/IP traffic can be encrypted, e.g. a VPN or secure traffic like to a poker site while playing online poker. However since TCP/IP has to establish a connection to the server, that inital information needs to be "in the clear" and then the encryption is setup between the client (your poker client) and the server (the gaming server at say PokerStars). This intial communication in the clear means that every application basically creates a finger print or signature if you will that is indentifiable.

In the history of the Internet there have been several things that have fallen into the "wrong, against the law" but often done catagory, e.g. sharing of copyrighted music and videos. There has been some push to stop this, mostly by the copyright holders. Things like peer to peer or P2P networks and applications (e.g. bit-torrent) have been developed to help avoid detection of trading of music, programs, etc. These networks/applications have been somewhat successful, however they are far from perfect and easily defeated by a semi-capable network engineer.

Also in the the same lines as the P2P networks proxy networks have been setup to avoid detection of avtivities on the Internet that might get one in trouble, e.g. surfing playboy at work. These too are easily defeatable by any half decent network eningeer.

All in all there is a on going war on the Internet with goverments, businesses and individuals and groups all fighting to stay one step ahead of the other. Some want to stop activities, others want to keep doing something. Bottom line there is literally billions of dallors spent every year in this war... This is big.

So lets say that the bill passes and gets signed into law and ISP's are ordered to stop access to gambaling servers. (let's not debate this here, that is not what this post is about).

So what if anything can they do to stop you from starting up PokerStars and playing poker for real money? A lot!

There is a technology called IPS or Intrusion Prevention System that is used to stop this type of traffic. A couple of years ago it would have been a firewall doing the working of stopping unwanted traffic, but frankly in this day a firewall is nothing more than a pourious screen to stop the big chucks, the IPS is todays answer to more and more advanced and sneeky attacks and attempts to do things that are not allowed. An IPS scans each and every packet that passes thru it. It is capable of spotting the signature of each application that is trying to pass traffic thru it and then based on rule sets either allow or disallow the traffic to pass. They are capable some truely incredible feats with incredible speeds.

IPS manufactors go to great measures to stay up or ahead of the Internet world. Some even go to the extent of paying people outside of their company to bring up new and interesting issues. There are VERY active on the Internet.

Some would suggest that something like a P2P network or a proxy network would end up being used to access poker sites. And I am 100% sure that if the bill passes and becomes law and IPS's are asked to block access, that they will and they will likely be of a much better quality than exists today.

Guess what, with a good IPS system on a network, I can stop, dead in its tracks, any P2P or proxy network in existance today. If someone comes out with an update or new program/network it is only going to buy a week or two before I have an update to the IPS to stop it assuming the IPS company didn't already know about it already have a filter for it. Someone will come up with something new, the IPS manufactures will counter it, something new will be done and defeated yet again. It is a on going war, punch for punch, blow for blow.

So what does all this mean?

Bottom line, the average player is not going to be willing or capable to mess with all the BS to get around a blockage. Those that do will only be staying one step ahead in a on going war. The player pool will dry up. The big MTT's (WPT and WSOP) will get smaller and the "fad will fade". This could spell the bust of the poker boom.

So now that you know that it is technically possible to prohibit you from playing online, get off your multi-tabling ass and make your voice heard. Call your senators, talk to your friends, school mates, co-workers, anyone that will listen, and get them to call their senator too.

[mrhat187]

Only thing I am curious about you say "billions" is spent on this war, well isn't the number around 70 million people gamble online? 23 million I think play poker.......so you have maybe an estimate of cost to stop everyone? I think the money point is the most important part, people will say "I think gambling should be banned" But if congress replies with "It is going to cost 4 billion a year to stop this industry we have to make cuts to (insert government program) or we have to tax (insert new tax)" the person may then think "hmmmm, never mind it doesn't bother me that much"

[LesJ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Internet is built on the TCP/IP protocol. blah blah blah blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you come on here and post this crap like you know what you are talking about. The internet is made out of tubes!

[uphigh_downlow]

What??

How can IPS work against me if I decide to use a simple VPN based out of town, for all my internet activities.

My traffic while in the US is simply encryted, and cannot be decoded. How can you find a fingerprint in an encrypted packet.

Unless you invest bazillions of resources.

[Zele]

Yeah, is what you're talking about feasible (for the entire US's internet traffic) given an enforcement budget of no more than $10MM?

[StellarWind]

An obvious approach to circumventing this technology is to create an encrypted pipe between the user's PC and a proxy data center in a neutral country.

Everything that flows between the poker client and server goes inside the pipe. This specifically includes the IP packet headers with the address of the poker site. The IPS cannot determine what is inside the pipe. Nor can it tell where the enclosed packets will go once the proxy puts them on the internet.

Nothing novel about what I've said so far. It's well-known technology and I'm sure your corporate data network clients would know exactly what to do about it. They would have the IPS block the entire pipe. After all, it's their network and they can do that.

Not so easy for the Government. The law doesn't seem to provide for blocking pipes with unknown content and there would be serious First Amendment issues if it did. As long as the proxy service maintains an appropriate distance from the gambling sites and has non-gambling users you won't be able to establish that any particular pipe is carrying gambling traffic as opposed to any of a thousand other things that someone might want to keep private.

[redbeard]

while i hope stellar is right it still doesn't seem to change the fact that the majority of the fish will not be willing to go to these steps to link up to a gambling site and the pool of these fish will dry up. i know, i know the sky is falling some will say, but it seems to be a somewhat realistic problem.

[uphigh_downlow]

[ QUOTE ]
while i hope stellar is right it still doesn't seem to change the fact that the majority of the fish will not be willing to go to these steps to link up to a gambling site and the pool of these fish will dry up. i know, i know the sky is falling some will say, but it seems to be a somewhat realistic problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

what stellar said has a more common name. Its called VPN, something commonly in use on the internet.

so dun wry a whole lot about connecting to poker sites. We shud be more worried about loss of players who wont go thru the trouble

[antneye]

If it is so easy to block sites deemed illegal, how come they government can not stop kiddie porn? Is someone seriosuly going to tell me that the government cares more about poker than kiddie porn?

I am calling my senators and raising a shitstorm......just because it would be reckless not to, but I do not believe this will do anything to online gaming other than officially make it illegal. Theres a lot of illegal stuff out there....the real question is going to surround enforcement. This is (IMHO) nothing more than an election year ploy for the conservative base........you won't here a word about it after election day.

[PE101]

Great post! Interesting follow-up discussion.

I agree that this is typical, election-year pandering. I'm afraid, though, that if/when this type of legislation passes the technical and legal issues will outweigh sanity. The player pool will drastically be reduced, and the game just won't be as much fun or as profitable.

I think we have a real problem on our hands here...

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Only thing I am curious about you say "billions" is spent on this war, well isn't the number around 70 million people gamble online? 23 million I think play poker.......so you have maybe an estimate of cost to stop everyone? I think the money point is the most important part, people will say "I think gambling should be banned" But if congress replies with "It is going to cost 4 billion a year to stop this industry we have to make cuts to (insert government program) or we have to tax (insert new tax)" the person may then think "hmmmm, never mind it doesn't bother me that much"

[/ QUOTE ]

Billions are already spent each year on network and systems security by goverments, businesses and everyday people.

For an ISP to install a high quality IPS it is going to cost them a healthy 6 figures. To maintain and manage that IPS is going to cost them $100K+ per year.

I am very doubtful the goverment will provide any kind of compensation for IPS's. It would put a great burden on IPS's, one they are likely to fight tooth and nail.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
What??

How can IPS work against me if I decide to use a simple VPN based out of town, for all my internet activities.

My traffic while in the US is simply encryted, and cannot be decoded. How can you find a fingerprint in an encrypted packet.

Unless you invest bazillions of resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

A single person using a VPN would be successful. As you note the IPS is not going to be able to see the content of the encypted packets.

However just like the P2P and proxy networks, they become too popular for their own good. So for any kind of VPN method to work, there would have to be a wide spread use of it with more or less centralized VPN servers. They will become "well known" and once that happens, they become targets to "stop access to". And I can 100% block you from making a connection to a specific VPN server/network if I manage the IPS at your ISP.

Similarly people will think to use some kind of remote control software like RDP or VNC or Citrix to control a PC in another counrty.

Bottom line is that for any of that to be successful at any scale that leaves the current poker world anywhere near what it is now, is going to become well known and easily blocked as a result.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]

Not so easy for the Government. The law doesn't seem to provide for blocking pipes with unknown content and there would be serious First Amendment issues if it did. As long as the proxy service maintains an appropriate distance from the gambling sites and has non-gambling users you won't be able to establish that any particular pipe is carrying gambling traffic as opposed to any of a thousand other things that someone might want to keep private.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. This is the key. But frankly this is more to do with the "law" and how it can be enforced or not. From a strictly technical stand point, it is very easy to block any traffic I am told to block.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is so easy to block sites deemed illegal, how come they government can not stop kiddie porn? Is someone seriosuly going to tell me that the government cares more about poker than kiddie porn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges dude.

Stopping access to kiddy porn is a very subjective thing, while accessing a poker server is not subjective at all. Is that girl 18 or 15? Who knows. Someone has to review, make a determination, etc, etc. The really nasty kiddy porn is not on a publically advertized site, it is hidden away on private networks that are only accessable to a few people via encrypted access.

Poker sites are well know and the type of traffic being sent to them is more or less specialized, while surfing to a porn site uses random sites with a common type of traffic.

Two very different issues that can not truely be considered similar at all.

[LinusKS]

Percula, I'm not a technical person, and I'll take your word for it that technology exists to stop people from going to particular websites.

Here's the thing, though. The legislation, as it's written, bends over backwards to reassure US internet companies that they won't be out-of-pocket on this deal, and that whatever they're required to do won't be time-consuming or complicated.

There's a good reason for this, which is that internet companies are an important constituency (unlike foreign gambling sites), and Congress doesn't want to piss them off.

From what you've said, it sounds like Congress could force iternet companies to install this technology, and it could (maybe? probably?) keep Americans from accessing gambling sites.

But I don't think this legislation contemplates anything like what you're talking about.

And if the technology is either (1.) expensive, or (2.) burdensome or intrusive, or (3.) creates any kind of 1st Amendment issue whatsoever, I don't think it will ever be required, because Americans don't like things that are expensive, intrusive, or impinge on the freedom of speech.

This legislation was carefully crafted, so that its provisions target offshore gambling sites, while putting little or no burden on American companies or citizens.

[dustyn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not so easy for the Government. The law doesn't seem to provide for blocking pipes with unknown content and there would be serious First Amendment issues if it did. As long as the proxy service maintains an appropriate distance from the gambling sites and has non-gambling users you won't be able to establish that any particular pipe is carrying gambling traffic as opposed to any of a thousand other things that someone might want to keep private.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. This is the key. But frankly this is more to do with the "law" and how it can be enforced or not. From a strictly technical stand point, it is very easy to block any traffic I am told to block.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for posting this. All, remember that the OP isn't trying to argue the government will do this (I think we all agree this is very unlikely even in the unlikely event the law is passed). The OP is simply letting us know what technologies exist should two unlikely events happen (the bill passing AND the govt forcing ISPs to block gambling sites).

[mattnxtc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Internet is built on the TCP/IP protocol. blah blah blah blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you come on here and post this crap like you know what you are talking about. The internet is made out of tubes!

[/ QUOTE ]

and if u stick a lottery ball down those tubes...u can clean the entire system out...duh

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, is what you're talking about feasible (for the entire US's internet traffic) given an enforcement budget of no more than $10MM?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that the financial burden would be placed on the ISP. There would be a big court battle, more money would be budgeted, etc, etc.

The goverment will argue that the ISP should already have this type of technology and that it should not be a great burden. The ISP's will argue that they don't have the technology (which for the most part is correct) and that it would cost them too much money to do without conpensation. The court will side with the ISP and the goverment will budget more money and so on and so on.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Percula, I'm not a technical person, and I'll take your word for it that technology exists to stop people from going to particular websites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that these rep's are throwing around the term "website" very poorly. This forum is a website, playing poker online is not a website.

I am pretty sure the intent is to stop people from accessing/using the service that allows them to gambal, which is not a website, it is a game sever.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing, though. The legislation, as it's written, bends over backwards to reassure US internet companies that they won't be out-of-pocket on this deal, and that whatever they're required to do won't be time-consuming or complicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

From your post (linked at the top of this tread), you quoted parts of the bill, that specifically talked about "blocking access to". This is how you block access to the services that allow you to gambal online.

If the law makers are thinking that "blocking access to" is not going to be a burden, then they obviously have as much knowledge of the Internet as they do of poker. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
So now that you know that it is technically possible to prohibit you from playing online, get off your multi-tabling ass and make your voice heard. Call your senators, talk to your friends, school mates, co-workers, anyone that will listen, and get them to call their senator too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! Poker players' apathy and "do nothing" attitude is what got this bill passed by a 3-1 margin in the House the other day. The same thing will probably happen in the Senate unless we make our voices heard to our senators NOW!

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
And if the technology is either (1.) expensive, or (2.) burdensome or intrusive, or (3.) creates any kind of 1st Amendment issue whatsoever, I don't think it will ever be required, because Americans don't like things that are expensive, intrusive, or impinge on the freedom of speech.


[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? Usually I agree with you Linus, but this...? I think you give the American public WAY too much credit here. (Perhaps I'm cynical b/c I study public opinion. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[bbjurstrom]

Trading copy-written material on the Internet has been illegal for quite some time. Yet I can still use programs like [censored], bitorrent and irc to download whatever I want. How come your precious and all powerfully ISP's don't block that traffic?

[jaydub]

Perc,

So your IPS can operate at wirespeed huh? Seriously, what's the best throughput you can get? How many packets per second?

Using an IPS to do this on a backbone scale is just silly, well unless you sell IPS'. This is a layer 3 problem and will be solved as such. And no that will not stop IPSEC based workarounds but then again neither would your IPS.

J

[bbjurstrom]

Maybe it's because my ISP is a business and is not stupid. They know that if they voluntarily block my access to any site I will switch to one of their many competitors that doesn't. Therefore, the only way they would block access is by being ordered by a court to do so. However, a court won't order the site to be blocked because doing so would violate the first amendment.

With that said, Congress does have the Article I: Section 8 power to "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." Therefore, Neteller transactions may become a thing of the past, but I seriously doubt your ISP will block your access to the sites.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's because my ISP is a business and is not stupid. They know that if they voluntarily block my access to any site I will switch to one of their many competitors that doesn't. Therefore, the only way they would block access is by being ordered by a court to do so. However, a court won't order the site to be blocked because doing so would violate the first amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Your ISP won't need a court order to block access to poker sites. The law will require them to do it, and they aren't going to violate a federal law so that a small number of their customers can play online poker. ISPs who do violate the law will be fined, prosecuted, and shut down if they refuse to comply.

Even if a court order was necessary, the First Amendment does NOT protect your right to play poker on the internet.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Trading copy-written material on the Internet has been illegal for quite some time. Yet I can still use programs like [censored], bitorrent and irc to download whatever I want. How come your precious and all powerfully ISP's don't block that traffic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a court has not ordered them to.

[bbjurstrom]

I didn't say they would NEED a court order to shut it down. They can do whatever they want. I am arguing that they will not block it because it would be bad for business.

As for the first amendment. Maybe the actual act of playing poker would not fall under the 1st amendment protection, however, blocking access to web sites and servers would clearly be a no no.

Finally, if they don't do it for file sharing and p2p programs, why would they do it for poker sites?

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Perc,

So your IPS can operate at wirespeed huh? Seriously, what's the best throughput you can get? How many packets per second?

Using an IPS to do this on a backbone scale is just silly, well unless you sell IPS'. This is a layer 3 problem and will be solved as such. And no that will not stop IPSEC based workarounds but then again neither would your IPS.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

The device I am working with now, introduces a 150 microsecond delay at mutli gigabit speeds. It is truely a bump in the wire.

I do not sell these devices, I support and deploy them.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say they would NEED a court order to shut it down. They can do whatever they want. I am arguing that they will not block it because it would be bad for business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Violating a federal law is much worse for business than pissing off a few poker players.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say they would NEED a court order to shut it down. They can do whatever they want. I am arguing that they will not block it because it would be bad for business.

As for the first amendment. Maybe the actual act of playing poker would not fall under the 1st amendment protection, however, blocking access to web sites and servers would clearly be a no no.

Finally, if they don't do it for file sharing and p2p programs, why would they do it for poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not getting it...

If this becomes law and a court orders your ISP to block your access and everyone else that is their customer's access to gaming servers, they can and will do it.

Sharing music and other files over a P2P network is not the same as accessing a single service for a single intention, i.e. gambaling online.

[Tornado69]

Do you think it's possible that pokerstars/partypoker etc can come up with a way for them to personally get around this IPS as well ? I'm sure their already working on new ways for people to deposit $ onto their sites even if it's through a 2 step thing.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perc,

So your IPS can operate at wirespeed huh? Seriously, what's the best throughput you can get? How many packets per second?

Using an IPS to do this on a backbone scale is just silly, well unless you sell IPS'. This is a layer 3 problem and will be solved as such. And no that will not stop IPSEC based workarounds but then again neither would your IPS.

J

[/ QUOTE ]

The device I am working with now, introduces a 150 microsecond delay at mutli gigabit speeds. It is truely a bump in the wire.

I do not sell these devices, I support and deploy them.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many packets per second?

J

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
From your post (linked at the top of this tread), you quoted parts of the bill, that specifically talked about "blocking access to". This is how you block access to the services that allow you to gambal online.

[/ QUOTE ]

This brings up a good point. The relevant section is titled "Limitations" - it says:

Relief granted under this section... shall be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating this subchapter, or a hypertext link to an online site violating this subchapter, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates..."

The language is ambiguous.

I interpret it to mean relief is limited to blocking gambling sites, and links to gambling sites, that are on the services' own computers.

So, for example, a judge could not order an ISP to block access to links or sites that are on somebody else's servers.

It's possible it could be interpreted otherwise, however -

[ QUOTE ]
If the law makers are thinking that "blocking access to" is not going to be a burden, then they obviously have as much knowledge of the Internet as they do of poker. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If blocking access to sites that are not on a company's own computers is a burden, then I have no doubt that's not what they intended.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
With that said, Congress does have the Article I: Section 8 power to "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." Therefore, Neteller transactions may become a thing of the past, but I seriously doubt your ISP will block your access to the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't you use neteller to buy things too? I seriously question whether they can feasibly enforce this, the power of the commerce clause, while vast, has to stop at some point so that the states can maintain their power to police the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's because my ISP is a business and is not stupid. They know that if they voluntarily block my access to any site I will switch to one of their many competitors that doesn't. Therefore, the only way they would block access is by being ordered by a court to do so. However, a court won't order the site to be blocked because doing so would violate the first amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Your ISP won't need a court order to block access to poker sites. The law will require them to do it, and they aren't going to violate a federal law so that a small number of their customers can play online poker. ISPs who do violate the law will be fined, prosecuted, and shut down if they refuse to comply.

Even if a court order was necessary, the First Amendment does NOT protect your right to play poker on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the first amendment guarantee the right to free assembly? The bottom line of this whole thing is that Federal government does not have the power to look out for our morals. That is left for the states.

Now, I know that Uncle Sam does precisely that anyways through use of the commerce clause (among others), but I think the make up of SCOTUS is changing enough that this commerce clause liberty is going to stop. Congess attempted to control guns through the commerce clause, and SCOTUS shot it down. Something else has already been shot down too, and GW is putting more federalists on the bench.

My gut opinion is this bill is feel good legislation for the moral politicians to pat there back with, but will never, and can never be enforced,even if it passes. The problem with enforcement is that they will have to interfere with protected speech in order get the bad "stuff", and bills that burden protected speech for ostensible reason for getting rid of the bad speech face rigid constitutional scrutiny.

I personally am not sweating it, especially with Vegas' interest in getting involved and their own bill to study it for taxation.

[Jussurreal]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's possible that pokerstars/partypoker etc can come up with a way for them to personally get around this IPS as well ? I'm sure their already working on new ways for people to deposit $ onto their sites even if it's through a 2 step thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the law is passed, people will still be able to deposit money into a poker account easily by using Western Union. The only problem is going to be the ISP block like what is being talked about in this thread. I know nothing about internet technology though so I can't comment about that.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem is going to be the ISP block like what is being talked about in this thread. I know nothing about internet technology though so I can't comment about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a problem, whatsoever.

Let's assume your ISP blocks direct access to gambling servers.

If someone sets up a proxy server offshore, your ISP will not block access to that proxy server because it is not in and of itself a gambling site.

Let's say this proxy server is also used for other purposes, such as video game servers, etc, and all manners of entertainment and services.

It is not within the law for your ISP to be forced to restrict access to that proxy server.

And it just so happens, that proxy server redirects your traffic to the gambling server for poker enjoyment.

Additionally, it could be shrink-wrapped into a small application for download with minimal instruction or technical expertise for all the fishies to use and continue to enjoy access to poker.

Let me be clear here...the ISP *could* technically block access to the proxy server, but they WON'T because they are not going to be forced by law. They will ONLY be required to block access to gambling sites that are SPECIFICALLY identified.

To give you an example, the much vaunted IPS I am currently residing behind does not allow access to www.twoplustwo.com (http://www.twoplustwo.com), and the little network engineer geeks that sit in the server rooms brag endlessly about how they upload updates once a week and how no-one can get to unauthorized sites.

So much for that, obviously, as I read twoplustwo religiously, and without hindrance from a system they think is foolproof when it isn't. What they don't know won't hurt them.

[Wynton]

I'm more befuddled than ever by all the technical talk. But it seems to me that, the more obvious it is that a proxy server is a gateway to a gambling site, the more likely it is that the government will ask the ISP to block access to the proxy server as well.

On the other hand, the less obvious it is that the proxy server is a gateway, the more difficult it will be for the unsophisticated fishie to find the gambling site.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more befuddled than ever by all the technical talk. But it seems to me that, the more obvious it is that a proxy server is a gateway to a gambling site, the more likely it is that the government will ask the ISP to block access to the proxy server as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your PC is a gateway to a gambling site, in much the same sense as a proxy server in this example would be. The government could very well ban the use of computers if they wanted also.

But they won't, obviously. At least not if they don't want me throwing their tea into the harbor.


[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, the less obvious it is that the proxy server is a gateway, the more difficult it will be for the unsophisticated fishie to find the gambling site.

[/ QUOTE ]

The unsophisticated need only click "download and install". If they can't click that, then they probably can't click "Call", and thus I have no use for them.

You just can't write a law restricting internet technology that doesn't have a loophole. Even when you come close, you still can't effectively enforce it.

[mrhat187]

I would say that is very good news, someone said earlier a good IPS costs 100k+ correct? Per ISP or whatever, well I'm not going to try to count all the ISP's in the USA but say there is atleast 4,000?

Then my 4 billion estimate yearly budget would be pretty close, and I think thats a tough number for people to swallow. Would you want to be the representative or senator up for re-election and see "so and so had to raise this tax to stop online gambling, but the industry is larger than ever, is this someone you want spending your money?"

[James Ferguson]

Sorry if this has been asked but even if gambling becomes illegal, wouldn’t it still be legal to visit a site such a party to watch others play or use the play money tables? So how could they legally block the site?

[uphigh_downlow]

Mebbe you have abias from being part of the ISP indutry.

And mebbe I have incomplete information, but i'm pretty pretty sure, the government cannot stop me from going to any site or connecting to any server.

This is not because I'm some super hacker, but only from being well eduvcated about how the internet works.

Its easy to call for enforcing un-enforceable laws. But they jut make a mockery of the system. I understand your point about popularity of a poker VPN service being its death. But there is no reason to assume that these VPN services in question will be exclusively poker VPN's.

And even if they are, I'm pretty sure you highly over-estimate the capability of your IPS. Detection and determination while collating data over several ISP's in itself would take a long time, and lets say the avg detectioon time is 10 days. Simple changing connection IP:port or a few protocol thing shud mean ISP's were left on a wild goose chase.

Not to mention that devices that will filter packets at gigs/sec introducing less than 150microsec delay will not be cheap.

Neway I'm not concerned about this particular isue much at all, as it has many simple workarounds

[cottonmather0]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is so easy to block sites deemed illegal, how come they government can not stop kiddie porn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, those sites get blocked all the time and when they do the perverts just get a new address and a new server and start up somewhere else. That 'community" is rather closed and insulated so whenever the changes word gets out quickly to a small group of people and the actvity just moves along to the new site. The poker business model probably couldn't work that way.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while i hope stellar is right it still doesn't seem to change the fact that the majority of the fish will not be willing to go to these steps to link up to a gambling site and the pool of these fish will dry up. i know, i know the sky is falling some will say, but it seems to be a somewhat realistic problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

what stellar said has a more common name. Its called VPN, something commonly in use on the internet.

so dun wry a whole lot about connecting to poker sites. We shud be more worried about loss of players who wont go thru the trouble

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is: How much trouble will it be? There will certainly be many people and lots of money behind making it as easy as possible.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Mebbe you have abias from being part of the ISP indutry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope I am part of the ISP industry.

[ QUOTE ]
And mebbe I have incomplete information, but i'm pretty pretty sure, the government cannot stop me from going to any site or connecting to any server.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, if a court orders it, it will happen, and easily too.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not because I'm some super hacker, but only from being well eduvcated about how the internet works.

Its easy to call for enforcing un-enforceable laws. But they jut make a mockery of the system. I understand your point about popularity of a poker VPN service being its death. But there is no reason to assume that these VPN services in question will be exclusively poker VPN's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter, if the court orders it, it will be blocked. Rather a court will or not is outside the topic of this post.

[ QUOTE ]
And even if they are, I'm pretty sure you highly over-estimate the capability of your IPS. Detection and determination while collating data over several ISP's in itself would take a long time, and lets say the avg detectioon time is 10 days. Simple changing connection IP:port or a few protocol thing shud mean ISP's were left on a wild goose chase.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saddly mistaken, very mistaken. The IPS does not collect or corilate data. It simply looks at the packets, and based on the signature of the data, it either filters it or lets it pass. Most P2P applications today use this type of method to avoid issues with firewalls, a good IPS will stop them dead.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that devices that will filter packets at gigs/sec introducing less than 150microsec delay will not be cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite right, the big ones like a large ISP would use cost's >$100K.

[ QUOTE ]
Neway I'm not concerned about this particular isue much at all, as it has many simple workarounds

[/ QUOTE ]

And this why I wrote the post in the first place. You are 100% dead wrong. Too many in the online poker world think is like trading music with a P2P network and in one respect they are right, but they have a false sense of confidence because they get away with trading music, they will not get away with playing online if a court orders the access to be blocked. They are not the same, in the case of online poker, the bill allows for a court to order a blockage, which is something that has not happened with music. The technology is there and evolving daily.

The idea they will not be able to block access to say a VPN service because it offers access to other things, is just plain silly. Look at the bit-torrent sites that have been killed. Why were they killed, because they had links to copywrited matrials along with links to lots of other stuff that was completely in the clear. In the case of a VPN server it is going to be VERY hard to make a case that the primary reason for it existing is not to allow access to poker sites.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been asked but even if gambling becomes illegal, wouldn’t it still be legal to visit a site such a party to watch others play or use the play money tables? So how could they legally block the site?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question, one that will set with the law makers and the poker sites.

Let's say that when you logon to the PartyPoker game server you are allowed to play for real money and play money. I would guess that all access to the site would be blocked.

So places like PartyPoker would have to modify their software to only allow access to play money games, basically seperating out their game severs so that play money players connect to one server farm and real money players connect to another server farm.

Depending on how they manage their farms, this could be a very expensive thing for them to do and they dont exactly have a great incentive to spend the money to provide a free service they can not have a real prospect of getting money in the future in the form of converting a play money player to a real money player.

[MrBrightside]

Look, I'm a programmer, not a network engineer, but I just don't see it. I can pay for access to an encrypted proxy server.. this took five seconds with google: http://www.secure-tunnel.com/ A quick search of pokerstar's web site, at least, shows that the client works through a proxy server: http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/download/faq/

So .. this traffic is encyrpted.. they know I'm connecting to a proxy server, right? I understand your point about them shutting access to the proxy server off, but there's a LOT of proxy servers (and I think their will be a lot more of them in the future if this law passes). It would be an endless race. Every day. Heck, I could get some guys up in twoplustwo who don't live in this country to set one up for just a few individuals. Small groups would definitely be undetected.

Look at what a failure the "great internet wall of china" has been.

I understand what you are saying, they could block access to proxy servers, but frankly, I think more laws like this will prompt a big boom in foreign pay proxy servers (thus driving the cost down -- not that they are expensive as the plans at that site start at $2.95 and go up to $10 a month).

[JPFisher55]

This is the whole point. Blocking access to a website that offers real and fake money play deprives those who legally desire to play with fake money their right to do so without due process.
Since poker websites are offshore, the US government cannot require them to operate completely different sites for real and fake money play.
The same is true about services like Neteller. If the US government forces banks to not accept deposits from Neteller, then it is depriving the user whose transactions are legal the right to use Neteller without due process.

[uphigh_downlow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while i hope stellar is right it still doesn't seem to change the fact that the majority of the fish will not be willing to go to these steps to link up to a gambling site and the pool of these fish will dry up. i know, i know the sky is falling some will say, but it seems to be a somewhat realistic problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

what stellar said has a more common name. Its called VPN, something commonly in use on the internet.

so dun wry a whole lot about connecting to poker sites. We shud be more worried about loss of players who wont go thru the trouble

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is: How much trouble will it be? There will certainly be many people and lots of money behind making it as easy as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

not much harder than simply signing up for a simple service like

MEGAPROXY® ADVANCED WEB SSL VPN: PRICE: ONLY $9.95 FOR 3 MONTH ACCESS

[uphigh_downlow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mebbe you have abias from being part of the ISP indutry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope I am part of the ISP industry.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. You are biased. (or cud be)

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And mebbe I have incomplete information, but i'm pretty pretty sure, the government cannot stop me from going to any site or connecting to any server.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, if a court orders it, it will happen, and easily too.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not because I'm some super hacker, but only from being well eduvcated about how the internet works.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter, if the court orders it, it will be blocked. Rather a court will or not is outside the topic of this post.

You are saddly mistaken, very mistaken. The IPS does not collect or corilate data. It simply looks at the packets, and based on the signature of the data, it either filters it or lets it pass. Most P2P applications today use this type of method to avoid issues with firewalls, a good IPS will stop them dead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm well versed with network protocols. I'm currently pursuing my PhD at UCLA. I dont mean to be antagonistic.

I think you ignored what i was really trying to say. IPS is a rules based system. How do you come up with the rules?? You do research outside of IPS and feed the rules/signatures into IPS. And it will be near impossible to come up with a consistent set of rules/signatures to block access. You use the word fingerprint, but its grossly exaggerated. Sure it can be a cat and mouse game but I think the cats got a lotta catching up to do and limited resources.

So it will go hungry /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Wynton]

What's the chance that anyone in Congress has put as much thought as we have here already as to the technical feasibility of blocking access to gambling sites?

[mpslg]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the chance that anyone in Congress has put as much thought as we have here already as to the technical feasibility of blocking access to gambling sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

slim to none.

[CrashPat]

I can't read this whole thread right now, I'm too tired

Basically, the point is moot. If the government tries to restrict our access to a foreign server, they will lose in court. Think of one place you can't touch on the internet, oh wait, you can't? Thank you first amendment.

Now if we ignore that, it isn't hard for Party Poker to repackage their client so it has creates a VPN or SSH tunnel to say Canada before going to their servers. Sure, they US could ban these addresses, but that would take weeks, and it would take them days to move the server addresses. And if you use a standard tunnel, an IPS cannot really block it. First an IPS cannot decrypt it due to technical issues, and even if they could it wouldn't be legal. Maybe I'm uninformed, I haven't worked in the field but I do have a degree in it.

I for one am not worried about this part of the issue. I'm way more worried about the stupid bill passing in the first place. We basically are screwed on that one too. I know I can't convince my senator to vote differently, he is worried about gambling addiction. But not taxing the poor with lotteries or ponies, those are fine.

[jaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if we ignore that, it isn't hard for Party Poker to repackage their client so it has creates a VPN or SSH tunnel to say Canada before going to their servers. Sure, they US could ban these addresses, but that would take weeks, and it would take them days to move the server addresses. And if you use a standard tunnel, an IPS cannot really block it. First an IPS cannot decrypt it due to technical issues, and even if they could it wouldn't be legal. Maybe I'm uninformed, I haven't worked in the field but I do have a degree in it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Legal issues are not a concern with the decryption, NSA does it on a continuous basis. Cost is, NSA spent many billions do get that capability.

But decryption isn't even relevant because no commercially available IPS can even come close to keeping up with the level of unencrypted traffic seen on ISP backbones. Packet inspection on a US backbone is within the capabilities of only the NSA and they are not getting involved here.

J

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the whole point. Blocking access to a website that offers real and fake money play deprives those who legally desire to play with fake money their right to do so without due process.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just where in the US Constitution does it state that you have a right to play play money poker online? I see this silly arguemrnt so much it makes me want to puke!!

[jsthomas64]

If this law is passed as currently written, could all of this be done to get around the law in a way that would make it simple enough for the thousands of people who play now to continue?
Or is it more likely the vast majority of people would not be able to keep up with how to get around it or be scared off and the ISP's decide its not in their interest to give the government the finger?

[MrBrightside]

I think this is the key issue. The answer is: I'm not sure.

Frankly, I was thinking of using an encrypted proxy server anyway lately, what with all the wiretapping crap that's come down. I don't mind paying a few dollars a month for it either. I'm currently trying to find a good one that is non-U.S. I'll report when I find one. Anyway, if LOTS of people could be convinced to use this, the ISP's couldn't block them, they would be too widespread.

we'll see.

[guitarizt]

I'm concerned about this but not enough to lose sleep over. It's as simple as this: Techonlogy moves incredibly faster than the laws can keep up with.

Worst case scenario: It does pass and access to poker sites is blocked. I would only be upset about there being less players to get money from. I have been tunneling through a proxy to player poker for months now. I'll always be able to play. If everything does go to hell hopefully it'll be like prohibition and everything will be ok again in a year or two. I'll just wait it out.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
I would only be upset about there being less players to get money from.

[/ QUOTE ]

And besides that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

[DerFleisch]

[ QUOTE ]
Just where in the US Constitution does it state that you have a right to play play money poker online?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 10th Amendment:

[ QUOTE ]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, you're thinking about our Constitution in the wrong way. In a simplistic sense, it's not, "The Constitution doesn't say it's OK so it's not"; it's, "The Constitution doesn't say it's not OK, so it is."

[utility]

[ QUOTE ]
Worst case scenario: It does pass and access to poker sites is blocked. I would only be upset about there being less players to get money from.

[/ QUOTE ]

but that is exactly the point.
most of the players and nearly all of the fish will be gone, because they definitely won't like to race against the ISPs.
tuff_fish might stay..but he is special /images/graemlins/grin.gif

that is, the games will dry up fast, and the industry will die.

but as another poster already mentioned, there is something that could work.
the whole tunnelling/proxy stuff will have to be included in the clients therefore making it completely transparent for the users.

so if the pokersites take care of that, than no problem.
if the users will have to get creative then the PARTY will be over /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Just where in the US Constitution does it state that you have a right to play play money poker online? I see this silly arguemrnt so much it makes me want to puke!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument JPFisher was making was in regards to the 5th amendement right to due process of law for life, liberty, and property.

In other words, they couldn't deprive people the liberty of legally accessing free play sites, or from making legal transactions on Neteller via a blanket blocking and assumption of guilt of online gambling.

The law is written as making it a crime to operate an internet gambling operation, but enforced by restricting the liberties of citizens who aren't being given substantive due process as outlined in our constitution.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, you're thinking about our Constitution in the wrong way. In a simplistic sense, it's not, "The Constitution doesn't say it's OK so it's not"; it's, "The Constitution doesn't say it's not OK, so it is."


[/ QUOTE ]

Does the constitution say anything about speed limits? Organic labeling? Airport regilations? Shall I go on? You are missing the point it seems. If a law passes congress that stops you from partaking in play money tables at offshore poker sites the Constitution is not going to help you.