EGO
01-28-2007, 12:41 PM
I'm not a lawyer, and honestly, I didn't understand much of the bill. However, I did understand the spirit upon which it was attached to the Port Bill. It was argued that people were losing their homes to online gambling, that college kids were out robbing banks to fund their gambling habits. There were probably some politics involved.
I was unconcerned. I made a single deposit two and a half years ago, and that's the last time money from a US source flowed outward into the online gambling arena. I, perhaps foolishly, believed that there was little chance of the US blocking incoming transactions from sources such as online poker rooms and payment processors.
Why not? Is there language in the bill that discusses receiving money from payment processors that might not be illegal. I'm thinking mostly of PT Pat and PA Hud, who run a business that is probably fueled by Neteller (though they might not be in the US, I don't know).
The ACH blocking the payments from Neteller seems foolish, and counter-intuitive when you think of the arguments that were posited to get support behind this bill. Consider the following statement, which seems to follow logically from the actions that I've seen:
We (the government) don't want people to jeapordize their families, homes, and lives to online gambling. Therefore, we will restrict the movement of money coming in from other countries that are suspected of being from gambling sources.
I guess I didn't worry since I was making money from online gambling, and I wasn't letting US dollars escape from my local economy into the economy of a foreign government.
I was unconcerned. I made a single deposit two and a half years ago, and that's the last time money from a US source flowed outward into the online gambling arena. I, perhaps foolishly, believed that there was little chance of the US blocking incoming transactions from sources such as online poker rooms and payment processors.
Why not? Is there language in the bill that discusses receiving money from payment processors that might not be illegal. I'm thinking mostly of PT Pat and PA Hud, who run a business that is probably fueled by Neteller (though they might not be in the US, I don't know).
The ACH blocking the payments from Neteller seems foolish, and counter-intuitive when you think of the arguments that were posited to get support behind this bill. Consider the following statement, which seems to follow logically from the actions that I've seen:
We (the government) don't want people to jeapordize their families, homes, and lives to online gambling. Therefore, we will restrict the movement of money coming in from other countries that are suspected of being from gambling sources.
I guess I didn't worry since I was making money from online gambling, and I wasn't letting US dollars escape from my local economy into the economy of a foreign government.