Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/hr49543_portscr.pdf
|
Wools
*
Reged: 09/28/05
Posts: 2233
|
|
I'm getting an error trying to open the file, Nate.
|
Jive Dadson
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/16/04
Posts: 2753
Loc: San Jose CA
|
|
The internet gambling stuff is in there. Sections 802/803.
|
barryc83
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/18/06
Posts: 3234
Loc: keep hatin
|
|
It aint over yet Nate.
|
Keepitsimple
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/17/05
Posts: 3368
Loc: Göteborg
|
|
Can anybody do a summary? LOL
Seriously I think you need to be well versed in this to understand the full effect.
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
*Very* quick reading is that it bans credit cards and other funding insturments, but does not have the Wire Act provisions.
Edited by Nate tha' Great (09/29/06 09:53 PM)
|
boondoggle
addict
Reged: 06/14/04
Posts: 637
|
|
kathryn wolf on cspan said the internet gaming has been the most fought over and that she said they still do not know the final version that will be included.
|
Paxosmotic
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 03/21/05
Posts: 2000
Loc: 540/1080 full ring
|
|
Section 5363 in that draft is pretty much "all forms of gambling are illegal." Ugh.
|
FUJItheFISH
MicroHULA's Biggest Bitch
Reged: 09/25/04
Posts: 4997
Loc: I'm the rake.
|
|
.
|
Wools
*
Reged: 09/28/05
Posts: 2233
|
|
Quote:
kathryn wolf on cspan said the internet gaming has been the most fought over and that she said they still do not know the final version that will be included.
I caught this as well.
Also, C-SPAN is showing the US House: Port Security Procedural Vote. Frist is speaking right now. The votes are 21 yea and 22 nay early on...is this worth noting, or not?
|
MrWookie
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/28/05
Posts: 17411
Loc: Treating my drinking problem
|
|
Any forms of payment are banned for any form of gambling. Except horseracing.
|
Rupert
addict
Reged: 02/26/06
Posts: 659
Loc: England
|
|
Page 213 on by the looks..
|
elffaw
old hand
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 1165
Loc: all they want is a free ride
|
|
Page 221 - definition of unlawful internet gambling - says that it is placing a bet over the internet that is unlawful under any applicable federal or state law in the state of tribal lands in which the best is initiated or received.
is this the case with playing on party, stars, etc?
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
no, not really... this isn't the vote on the actual bill, and eventually this procedural vote will swing to yea because there are more republicans
|
barryc83
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/18/06
Posts: 3234
Loc: keep hatin
|
|
Yeah thats what I am getting from CSPAN too. It's not over yet. Horrible question but to pass is it just a simple majority that wins, >50%?
|
Dids
CARDS IS FUN
Reged: 02/01/04
Posts: 21118
Loc: 215 lbs of fatness
|
|
Very quick read and my mostly clueless opinion makes me think it's not neteller friendly
|
Wools
*
Reged: 09/28/05
Posts: 2233
|
|
Quote:
no, not really... this isn't the vote on the actual bill, and eventually this procedural vote will swing to yea because there are more republicans
That's what I figured, but I wasnt sure and didnt know the exact margin by which it had to pass. Thanks for clarifying.
|
gumpzilla
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/11/05
Posts: 7911
|
|
Quote:
Very quick read and my mostly clueless opinion makes me think it's not neteller friendly
It would seem to fit the bill as a "designated payment instrument." (EDIT: Make that "designated payment system.")
Edited by gumpzilla (09/29/06 10:00 PM)
|
elffaw
old hand
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 1165
Loc: all they want is a free ride
|
|
S 5363 puts provisions on transactions for financing unlawful internet gambling - is playing on party, stars, etc unlawful?
|
Paxosmotic
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 03/21/05
Posts: 2000
Loc: 540/1080 full ring
|
|
Quote:
S 5363 puts provisions on transactions for financing unlawful internet gambling - is playing on party, stars, etc unlawful?
S5363 seems to make so much as cashing out illegal. All forms of all transfers would be illegal.
|
OrangeKing
addict
Reged: 01/05/04
Posts: 683
|
|
Quote:
*Very* quick reading is that it bans credit cards and other funding insturments, but does not have the Wire Act provisions.
Also prevents the acceptance of such transactions by the businesses themselves (although that's toothless and symbolic, since they aren't under US jurisdiction anyway)
|
elffaw
old hand
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 1165
Loc: all they want is a free ride
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
S 5363 puts provisions on transactions for financing unlawful internet gambling - is playing on party, stars, etc unlawful?
S5363 seems to make so much as cashing out illegal. All forms of all transfers would be illegal.
right, but only if it is connected to "unlawful internet gambling."
|
Viscant
member
Reged: 10/14/04
Posts: 149
|
|
"(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transferring business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;"
This seems to basically kill Neteller.
(from 5363)
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
im reading it but i havent seen it yet -- does it have the same sort of language forcing ISPs to restrict our access to gambling sites? because IMO that's the most "teethy"/dangerous part of the legislation.
|
xxThe_Lebowskixx
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 3784
Loc: Indeed.
|
|
how are they going to enforce it? does it say?
|
BluffTHIS!
censor stultorum
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 10311
Loc: I can hold my breath longer th...
|
|
KKF,
It does appear very robust and basically they would have a list of proscribed sites that banks would be supposed to block, including middlemen. And maybe even poker sites as far as isp blocking (though I'm not sure on that).
|
Dids
CARDS IS FUN
Reged: 02/01/04
Posts: 21118
Loc: 215 lbs of fatness
|
|
KKF,
To answer the question you seem to always be asking.
Yes, it's going to be hard to enforce a lot of this, but the real question is "can they make it hard enough that fish won't deposit" and it seems like the likely answer is "yes".
|
TheRover
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/10/05
Posts: 5910
|
|
So basically EVERYBODY PANIC!!! for real now?
|
HSB
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 2378
|
|
Quote:
how are they going to enforce it? does it say?
It seems like this is now the billion dollar question...
|
luckyharr
addict
Reged: 07/19/04
Posts: 420
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
5366 says 5 years in prison and a fine for viloating 5363 which I'm pretty sure means us. If I'm reading it right, playing poker and withdrawing the money means you can be fined and put in prison.
Does "interactive computer service" = ISP?
|
Kneel B4 Zod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/24/03
Posts: 11725
Loc: Nobody roots for Goliath
|
|
Quote:
KKF,
To answer the question you seem to always be asking.
Yes, it's going to be hard to enforce a lot of this, but the real question is "can they make it hard enough that fish won't deposit" and it seems like the likely answer is "yes".
or, can they make the penalties sever enough for financial institutions to steer well clear of gaming: Yes.
|
Paxosmotic
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 03/21/05
Posts: 2000
Loc: 540/1080 full ring
|
|
Quote:
So basically EVERYBODY PANIC!!! for real now?
That's really how I'm reading it. I'm not seeing anything good in this.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
5366 says 5 years in prison and a fine for viloating 5363 which I'm pretty sure means us. If I'm reading it right, playing poker and withdrawing the money means you can be fined and put in prison.
i'm almost certain this is wrong, and that those punishments refer to the people engaging in the "business," ie the sites and their representatives.
Quote:
Does "interactive computer service" = ISP?
im pretty sure this is the case
|
Kevmath
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/18/02
Posts: 8656
Loc: Syracuse
|
|
I don't think the prisons are really going to be filled with people caught playing some 3/6? It seems like an empty threat to threaten prison.
|
Jeff W
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/31/04
Posts: 7079
|
|
Quote:
how are they going to enforce it? does it say?
Starts on p. 231 I think, reading it now.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
one thing that occurs to me is (and this is a purely technical question), is there a way to get internet access from an overseas provider?
|
BluffTHIS!
censor stultorum
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 10311
Loc: I can hold my breath longer th...
|
|
proxies
|
gumpzilla
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/11/05
Posts: 7911
|
|
Quote:
one thing that occurs to me is (and this is a purely technical question Mr. Big Brother sir), is there a way to get internet access from an overseas provider?
|
greg nice
Carpal\'Tunnel
Reged: 08/09/04
Posts: 2881
Loc: whenever, wherever
|
|
where is the language banning ISPs from accessing pokersites? what page?
|
wmspringer
old hand
Reged: 04/23/05
Posts: 1022
|
|
Just got home and found out about today's BS...has the bill passed or it is still worth calling senators again?
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
where is the language banning ISPs from accessing pokersites? what page?
i think 239-241, referring to them as interactive computer services or something like that
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
Just got home and found out about today's BS...has the bill passed or it is still worth calling senators again?
no the bill hasnt passed, but no it isnt worth calling senators again, as it will liekly have passed by the end of the night and you're headed straight to their voicemail.
|
luckyharr
addict
Reged: 07/19/04
Posts: 420
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
Quote:
where is the language banning ISPs from accessing pokersites? what page?
240 if an interactive computer service means ISP
|
bcblack
member
Reged: 06/15/04
Posts: 159
|
|
MY quick read made it sound like a bet initiated in an area where gambling is legal is OK. Does that mean you could play from a reservation or Vegas or something? Probably too easy, so I'm sure its not the case. This is so horrible...
|
spatne
member
Reged: 02/20/06
Posts: 170
|
|
Page 239 (if I'm reading it correctly) seems to say that an ISP is required to block access to offending websites if said websites reside on the ISP's own servers.
Do I have that right? If so, the ISP regulations are pretty harmless.
|
daveymck
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/03
Posts: 4987
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
where is the language banning ISPs from accessing pokersites? what page?
239
Seems like they have to block the sites and take out any links on webpages that they host that link to gambling websites, when they become aware of it.
But they dont have to give info on who is using sites illegally, if I read it right anyway.
|
luckyharr
addict
Reged: 07/19/04
Posts: 420
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
I agree the punishment either doesn't mean the participants or is an empty threat...
Next question...
***
Bet or Wager means...
A) the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance , upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
B) Lottery
C) Schemes defined in another section
D) I have no idea
Does not include
Securities, free points programs, fantasy sports, some other stuff
***
So do we have a chance with the "poker is not a game of chance" argument?
|
OrangeKing
addict
Reged: 01/05/04
Posts: 683
|
|
Quote:
"(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transferring business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;"
This seems to basically kill Neteller.
(from 5363)
There is the other provision that they should enforce this in such a way as to not block any legal transactions, which may save companies like Neteller, since (I think?) they do at least some non-gambling business as well.
Essentially, a lot of things are going to depend on how this is implimented.
|
OHFreak
*
Reged: 08/15/05
Posts: 1691
Loc: Quantum materiae materietur ma...
|
|
Quote:
I agree the punishment either doesn't mean the participants or is an empty threat...
Next question...
***
Bet or Wager means...
A) the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance , upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
B) Lottery
C) Schemes defined in another section
D) I have no idea
Does not include
Securities, free points programs, fantasy sports, some other stuff
***
So do we have a chance with the "poker is not a game of chance" argument?
Poker is of course SUBJECT to chance, just not entirely. At least it would seem as though poker still falls underneath the umbrella of this description.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
So do we have a chance with the "poker is not a game of chance" argument?
i considered this for a little bit, and i think the answer is likely no, but it's probably worth an argument, and will be brought up by someone in some court in some memo or another, i'm sure.
|
Flip_Dog
addict
Reged: 08/31/05
Posts: 548
Loc: world champs bitches
|
|
Post deleted by Berge20
|
elffaw
old hand
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 1165
Loc: all they want is a free ride
|
|
Rule of construction
"No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States".
From the list of definitions
Unlawful Internet Gambling - In General - The term 'Unlawful Internet Gambling' means to place, receive, or othering knowingly transmit a bet or waged by any means which involves the use, at least in prt, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or waged is initiated, received, or otherwise made.
S 5363
No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling
1. credit/credit cards
2. neteller and friends
3. checks
4. blah blah
Ok, so this bill isn't making internet gambling illegal, it's just saying it's illegal to accept payments for those involved in already illegal internet gambling.
But playing online poker in the US isn't 'unlawful internet gambling' in most states, right? I thought it was explicitly illegal in Washington and Nevada, but isn't it legal in most other states?
What am I missing here?
|
hiho
addict
Reged: 07/14/05
Posts: 587
|
|
I don't get it. THis is being voted on in the house tonight, doesn't it need to be passed in the senate too?
|
JuntMonkey
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 3655
|
|
Quote:
If anyone is up for starting a militia to overthrow the government, count me in.
|
Busted_Flat
journeyman
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 57
|
|
Quote:
Page 239 (if I'm reading it correctly) seems to say that an ISP is required to block access to offending websites if said websites reside on the ISP's own servers.
Do I have that right? If so, the ISP regulations are pretty harmless.
I think this just says the gaming site cannot reside on the ISP's server. It would appear from my quick read that ISP's would not be required to monitor your surfing habits, but would be required to block all websites that law enforcement or the government deem to be offending the law. Which means the government will be able to block any website it wants.
This of course opens up a whole can of worms that could far exceed the scope of internet gambling.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
I don't get it. THis is being voted on in the house tonight, doesn't it need to be passed in the senate too?
it looks like that will happen tonight by voice vote
|
Brainwalter
*
Reged: 01/13/05
Posts: 4336
Loc: Bragging about beats.
|
|
Quote:
I agree the punishment either doesn't mean the participants or is an empty threat...
Next question...
***
Bet or Wager means...
A) the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance , upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
B) Lottery
C) Schemes defined in another section
D) I have no idea
Does not include
Securities, free points programs, fantasy sports, some other stuff
***
So do we have a chance with the "poker is not a game of chance" argument?
No, sounds like they purposely avoided that discussion by saying "game subject to chance", which no one can deny includes poker.
|
Jeff W
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/31/04
Posts: 7079
|
|
Quote:
So do we have a chance with the "poker is not a game of chance" argument?
I think they defined game of chance as any game where chance is involved in the outcome.
|
daveymck
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/03
Posts: 4987
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
Page 239 (if I'm reading it correctly) seems to say that an ISP is required to block access to offending websites if said websites reside on the ISP's own servers.
Do I have that right? If so, the ISP regulations are pretty harmless.
My reading of it is that they have relief from prosecution as long as they block and remove sites/links when they are told about them. However relief is cancelled if they know about it or have any involvement in it or the hosting of it.
|
luckyharr
addict
Reged: 07/19/04
Posts: 420
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So do we have a chance with the "poker is not a game of chance" argument?
I think they defined game of chance as any game where chance is involved in the outcome.
Yeah, I'm not thinking clearly. Still in denial...
|
cowboy.up
enthusiast
Reged: 03/23/06
Posts: 359
Loc: Happy Valley
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So do we have a chance with the "poker is not a game of chance" argument?
I think they defined game of chance as any game where chance is involved in the outcome.
taking a shower is a "game of chance (i.e. involves chance)" on whether or not you drop the soap, slip on it and break your hip. let's outlaw showering.
|
wmspringer
old hand
Reged: 04/23/05
Posts: 1022
|
|
Quote:
But playing online poker in the US isn't 'unlawful internet gambling' in most states, right? I thought it was explicitly illegal in Washington and Nevada, but isn't it legal in most other states?
What am I missing here?
Apparently, what's illegal is what they SAY is illegal 
FWIW, Bill Owens (gov of Colorado) says online gambling is illegal here, though I don't know if the law backs him up or not.
|
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/16/03
Posts: 3054
Loc: You talkin' to me?
|
|
Quote:
I don't think the prisons are really going to be filled with people caught playing some 3/6? It seems like an empty threat to threaten prison.
MY GOODNESS you people are so blind. The real threat here is that funding poker accounts will become more difficult and the games will dry up. It's been said a million times here.
|
Busted_Flat
journeyman
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 57
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think the prisons are really going to be filled with people caught playing some 3/6? It seems like an empty threat to threaten prison.
MY GOODNESS you people are so blind. The real threat here is that funding poker accounts will become more difficult and the games will dry up. It's been said a million times here.
The threat is they can block the ISP's.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think the prisons are really going to be filled with people caught playing some 3/6? It seems like an empty threat to threaten prison.
MY GOODNESS you people are so blind. The real threat here is that funding poker accounts will become more difficult and the games will dry up. It's been said a million times here.
i dont think its so clear that thats the only threat. there is still a real threat that ISPs will be restricted from allowing people to access online poker sites, which IMO is more serious than the restricting of funds, which all of the poker sites will find a way around and will make that way blatantly clear for all of their customers.
|
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/16/03
Posts: 3054
Loc: You talkin' to me?
|
|
from page 213
Quote:
IN GENERAL - Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
What on earth is Title 31? What are we amending here?
|
Gregg777
Oldest living BBVer
Reged: 08/28/04
Posts: 2399
Loc: FTP Mods In Profile
|
|
Quote:
MY GOODNESS you people are so blind. The real threat here is that funding poker accounts will become more difficult and the games will dry up. It's been said a million times here.
What hasn't been mentioned is the tens of thousands of wannabe pro nit rocks that will no longer be at the tables 
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sup_01_31_08_IV_10_53.html
|
kleath
4/180 Champion of Champions
Reged: 05/12/06
Posts: 1800
Loc: /\ lean wit it rock wit it/\
|
|
It looks to me like the bill would only call for blocking and/or restricting if it originated on their servers, which if this is the case doesnt affect any site really since they dont use US ISPs obv.
|
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/16/03
Posts: 3054
Loc: You talkin' to me?
|
|
Quote:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sup_01_31_08_IV_10_53.html
ah, so we are updating a monetary transaction code. I see, said the blind man, to the deaf boy, who picked up his hammer and saw.
|
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/16/03
Posts: 3054
Loc: You talkin' to me?
|
|
Jiminy [censored] christmas this is about the most boring piece of text that I have ever read. Reading this is like reading the phone book. How many times do they have to say the same thing?
Dids is right, though. This is NOT friendly to Neteller transactions, since it specifically bars Electronic Fund Transfers.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
It looks to me like the bill would only call for blocking and/or restricting if it originated on their servers, which if this is the case doesnt affect any site really since they dont use US ISPs obv.
well thats, i guess, the million dollar question; whether that will be the interpretation. i hope youre right.
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
Guys,
I think a lot of caution is warranted here until we get some opinions from lawyers. That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
FWIW, I'm feeling strangely calm about all of this -- perhaps all the worrying I've done up to this point means that it's going to be easier to digest the consequences. I'm looking forward to getting more sleep, hitting the gym again, having time to pursue other hobbies, and greatly increasing the number of trips that I make to Vegas every year.
I'll probably be doing more reading than posting from this point forward. Just wanted to say thanks Mr. K. and Berge specifically, as well as everyone who took the time to call their congresspersons.
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
Re: ISP's
My interpretation is that the bill says
-ISP's are only required to shut down gambling sites located on their servers
-ISP's are only required to do this AFTER they have been notified by the fed gov about the violation
Line 17 on page 239 spells out that ISP are only passively responsible for shutting down sites and are not in any way to monitor traffic.
Re: funding - the bill instructs the AG and the Fed to come up with rules and penalities for financial institutions. That's it. Page 231, line 5
I know that the bill says that violation of section 5363 = fine or up to 5 years in jail. however, a close reading of the bill, IMHO, reveals that we have no idea what a violation of 5363 is yet, and won't until the rules / policies called for in 5364 are actually developed and put in place.
PLUS >>> READ 5364 b 3. It's the loophole of all loopholes. Roughly translated, it means "if it's too hard for banks to do, they don't have to do it."
|
jrz1972
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/28/04
Posts: 3448
Loc: Between Threetown & Cap City
|
|
Based on my initial reading, I honestly believe this bill is the end of internet poker as we know it. The definitions of "payment system" and "financial transaction provider" are so incredibly broad that regulators will have a lot of leeway to cripple the flow of funds into and out of gaming platforms.
|
Eric Stoner
enthusiast
Reged: 08/14/05
Posts: 333
Loc: Chandler, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
Jiminy [censored] christmas this is about the most boring piece of text that I have ever read. Reading this is like reading the phone book. How many times do they have to say the same thing?
Dids is right, though. This is NOT friendly to Neteller transactions, since it specifically bars Electronic Fund Transfers.
It's like here is what I am saying...
and then I am saying it again...
and then I will say it yet a third time...
rinse lather repeat. It reminds me of the first loan we had to take out for our house, which was a VHA loan...
we signed papers to say we signed papers, and signed more papers to signify that we signed those papers...
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
i guess my hesitation on accepting that interpretation (read: getting my hopes up) is that that wasn't really the way the old HR4411 language was interpreted (ref), and it seems like they've toughened the language in other ways, and it would surprise me if they softened it in that way.
|
$Robbed$
banned
Reged: 08/16/06
Posts: 554
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
If anyone is up for starting a militia to overthrow the government, count me in.
Thats what the original founders said...something along the lines of if you don't like the government its your right to overthrow it. I find it funny that the govnm. is supposed to be run by the people it governs but who exactly is voting against online gambling? The rich [censored] in office that it doesn't affect.
|
JuntMonkey
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 3655
|
|
Quote:
Guys,
I think a lot of caution is warranted here until we get some opinions from lawyers. That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
FWIW, I'm feeling strangely calm about all of this -- perhaps all the worrying I've done up to this point means that it's going to be easier to digest the consequences. I'm looking forward to getting more sleep, hitting the gym again, having time to pursue other hobbies, and greatly increasing the number of trips that I make to Vegas every year.
I'll probably be doing more reading than posting from this point forward. Just wanted to say thanks Mr. K. and Berge specifically, as well as everyone who took the time to call their congresspersons.
Thanks Nate, you've been great. Too bad it turned out like this.
But we'll be back.
|
Eric Stoner
enthusiast
Reged: 08/14/05
Posts: 333
Loc: Chandler, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
Guys,
I think a lot of caution is warranted here until we get some opinions from lawyers. That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
FWIW, I'm feeling strangely calm about all of this -- perhaps all the worrying I've done up to this point means that it's going to be easier to digest the consequences. I'm looking forward to getting more sleep, hitting the gym again, having time to pursue other hobbies, and greatly increasing the number of trips that I make to Vegas every year.
I'll probably be doing more reading than posting from this point forward. Just wanted to say thanks Mr. K. and Berge specifically, as well as everyone who took the time to call their congresspersons.
Nate, I appreciate the news analysis you did regarding this issue. In fact, I've read your poker related posts - I learned a lot...
Maybe we'll see each other in Vegas.
|
whangarei
old hand
Reged: 09/08/06
Posts: 857
Loc: I :heart: Stars
|
|
Quote:
Guys,
I think a lot of caution is warranted here until we get some opinions from lawyers. That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
FWIW, I'm feeling strangely calm about all of this -- perhaps all the worrying I've done up to this point means that it's going to be easier to digest the consequences. I'm looking forward to getting more sleep, hitting the gym again, having time to pursue other hobbies, and greatly increasing the number of trips that I make to Vegas every year.
I'll probably be doing more reading than posting from this point forward. Just wanted to say thanks Mr. K. and Berge specifically, as well as everyone who took the time to call their congresspersons.
Nate, thanks for all your excellent contributions to this forum. I hope you can find the time after the dust settles to give us your take on what this bill means to online poker players.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
Based on my initial reading, I honestly believe this bill is the end of internet poker as we know it. The definitions of "payment system" and "financial transaction provider" are so incredibly broad that regulators will have a lot of leeway to cripple the flow of funds into and out of gaming platforms.
someone mentioned this in their interpretation of the first bill (see the link in my post above), that its possible we could challenge the constitutionality of this bill on the basis that they failed to give fair notice of exactly what this bill prohibits because its so extremely vague/overbroad. kind of a reach i guess, but who knows..
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
Quote:
I think a lot of caution is warranted here until we get some opinions from lawyers. That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
The first sentence is great, the second is almost blindingly contradictory to the first. Speculation like that is counterproductive and fuels the panic / fatalism which is the major threat facing our industry right now.
I know it feels good, in a perverse way, to assume the worst. It's easier than getting our hopes up again, only to have them deflated by some new development. Regardless, this is a situation where the perception of the market (us) will go a LONG way to determining the future of the market.
I'm not spewing cliches about the power of positive thinking. I'm making a very real observation that the online gambling community is, by and large, exactly as healthy as it thinks itself to be.
|
Viscant
member
Reged: 10/14/04
Posts: 149
|
|
After reading and re-reading the text here, I'm not seeing any language that exempts horse racing/lotteries. I'm not the most experienced in reading forms like this but I'm just saying I don't see it.
Did those exemptions disappear? Did Frist basically take a dump on ALL gambling and not just us?
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
good post chris.
|
Pinchot
member
Reged: 05/12/06
Posts: 184
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Guys,
I think a lot of caution is warranted here until we get some opinions from lawyers. That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
FWIW, I'm feeling strangely calm about all of this -- perhaps all the worrying I've done up to this point means that it's going to be easier to digest the consequences. I'm looking forward to getting more sleep, hitting the gym again, having time to pursue other hobbies, and greatly increasing the number of trips that I make to Vegas every year.
I'll probably be doing more reading than posting from this point forward. Just wanted to say thanks Mr. K. and Berge specifically, as well as everyone who took the time to call their congresspersons.
Thanks Nate, you've been great. Too bad it turned out like this.
But we'll be back.
Agreed. I feel the same way too Nate. Time to get in shape again and explore other things. Thanks for all of your contributions to this board.
|
redbeard
addict
Reged: 03/16/05
Posts: 422
|
|
thanks to you too nate you've been the quickest to get the reports from periodicals up through this whole thing. and thanks to mr.k and berge for their help as well. any interpretations of this bill from legal minds would be greatly appreciated.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
After reading and re-reading the text here, I'm not seeing any language that exempts horse racing/lotteries. I'm not the most experienced in reading forms like this but I'm just saying I don't see it.
Did those exemptions disappear? Did Frist basically take a dump on ALL gambling and not just us?
no the horse racing exemption is in there. check p. 226, line 11.
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
I am completely lost as to why anyone thinks that this is any way represents any kind of 'end' for online poker.
I have read the bill from start to finish. There is no ban, there is no criminalizing. The bill says that US ISP's can't host gambling sites IF the US govt asks the ISP to remove them.
The bill says that the AG and the Fed need to come up with some rules about how banks should handle 'restricted transactions'. It also gives banks tons of ways, preemptively, to avoid ever doing so.
What the heck is everyone else reading? Or are you?
|
luckyharr
addict
Reged: 07/19/04
Posts: 420
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
In General - Relief granted under this section against an interactive computer service shall--
A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating section 5363, or a hypertext link to an online site violating such section, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph shall not apply if the service is the subject to liability under this section under section 5367
***
I read that as they have to remove a site that operates on their servers, and remove any links to sites that reside on their servers. It says nothing about blocking access, but the ISP's are going to have a headache removing all links to sites, and the poker sites will be unable to advertise on sites run by US ISP's.
|
Busted_Flat
journeyman
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 57
|
|
Quote:
Re: ISP's
My interpretation is that the bill says
-ISP's are only required to shut down gambling sites located on their servers
-ISP's are only required to do this AFTER they have been notified by the fed gov about the violation
I think what this means, on page 239 of the link provided at the beginning of this thread, is that the only penalty an ISP shall face is that they will have to disable access to the offending internet site, or disable a link to that site that also resides on another site on their server. Therefore all of those ads for on-line pokerrooms at the right of this forum would have to be blocked by the ISP, as well as the actual sites themselves.
If this interpretation is correct, this is very restrictive and very damaging.
I doubt that you will be seeing those ads over there on this site in a few weeks or months,
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
Quote:
But we'll be back.
In the longer term, this country is moving in the direction of libertarianism in general and far greater tolerance for gambling specifically. So there may well be opportunities in five or ten years that don't exist, say, in two years. We've gotta get the motherfuckers who confuse the Southern Baptist Convention for the "silent majority" out of office first, though.
|
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/16/03
Posts: 3054
Loc: You talkin' to me?
|
|
See pages 231 and 232 - as we suspected, there is a 270 day window in which the AG will have to make determinations in regards to enforcement.
Read the rest of this section and you can see just how badly this is going to screw over small banks. It essentially mandates that ALL banking transactions must now be coded, much like a credit card. That is going to create a huge burden for banks, and the cost will likely be passed on to the everyday consumer.
If anything, there may be some hope that the banking sector will raise all holy hell and sue to block the bill. The general public may not care for higher banking costs, either.
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
They only have to remove the links IF THEY ARE GIVEN NOTICE to remove the links. The bill explicitly says that ISP's have ZERO responsibility to go looking for these links and have ZERO liability for links that they weren't notified of by the fed govt.
If for some reason the hilarious thought of the fed govt trying to track down every poker link on every site and also tying that site to an ISP and sending out ntoice to the ISP, etc doesn't make you realize how ineffective this part of the bill is, consider: every poker / gambling website can just head for a candian ISP.
Edited by chrisptp (09/29/06 10:59 PM)
|
Paulpop72
newbie
Reged: 07/14/06
Posts: 26
Loc: New York
|
|
Quote:
But playing online poker in the US isn't 'unlawful internet gambling' in most states, right? I thought it was explicitly illegal in Washington and Nevada, but isn't it legal in most other states?
What am I missing here?
I had contacted law officials over a year ago here in NY. And they told me it is illegal.
But that certainly hasn't stopped some of the top online players and many others from playing.
I have always thought if you report your winnings and give Uncle Sam money by way of taxes...they would just gladly take it. However, it looks as though the tide has turned.
|
LesJ
old hand
Reged: 05/11/05
Posts: 1003
|
|
Quote:
That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
That comment really suprises me, Nate. My belief is that this obviously isn't a good set of developments, but that most all of this will be overcome. The market of players ($) here in the United States is too great for the major online sites to not do whatever it takes to be able to continue to placate them.
We are all concerned about how difficult it will be for fish to deposit/withdraw cash from poker sites. Hell, when I first deposited, I thought the whole neteller thing was weird. "Why can't I just use my credit card?" "Why do I have to use this other site that I have never heard of?" "How do I cash out if I win?" I had all these various questions and concerns and I still went thru the trouble bought in.
There are many doomsday scenarios out there right now. I am obviously not very happy about the way this is going down. But I would be very suprised if I am NOT playing poker online in a year.
Les
|
felson
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/21/03
Posts: 2177
|
|
nh, Congress.
This forum just got a lot more popular.
|
Busted_Flat
journeyman
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 57
|
|
Quote:
See pages 231 and 232 - as we suspected, there is a 270 day window in which the AG will have to make determinations in regards to enforcement.
However I do not see a 270-day timeframe on blocking ISP's.
|
IHateCats
addict
Reged: 03/16/05
Posts: 642
|
|
Is there anything in there about the much discussed 270 days delay? Unforunately I'm 8 tabling right now in a desperate last attmept to get my fix so I can't peruse it in detail.
|
Utah
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/10/03
Posts: 4455
Loc: Point Break
|
|
Quote:
They only have to remove the links IF THEY ARE GIVEN NOTICE to remove the links. The bill explicitly says that ISP's have ZERO responsibility to go looking for these links.
um...am I missing something? The government tells them to ban partypoker.com, pokerstars.com, etc. How are the players going to find the sites if they are constantly switching? Am I misunderstanding this?
|
xxThe_Lebowskixx
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 3784
Loc: Indeed.
|
|
The worst part of this text imho is that it seems Fed will play a central role locating which foriegn banks have gambling connections.
|
kleath
4/180 Champion of Champions
Reged: 05/12/06
Posts: 1800
Loc: /\ lean wit it rock wit it/\
|
|
Quote:
After reading and re-reading the text here, I'm not seeing any language that exempts horse racing/lotteries. I'm not the most experienced in reading forms like this but I'm just saying I don't see it.
Did those exemptions disappear? Did Frist basically take a dump on ALL gambling and not just us?
222-223 there is some horse racing mentions.
sup from SRK btw Viscant.
Another thing I noticed in this was that if prizepools are not affected by the amount of players it seems tournaments are not considered wagers.
|
Jeff W
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/31/04
Posts: 7079
|
|
Quote:
someone mentioned this in their interpretation of the first bill (see the link in my post above), that its possible we could challenge the constitutionality of this bill on the basis that they failed to give fair notice of exactly what this bill prohibits because its so extremely vague/overbroad. kind of a reach i guess, but who knows..
Wouldn't this have to be challenged in court--i.e. long drawn out process with damage done by the time it's over anyway?
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
yeah
edit: but i mean, saying the "damage is done" is probably overstating it.
first of all, if the way you guys are interpreting the ISP thing is correct (and i think it should be and hope it is), then i don't think this bill is "armageddon" or whatever. if it is, however, and online poker is totally [censored], it's better for it to come back in three years than not at all.
Edited by mlagoo (09/29/06 11:04 PM)
|
xxThe_Lebowskixx
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 3784
Loc: Indeed.
|
|
oh yeah, how the heck did ISP block make it in there?
where is the AACP?
if it is not illegal to play poker for individual, why cant they access the site?
|
kipin
Gigantor
Reged: 05/30/04
Posts: 6556
Loc: Supporting Ron Paul
|
|
The government should fear the people, the people should never fear the government.
Somewhere we took a wrong turn.
|
whitepotatoe
member
Reged: 03/03/06
Posts: 190
Loc: Chicago
|
|
I think that was a long time ago.
|
Megenoita
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 10/10/04
Posts: 1843
Loc: VA
|
|
There does seem to be good news in this text--there is no revision of the Wire Act, is that correct? That seems to be a very positive sign. It means that if there is a way found to get money in and out, and assuming party and pokerstars and the other big sites keep on allowing U.S. citizens to play, we can continue to play online poker--it's not clearly illegal as it would be had the revision gotten in.
|
luckyharr
addict
Reged: 07/19/04
Posts: 420
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
Quote:
They only have to remove the links IF THEY ARE GIVEN NOTICE to remove the links. The bill explicitly says that ISP's have ZERO responsibility to go looking for these links and have ZERO liability for links that they weren't notified of by the fed govt.
If for some reason the hilarious thought of the fed govt trying to track down every poker link on every site and also tying that site to an ISP and sending out ntoice to the ISP, etc doesn't make you realize how ineffective this part of the bill is, consider: every poker / gambling website can just head for a candian ISP.
True. It is a hilarious that our tax dollars would go towards manually hunting down links. I would assume they would just create scripts to automatically scan web sites for links, and automatically generate notifications to the ISP hosting offending web sites. I mean, that's the way I'd go about it enforcing that part of the bill. Hmmm, maybe there's a business opportunity here?
Also, the Canadian argument. Isn't that a moot point if the Canadian ISP's lack US traffic? I feel like a huge amount of advertising inventory would be off limits to the poker sites. Correct me if I'm completely misunderstanding you here.
Meh, I hope Lucky Chances starts spreading more mid limit holdem games.
|
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/16/03
Posts: 3054
Loc: You talkin' to me?
|
|
Quote:
The best part of this text imho is that it seems Fed will play a central role locating which foriegn banks have gambling connections.
FYP. After this fiasco, I don't think thate the federal government is competent enough to protect a cup of warm piss.
|
emptyshell
addict
Reged: 02/05/05
Posts: 513
|
|
No concern over the up to five years for cashing out? p 230. I won't be playing with that risk.
|
IHateCats
addict
Reged: 03/16/05
Posts: 642
|
|
That was a given, who do you think processes check transactions between banks in the US, your fairy godmother? It's the Fed.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
No concern over the up to five years for cashing out? p 230. I won't be playing with that risk.
its not the players that are punished for receiving the cashout, its the gambling businesses (Party, Stars) that are punished for providing it.
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
The ISP section, as far as I can tell (someone with a reasonable interp please explain) only says that
a) ISP's cannot host a gaming site on their server if the government tells them they have one there. The bill specifically says that ISP's have NO obligation to monitor / go looking for such things.
2) Same with links to gambling sites (.net sites wouldn't count).
This whole '5 years for cashing out' is insane. The bulk of the bill is just a direction to the AG and the FED to set up some rules. Can't break rules that aren't set up yet.
Edited by chrisptp (09/29/06 11:22 PM)
|
bottomset
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/25/04
Posts: 12983
Loc: middleset ftw
|
|
PartyHorseRacing anyone?
|
BluffTHIS!
censor stultorum
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 10311
Loc: I can hold my breath longer th...
|
|
Reposting Aviva's post from other thread and my reply:
Aviva: "Okay, I've read over the text of the bill linked here:
http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/hr49543_portscr.pdf
Gambling stuff starts at page 213.
It does four things. First, it makes it explicitly illegal to accept bets over the internet. Okay, that won't change much. Executives of online gambling companies will have to avoid changing planes in the US. That's really about it.
Second, it makes it illegal for anyone in the business of accepting bets to receive money through credit cards, electronic funds transfers, etc. It forces banks to join some kind of program, specified by as-yet unwritten regulations, to identify and deny such transactions. There is a huge loophole here. Neteller, Firepay, etc. are not in the business of accepting bets, and therefore are exempt. Personally, this won't affect how I move funds at all.
Third, there is some very vague language about interactive computer systems. Basically, websites/ISPs might be required to remove links to gambling sites, but they are not required to actively seek out and remove their links, and they can't be punished until they've been warned at least once.
Fourth, there's some squishy language about cooperating with foreign governments to prevent money laundering and such.
That's about it. The devil is in the details, and the regulations they come up with might have sharper teeth than the bill, but I don't think this will affect anything.
Here's what it DOESN'T do:
-Make it illegal for individuals to place bets over the internet
-Make it illegal for individuals to receive money from gambling sites
-Specify that advertising gambling is illegal (all you US-based affiliates can breath easy)
I think this is a win for poker players. There's toothless legislation in place, which will prevent real legislation from coming through."
Bluff:"Aviva,
I'm no lawyer, so the language might not be as bad as I and most think it is. And I did read the text as well. But I'm not sure if they can label neteller and such as money transfer business primarily engaged in facilitating gambling transactions, and then block transactions to them as well as direct one to the poker/gambling sites. So I think that needs to be resolved. However it would *seem* hard for them to cutout such middlemen who aren't subsidiaries of gambling sites. "
|
Jussurreal
member
Reged: 06/27/06
Posts: 103
Loc: Finna Fly Yall !
|
|
I'm waiting for Mr. K to reply about whats going on before I make any judgements.
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
How about you read the bill for yourself? it's in english, after all.
|
Sephus
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/10/04
Posts: 3994
|
|
Quote:
How about you read the bill for yourself? it's in english, after all.
this is a dumb comment.
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
No, what's dumb is a bunch of people forming opinions on this issue without taking the time and effort to read the bill.
What's dumb is the undercurrent of this and other threads that implies you have to be a lawyer / genuis to make any sense of the law. It's in English. It's convoluted, it requires more attention that the sports page, but it's also important that we take the time to actually read it if we're going to be speaking about it to others.
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
chris,
it is actually difficult for people to read and understand these bills. not all online poker players have college educations, etc. most people aren't accustomed to reading things more dense than the sports page, and will become distracted/confused while doing so. i'm not saying they shouldn't try, i'm just saying it's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone tried reading it and just couldn't understand it all as a whole (even having read it twice now, i'm still fuzzy on a few points).
|
Reject
newbie
Reged: 09/14/06
Posts: 37
|
|
Quote:
The bill says that the AG and the Fed need to come up with some rules about how banks should handle 'restricted transactions'. It also gives banks tons of ways, preemptively, to avoid ever doing so.
What the heck is everyone else reading? Or are you?
I agree with this in regards to banks. The fed gets to design most of the rules about how to detect and define unwanted transactions. It makes sense that they would go with the least costly way for them to do so. This leaves room for plenty of holes.
|
chrisptp
journeyman
Reged: 05/27/05
Posts: 80
Loc: midwest
|
|
I get and appreciate that it is difficult. I had to read the thing 4 times and several times I had to stop and back track and read certain sections aloud because I couldn't keep track of them in my head.
That said, I think it's worth the effort, and I don't know that many people who are choosing to have an opinion have made that effort. Given the importance of a rational, measured response to this situation, I think it's critical we all know as much as we possibly can as individuals (instead of accepting the opinion of whatever poster sounds the smartest).
|
Aytumious
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/07/05
Posts: 1734
|
|
Quote:
I don't think the prisons are really going to be filled with people caught playing some 3/6? It seems like an empty threat to threaten prison.
And yet our prisons are filled with harmless pot smokers. I wouldn't put anything past our psychopathic leaders.
|
BradleyT
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/01/03
Posts: 7087
Loc: Vote Ron Paul 08
|
|
How can they regulate and/or punish Neteller which is in a foreign country?
|
mlagoo
Karma Cooler FTW
Reged: 02/24/05
Posts: 12644
Loc: confused
|
|
Quote:
How can they regulate and/or punish Neteller which is in a foreign country?
i thought the same thing, it turns out that isnt the case.
|
Busted_Flat
journeyman
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 57
|
|
Quote:
How can they regulate and/or punish Neteller which is in a foreign country?
They can instruct U.S. Banks not to accept Neteller transactions, something like the state of Maryland has done.
|
adanthar
Possibly Too Level Headed
Reged: 04/02/04
Posts: 14174
Loc: Intrepidly Reporting
|
|
Quote:
Third, there is some very vague language about interactive computer systems. Basically, websites/ISPs might be required to remove links to gambling sites, but they are not required to actively seek out and remove their links, and they can't be punished until they've been warned at least once.
This is the key provision and it appears to be worse than this summary. It looks like the Attorney General is responsible for providing ISP's with this information (at which point, they have to remove the links and/or block the sites). The practical effect is that there will be a list with a lot of sites on it that will be updated every so often.
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty). I need to stay here a while longer to get my wife her green card so she can have some options, but after that, goodbye, US. It's been great.
|
yoursmine
enthusiast
Reged: 09/15/06
Posts: 247
|
|
Quote:
I get and appreciate that it is difficult. I had to read the thing 4 times and several times I had to stop and back track and read certain sections aloud because I couldn't keep track of them in my head.
That said, I think it's worth the effort, and I don't know that many people who are choosing to have an opinion have made that effort. Given the importance of a rational, measured response to this situation, I think it's critical we all know as much as we possibly can as individuals (instead of accepting the opinion of whatever poster sounds the smartest).
Do you always read the tax code (4000 pages) when you have a tax related quesiton in April? Thats what most of us pay a CPA for.
We do need to wait to hear from the experts perhaps the lawyers at the PPA and I am sure the online sites will have a thing or two to say. 90% of all players at online gambling sites are American so the sites wont go down without a fight. Im sure their lawyers will be looking it over with a fine tooth comb and if there are loopholes they will find them. Everyone needs to just sit tight and not panic.
Or else move.
|
kidpokeher
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/14/06
Posts: 2115
Loc: value shoving
|
|
FWIW, I just read through the text three different times and this is the best summary I can come up with.
1) It's pretty clear they have lumped online poker in the definition of "unlawful gambling." (pg.214-215 & 221) The only area of contention is whether poker is a game of "chance" as opposed to a game of "skill" but good luck with that.
2) The term "restricted transaction" we're going to start hearing a lot more of. "The term restricted transaction means any transaction or transmittal involving any credit, funds, instrument, or proceeds... which the recipient is prohibited from accepting..." (pg. 221)
3) They have also clearly included Neteller in the definition as a money transmitting service and a financial transaction provider. Banks, credit card companies, etc are also considered financial transaction providers. (pg. 220)
4) They then go on to say that "no person engaged in the business of betting may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling..." funds like credit cards, money transfers, etc... (Sec 5363, pg 230)
5) Sec 5364 (pg 231) is where things start to get tricky. It appears the Feds are supposed to "prescribe regulations... requiring each payment system... to block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions..." Does this mean the gov't can now tell banks not to accept Neteller transactions? I don't know but it looks that way. This is also supported later in the text (pgs 236 & 237) where the US Atty General and the State Atty General are given the power to "institute proceedings under this section to prevent or restrain the violation or threatened violation."
6) They also devoted many pages to exclude horse racing or gambling on tribal lands because these are, like, different and stuff.
So what does all this mean? To me it means the government is telling us Internet gambling is unlawful. Because it's unlawful, PartyPoker and the rest can't accept US funds. Since they can't stop PartyPoker from giving them the bird, they're saying the Feds and the State can now do whatever it takes to stop these "restricted transactions" from happening; thereby saving us from ourselves.
|
kidpokeher
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/14/06
Posts: 2115
Loc: value shoving
|
|
Quote:
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty).
I've looked into Canada and it appears to be damn difficult. Medical exams, police investigations, and they won't take you unless you have workplace skills they can use. Something tells me poker player isn't on the list.
From there it's 2-4 years to be accepted if you're lucky. Longer if you're not. The irony... makes me want to vomit.
|
microbet
The Best Poster Ever
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 7668
Loc: fighting the power
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty).
I've looked into Canada and it appears to be damn difficult. Medical exams, police investigations, and they won't take you unless you have workplace skills they can use. Something tells me poker player isn't on the list.
From there it's 2-4 years to be accepted if you're lucky. Longer if you're not. The irony... makes me want to vomit.
I think buying a farm is a good way into canada.
|
xxThe_Lebowskixx
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/21/06
Posts: 3784
Loc: Indeed.
|
|
remember when you guys used to flame me for saying the USA sucked. lol.
|
microbet
The Best Poster Ever
Reged: 01/02/05
Posts: 7668
Loc: fighting the power
|
|
Quote:
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty). I need to stay here a while longer to get my wife her green card so she can have some options, but after that, goodbye, US. It's been great.
Wait! Adanthar!!! I thought you were on the side saying it won't be the end?!?!?!?!?!
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That said, I would be surprised if I were playing online poker in a year's time.
That comment really suprises me, Nate. My belief is that this obviously isn't a good set of developments, but that most all of this will be overcome. The market of players ($) here in the United States is too great for the major online sites to not do whatever it takes to be able to continue to placate them.
We are all concerned about how difficult it will be for fish to deposit/withdraw cash from poker sites. Hell, when I first deposited, I thought the whole neteller thing was weird. "Why can't I just use my credit card?" "Why do I have to use this other site that I have never heard of?" "How do I cash out if I win?" I had all these various questions and concerns and I still went thru the trouble bought in.
There are many doomsday scenarios out there right now. I am obviously not very happy about the way this is going down. But I would be very suprised if I am NOT playing poker online in a year.
Les
When I said the above, part of this was based on a first read of the bill text that may have been unnecessarily negative, although I remain convinced that the poker bubble will at least be deflated signficantly and possibly entirely burst. The exception perhaps is if the regulations are influenced by the banking industry to the degree that they're more or less intentionally building in large loopholes for things like NETELLER.
Part of it is personal too. I've always had a love/hate relationship with online poker and I think I can find other things to do with those 15 hours a week that might be better for me from a quality-of-life perspective if the profitabiltiy of online poker goes significantly down. So if I had my own tradesports contract  I think it would be under 50 percent between the probability that it really does become nearly impossible to play and the possibility that we're sorta-kinda-maybe okay but I elect against it.
|
oreopimp
Professional Degenerate
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 4926
Loc: the American Bukkake
|
|
Quote:
Reposting Aviva's post from other thread and my reply:
Aviva: "Okay, I've read over the text of the bill linked here:
http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/hr49543_portscr.pdf
Gambling stuff starts at page 213.
It does four things. First, it makes it explicitly illegal to accept bets over the internet. Okay, that won't change much. Executives of online gambling companies will have to avoid changing planes in the US. That's really about it.
Second, it makes it illegal for anyone in the business of accepting bets to receive money through credit cards, electronic funds transfers, etc. It forces banks to join some kind of program, specified by as-yet unwritten regulations, to identify and deny such transactions. There is a huge loophole here. Neteller, Firepay, etc. are not in the business of accepting bets, and therefore are exempt. Personally, this won't affect how I move funds at all.
Third, there is some very vague language about interactive computer systems. Basically, websites/ISPs might be required to remove links to gambling sites, but they are not required to actively seek out and remove their links, and they can't be punished until they've been warned at least once.
Fourth, there's some squishy language about cooperating with foreign governments to prevent money laundering and such.
That's about it. The devil is in the details, and the regulations they come up with might have sharper teeth than the bill, but I don't think this will affect anything.
Here's what it DOESN'T do:
-Make it illegal for individuals to place bets over the internet
-Make it illegal for individuals to receive money from gambling sites
-Specify that advertising gambling is illegal (all you US-based affiliates can breath easy)
I think this is a win for poker players. There's toothless legislation in place, which will prevent real legislation from coming through."
Bluff:"Aviva,
I'm no lawyer, so the language might not be as bad as I and most think it is. And I did read the text as well. But I'm not sure if they can label neteller and such as money transfer business primarily engaged in facilitating gambling transactions, and then block transactions to them as well as direct one to the poker/gambling sites. So I think that needs to be resolved. However it would *seem* hard for them to cutout such middlemen who aren't subsidiaries of gambling sites. "
yeah Im going with this outlook on the future. makes me feel better.
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Reposting Aviva's post from other thread and my reply:
Aviva: "Okay, I've read over the text of the bill linked here:
http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/hr49543_portscr.pdf
Gambling stuff starts at page 213.
It does four things. First, it makes it explicitly illegal to accept bets over the internet. Okay, that won't change much. Executives of online gambling companies will have to avoid changing planes in the US. That's really about it.
Second, it makes it illegal for anyone in the business of accepting bets to receive money through credit cards, electronic funds transfers, etc. It forces banks to join some kind of program, specified by as-yet unwritten regulations, to identify and deny such transactions. There is a huge loophole here. Neteller, Firepay, etc. are not in the business of accepting bets, and therefore are exempt. Personally, this won't affect how I move funds at all.
Third, there is some very vague language about interactive computer systems. Basically, websites/ISPs might be required to remove links to gambling sites, but they are not required to actively seek out and remove their links, and they can't be punished until they've been warned at least once.
Fourth, there's some squishy language about cooperating with foreign governments to prevent money laundering and such.
That's about it. The devil is in the details, and the regulations they come up with might have sharper teeth than the bill, but I don't think this will affect anything.
Here's what it DOESN'T do:
-Make it illegal for individuals to place bets over the internet
-Make it illegal for individuals to receive money from gambling sites
-Specify that advertising gambling is illegal (all you US-based affiliates can breath easy)
I think this is a win for poker players. There's toothless legislation in place, which will prevent real legislation from coming through."
Bluff:"Aviva,
I'm no lawyer, so the language might not be as bad as I and most think it is. And I did read the text as well. But I'm not sure if they can label neteller and such as money transfer business primarily engaged in facilitating gambling transactions, and then block transactions to them as well as direct one to the poker/gambling sites. So I think that needs to be resolved. However it would *seem* hard for them to cutout such middlemen who aren't subsidiaries of gambling sites. "
yeah Im going with this outlook on the future. makes me feel better.
Aviva's reading strikes me as slightly on the optmistic side, although I'm not a lawyer and this isn't a strong opinion. But the one point he makes that is absolutely 100% important to remember is that the regulations by and large haven't been written yet. It's clear enough IMO that the legislative intent was to include things like NETELLER but the actual substance of the way that the regulations are intepreted and enforced could vary along a wide spectrum.
|
noseeds99
enthusiast
Reged: 11/21/05
Posts: 360
Loc: Lawrence
|
|
Quote:
poker is not a game of chance
i think its a game subject to chance though right?
|
oreopimp
Professional Degenerate
Reged: 10/16/04
Posts: 4926
Loc: the American Bukkake
|
|
yea. not sure.
|
adanthar
Possibly Too Level Headed
Reged: 04/02/04
Posts: 14174
Loc: Intrepidly Reporting
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty). I need to stay here a while longer to get my wife her green card so she can have some options, but after that, goodbye, US. It's been great.
Wait! Adanthar!!! I thought you were on the side saying it won't be the end?!?!?!?!?!
It's not the end. It's just the end for me, because I'm pissed off with other things in the US as it is and this is pretty much the last (giant) straw.
BTW, ironically, I'm an immigration attorney that helps people get citizenship. I should write Alanis Morrisette, maybe she can smuggle me into Canada or something.
|
StellarWind
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/02/04
Posts: 6569
|
|
Well I read it .
1. I don't see any rules that make it illegal for gambling sites to send money back to their customers.
2. I don't see any rules that make it illegal for Neteller and similar services to receive payments from (or make payments to) their account holders.
3. The rulemakers apparently have a duty under 5364(b)(4) to ensure that their rules don't result in blocking of legal transactions. That would seem to prevent rules that result in blocking deposits to Neteller and similar services.
4. Neteller and similar services obviously can't comply with the coming bank regulations so they may need to move completely offshore. Would that exempt them from our banking regulations if they continue to have U.S. account holders? Or do they become as illegal under U.S. law as the gambling sites they service? It's interesting to think of a hypothetical "real" European bank that happens to have a few U.S. customers with accounts linked to Party. What laws apply and how would they be enforced?
5. The internet access provision seems pretty harmless. They can force a service provider to take down an illegal gambling site operating on their servers. Like that would be the enforcement action of choice against someone caught running a site on U.S. soil  . More seriously, they can attack U.S.-based affiliates by forcing removal of direct links to illegal overseas sites. But there seems to be no provision for removing text URLs that cannot be clicked. Probably a justified fear of First Amendment litigation on their part. So maybe we see circumventions like "type in www<dot>pokerfoo<dot>com and enter bonus code POKERFUN100".
6. It isn't easy or convenient for the government to force a computer service provider to do anything. They have to do all the research themselves and then be very specific about what they want which is tough when the offending web site may change its links in the middle of the process. There is even a provision for a hearing before the service provider has to remove offending material. Going after affiliate links may be pretty impractical.
Comments please .
|
Leader
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 01/03/05
Posts: 7682
Loc: Excellence: Learn, Play, Win.
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty). I need to stay here a while longer to get my wife her green card so she can have some options, but after that, goodbye, US. It's been great.
Wait! Adanthar!!! I thought you were on the side saying it won't be the end?!?!?!?!?!
It's not the end. It's just the end for me, because I'm pissed off with other things in the US as it is and this is pretty much the last (giant) straw.
BTW, ironically, I'm an immigration attorney that helps people get citizenship. I should write Alanis Morrisette, maybe she can smuggle me into Canada or something.
Do you have to be Jewish to easily get into Israel, or does it make no difference? Just out of curiosity.
|
Sponger.
HEADS WILL ROLL
Reged: 05/20/04
Posts: 19136
Loc: San Diego
|
|
Quote:
And yet our prisons are filled with harmless pot smokers.
This is not true.
|
Nate tha\\\' Great
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/07/03
Posts: 8480
Loc: blogging
|
|
Quote:
3. The rulemakers apparently have a duty under 5364(b)(4) to ensure that their rules don't result in blocking of legal transactions. That would seem to prevent rules that result in blocking deposits to Neteller and similar services.
My understanding is that this section waives them from civil proceedings (e.g. lawsuits) for failing in this duty. Put differently, it takes the burden of proof off the banks; you couldn't sue them if they inadvertently block a NETELLER<->Ebay transaction, for example.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
Artsemis
veteran
Reged: 07/08/05
Posts: 1468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
Quote:
You ever felt what its like screwing over millions of people at once? Nothing else quite measures up or brings you as close to God as that. Regardless of what happens from here its a win for me.
All your Dikshits are belong to me. you really think you can stop it? Whatever, Whatever, I do what I want.
best spoof account ever
|
_Jager_
stranger
Reged: 09/30/06
Posts: 16
|
|
Well just an opinion, but it seems that this bill is aimed at expanding the current laws from only being able to attack online sportsbook to also include any online casino operators. If of course they ever enter this country. They are doing this whereby accepting deposits and placing wagers from americans becomes illegal. This allows our government to arrest them when they enter our soil. It seems that us placing a bet will be no more illegal than it is now, and no more enforcable. Most banks and credit cards already will not fund any online gaming as it is, my friends who are fish all have neteller becasue they love to play. As long as we can reach the gaming sites people will play, and the government will try to stop them from taking our bets.
|
daveymck
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/06/03
Posts: 4987
Loc: UK
|
|
Section 5363
Is this section going to impact affiliates? My reading of it would suggest it will make it illegal for affiliates to receive any money that is related to others gambilng?
|
bkholdem
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/30/04
Posts: 4328
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty).
I've looked into Canada and it appears to be damn difficult. Medical exams, police investigations, and they won't take you unless you have workplace skills they can use. Something tells me poker player isn't on the list.
From there it's 2-4 years to be accepted if you're lucky. Longer if you're not. The irony... makes me want to vomit.
Check out costa rica. from what i remember it's not hard to get permanent residency status but there are some govt hoops to jump through.
|
bkholdem
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/30/04
Posts: 4328
|
|
Quote:
remember when you guys used to flame me for saying the USA sucked. lol.
not me, i already knew it sucked and i've lived here longer than most lol
|
Hock_
old hand
Reged: 08/03/05
Posts: 828
|
|
Quote:
My understanding is that this section waives them from civil proceedings (e.g. lawsuits) for failing in this duty. Put differently, it takes the burden of proof off the banks; you couldn't sue them if they inadvertently block a NETELLER<->Ebay transaction, for example.
True, but from what I gather regarding the technoligical difficulties and cost involved in screening the transactions, the task of drafting the implementing regs is going to be really difficult. That's why in my other "summary" post I highlighted that somewhat odd exception that excuses the Fed from passing regulations relating to blocking transactions that can't be blocked reasonably practicably. If I were representing the banking industry I'd push HARD on that exception during the rulemaking process (also briefly explained in an earlier post of mine in the summary thread). And, if the banking industry were successful as to any category of transactions, consider what that would mean for us. If there were ANY exception it could (probably) be used by the sites to entirely circumvent the financial transaction portion of the Act -- they only need one way to get money in and out for people to be able to play.
|
BluffTHIS!
censor stultorum
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 10311
Loc: I can hold my breath longer th...
|
|
Hock,
See my "loopholes/end run" thread. I think adding one more layer of middleman in financial transactions and server routing might make the implementation problems you note fit the standard of "unreasonably hard".
|
MannyIsGod
addict
Reged: 12/21/05
Posts: 627
|
|
Quote:
Well I read it .
1. I don't see any rules that make it illegal for gambling sites to send money back to their customers.
2. I don't see any rules that make it illegal for Neteller and similar services to receive payments from (or make payments to) their account holders.
3. The rulemakers apparently have a duty under 5364(b)(4) to ensure that their rules don't result in blocking of legal transactions. That would seem to prevent rules that result in blocking deposits to Neteller and similar services.
4. Neteller and similar services obviously can't comply with the coming bank regulations so they may need to move completely offshore. Would that exempt them from our banking regulations if they continue to have U.S. account holders? Or do they become as illegal under U.S. law as the gambling sites they service? It's interesting to think of a hypothetical "real" European bank that happens to have a few U.S. customers with accounts linked to Party. What laws apply and how would they be enforced?
5. The internet access provision seems pretty harmless. They can force a service provider to take down an illegal gambling site operating on their servers. Like that would be the enforcement action of choice against someone caught running a site on U.S. soil . More seriously, they can attack U.S.-based affiliates by forcing removal of direct links to illegal overseas sites. But there seems to be no provision for removing text URLs that cannot be clicked. Probably a justified fear of First Amendment litigation on their part. So maybe we see circumventions like "type in www<dot>pokerfoo<dot>com and enter bonus code POKERFUN100".
6. It isn't easy or convenient for the government to force a computer service provider to do anything. They have to do all the research themselves and then be very specific about what they want which is tough when the offending web site may change its links in the middle of the process. There is even a provision for a hearing before the service provider has to remove offending material. Going after affiliate links may be pretty impractical.
Comments please .
If thats true, then I'm not nearly as worried. IF.
|
BluffTHIS!
censor stultorum
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 10311
Loc: I can hold my breath longer th...
|
|
But those rules also give civil immunity to financial institutions who block what turn out to be legit transactions.
|
StellarWind
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/02/04
Posts: 6569
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
3. The rulemakers apparently have a duty under 5364(b)(4) to ensure that their rules don't result in blocking of legal transactions. That would seem to prevent rules that result in blocking deposits to Neteller and similar services.
My understanding is that this section waives them from civil proceedings (e.g. lawsuits) for failing in this duty. Put differently, it takes the burden of proof off the banks; you couldn't sue them if they inadvertently block a NETELLER<->Ebay transaction, for example.
The section I am talking about refers to the implementing regulations themselves. The regulations must not require banks to block legitimate transactions. Presumably a court could overturn a regulation that violated this principle. I am hopeful that it means that this law cannot be used to create a regulation that requires banks to block transfers to third-party conduits such as Neteller.
If it became well-established that transfers to Neteller are not fair game for enforcement then any bank that routinely blocked them anyway could not hide behind the liability shield in the law. Not that this would make a practical difference. Your bank could turn down an EFT to Neteller tomorrow for no reason at all and there is probably nothing you could do about it legally speaking. It's their business and they have broad latitude to run it however they want.
|
Poker_Hoar
enthusiast
Reged: 01/11/06
Posts: 237
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well I read it .
6. It isn't easy or convenient for the government to force a computer service provider to do anything. They have to do all the research themselves and then be very specific about what they want which is tough when the offending web site may change its links in the middle of the process. There is even a provision for a hearing before the service provider has to remove offending material. Going after affiliate links may be pretty impractical.
Comments please .
If thats true, then I'm not nearly as worried. IF.
Yeah, like just ask Verison and ATT why they provided phone call records to the government. Or ask the SWIFT (wire transfer) people why they did so.
You my friend are smoking crack if you underestimate how quickly companies will bend over in our new Nazi state.
|
Hock_
old hand
Reged: 08/03/05
Posts: 828
|
|
Quote:
See my "loopholes/end run" thread. I think adding one more layer of middleman in financial transactions and server routing might make the implementation problems you note fit the standard of "unreasonably hard".
I haven't seen that and that may well be right. All I had in mind was the "simple" task of screening transactions to determine which are associated with gaming. My understanding is that the banking industry has said that such screening is, at least given currently used technology and processes, virtually impossible without individually checking every one of the billions(?) of transactions every day.
|
StellarWind
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/02/04
Posts: 6569
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, like just ask Verison and ATT why they provided phone call records to the government. Or ask the SWIFT (wire transfer) people why they did so.
You my friend are smoking crack if you underestimate how quickly companies will bend over in our new Nazi state.
Pornographers, spammers, and all sorts of low-life have no problems operating on the Internet. Niche ISPs spring up to handle anyone that is too ugly for the Verizons of the world to touch.
No doubt some ISPs may agree to a streamlined system of handling government requests or even proactively boot gambling affiliates. But someone out there will be happy to insist that everything be exact and in writing before they take the legally required action. Of course they will probably charge extra for this service.
|
BluffTHIS!
censor stultorum
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 10311
Loc: I can hold my breath longer th...
|
|
Bump for day crowd.
|
schwza
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/02/03
Posts: 10485
Loc: get more chips than chips ahoy
|
|
Quote:
I have been passively researching immigration, and it appears that within the next two years, I can get permanent residence in Israel, Belize, the UK and Canada (pretty much in that order of difficulty). I need to stay here a while longer to get my wife her green card so she can have some options, but after that, goodbye, US. It's been great.
is belize easy for people to move to in general or do you have some kind of special connection? i was just reading about it on wikipedia and it looks pretty cool. are there a lot of hoops to jump through? i'd be trying to move there as a poker player, btw. thanks.
|
StellarWind
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/02/04
Posts: 6569
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
3. The rulemakers apparently have a duty under 5364(b)(4) to ensure that their rules don't result in blocking of legal transactions. That would seem to prevent rules that result in blocking deposits to Neteller and similar services.
My understanding is that this section waives them from civil proceedings (e.g. lawsuits) for failing in this duty. Put differently, it takes the burden of proof off the banks; you couldn't sue them if they inadvertently block a NETELLER<->Ebay transaction, for example.
I just realized that we are not looking at the same section. Look under 5364(b)(4):
"(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.--In prescribing regulations under subsection (a), the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall--
...
(4) ensure that transactions in connection with any activity excluded from the definition of unlawful gambling in subparagraphs (B), (C), or (D)(i) of section 5362(10) are not blocked or otherwise prevented or prohibited by the prescribed regulations."
|
Two Plus Two 
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
