UIGEA Fallout! Don't Worry about the eWallets: Worry about the Network

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I have no doubt billman will jump in here, but assuming PokerStars would accept wire transfers, exactly how difficult would it be for the DOJ to aquire their SWIFT number or bank routing number?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nearly impossible presuming that their bank is a member of SWIFT and the US Government cannot make a compelling case to SWIFT that Pokerstars is engaged in funding terrorism. Again, please read the link and the excerpted package - only criminal activity relating to terrorism and not to any other crime with explicit exceptions mentioned for crimes such as tax evasion and money laundering. And they are figting scope creep on that as we speak.

[ QUOTE ]
Put it on a list, and there you have it. I guess I'm not understanding your point. (Not that I really want to believe billman either, btw)

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, I am pretty sure that its that you don't understand how SWIFT works as you are thnking its entirely analogous to EFTs etc and well, its really not. SWIFT is successful precisely because it depends on miniscule regulation, data privacy and mutual trust amongst banks. And, oh yeah, the world economy would be hurt pretty substantially if it were run any other way.

A telling statement from the same link as earlier:
Unlike its member banks, SWIFT has no relationship with the bank’s clients. The financial institutions, who know their clients, collect their private data and act on their instructions.

Also from the above link and the highlighted passages it should be pretty clear how an e-wallet could successfully exist outside without use of conventional EFTs.

[Rigel]

Glad to hear it- hope you are correct.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good catch. My description was a little misleading. Bank wires do travel on a network that is less willing to participate in the DOJ's witch hunt. That being said, a US citizen would need to initiate a transfer via a US bank (unless they had a foreign bank account in which case the argument is moot). If the DOJ supplies a list of recipient accounts that US banks should ban from transferring funds to it has the same effect as an ACH/EFT blockage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Umm and how would they acquire and maintain that list? One of the key components of the SWIFT network is that it maintains near absolute data privacy. SWIFT has agreed to let the monitoring of its transactions under excepionally restricitve conditions and with very reliable safeguards about the US maintaining their safeguards.

Swift's explanation of US DoJ access to their financial records

[ QUOTE ]
Can the data be used for any purpose?
No. Important restrictions apply to how the UST can access and use the data. The UST cannot simply browse through the data. They are only allowed to see data that is responsive to targeted searches in the context of a specific terrorism investigation. Data searches must be based only on persons, entities or related information with an identified connection to an ongoing terrorism investigation or other intelligence that the target is connected to terrorism.

The UST cannot search the data for any other purpose such as ‘economic espionage’ or for evidence of any non-terrorist related crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or any other criminal activity. As a result, the UST accesses only a minute fraction of the data that SWIFT is required to provide. A record is made of every single search.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis mine, clearly. In short, if you read those pages, is pretty clear that SWIFT isn't agreeing to expand US subpoena power as they have a lot to lose and nothing to gain. Billman, you have either been somewhat grossly and intentionally trying to mislead people in this thread into hysterics or, contrary to your earlier assertions you don't indeed know everything you claim to about banking in general and the likelihood of moving money to and from sites becoming infeasible specifically. Others can decide how they feel about that.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well if you're intent on being an a-hole, let me explain . Wire transfers are sender initiated. In order to wire money from point a to point b you have to tell your bank what point b is. Now let's supposed the DOJ isn't run by slobbering idiots. If they can figure out who the bad guys are at point b, they can just tell your bank not to send wire transfers to point b.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]

Well if you're intent on being an a-hole, let me explain . Wire transfers are sender initiated. In order to wire money from point a to point b you have to tell your bank what point b is. Now let's supposed the DOJ isn't run by slobbering idiots. If they can figure out who the bad guys are at point b, they can just tell your bank not to send wire transfers to point b.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was you, not me, who was first the a--hole in this exchange with your response to my first post in this thread which was either ignoant of how SWIFT worked (or possibly SWIFT's existence) or deliberately misinformative.

As for your assertions after about how easy it would be for the DoJ to shut this down I am tending to think you are more misinformed than deliberately spreading false information. Or do you still not see that it would be incredibly easy (albeit expensive) to set up an e-wallet in the EU that would be beyond enforcement from the US DOJ? And do you not see how burdensome this would be on US banks to have a constantly updated series of Swift account numbers to police? And that SWIFT doesn't give a flyng piss about anything but making money? Remember, the DOJ can only use or process information gathered through snooping for terrorist activity against terrorists and for no other crimes including money laundering.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well if you're intent on being an a-hole, let me explain . Wire transfers are sender initiated. In order to wire money from point a to point b you have to tell your bank what point b is. Now let's supposed the DOJ isn't run by slobbering idiots. If they can figure out who the bad guys are at point b, they can just tell your bank not to send wire transfers to point b.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was you, not me, who was first the a--hole in this exchange with your response to my first post in this thread which was either ignoant of how SWIFT worked (or possibly SWIFT's existence) or deliberately misinformative.

As for your assertions after about how easy it would be for the DoJ to shut this down I am tending to think you are more misinformed than deliberately spreading false information. Or do you still not see that it would be incredibly easy (albeit expensive) to set up an e-wallet in the EU that would be beyond enforcement from the US DOJ? And do you not see how burdensome this would be on US banks to have a constantly updated series of Swift account numbers to police? And that SWIFT doesn't give a flyng piss about anything but making money? Remember, the DOJ can only use or process information gathered through snooping for terrorist activity against terrorists and for no other crimes including money laundering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you think difficult is getting a list from the DOJ each month or quarter then I'm completely out of line.

Let me see how hard it is to establish an illegal (in the DOJ's eyes) money system. I log into Stars, Full Tilt or whoever and look for the payment system I haven't shut down yet. I see a SWIFT method. I deposit $50 via this payment method and the $50 shows up in my online gaming account. I write down the account info they gave me and I add it to the list of rogue financial institutions that I publish each month and send to every US bank each month. Holy smokes that was hard. Nobody will ever do that.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess if you think difficult is getting a list from the DOJ each month or quarter then I'm completely out of line.

[/ QUOTE ] No, your completely out of line because you are mistaken (at best) too much of an a--hole to admit it after having been clearly, publicly shown that you were mistaken (again, at best).

[BruinEric]

Despite the fact that there are multiple testy/snarky/jerky posts in this thread (I've got at least 2 myself), this is one of the better threads on these subject. Thanks all (except a couple of you...heh)

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess if you think difficult is getting a list from the DOJ each month or quarter then I'm completely out of line.

[/ QUOTE ] No, your completely out of line because you are mistaken (at best) too much of an a--hole to admit it after having been clearly, publicly shown that you were mistaken (again, at best).

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you'll have to enlighten me. How am I wrong? If you have a US bank account and you want to wire money to MyInterwebsMTA, if the DOJ knows the account number of MyInterwebsMTA and puts out a bulletin to all banks not to transfer funds to that account, even if SWIFT is willing to process the transfer, are you going to make it happen?

BTW, to claim that I'm publicly shown to be mistaken without actually showing that I'm mistaken is . . . not really showing me to be publicly mistaken.

[blutarski]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There are a small, finite number of poker sites and payment transfer methods. Tracking, prohibiting and/or taking action against them will not be a problem for the DOJ, US Treasury Department or international financial networks if they choose to do so. They have lots of resources.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. As long as the poker sites keep posting deposit methods, the DOJ's job is easy. How long before they find some way to deal with epassporte and MyWebATM?

Also, someone earlier had mentioned that their small bank wasn't/couldn't accept a new mandate to monitor checks and transactions to gaming sites. I'm not a banker, I'm probably niave and I'll get flamed for being so, but the feds don't really accept that as an answer, do they? Don't banks have licensing reviews and audits to maintain their FDIC status? If so, won't the auditors get a memo to be extra sure to check on how each bank is preventing money from being transferred to gambling sites?

I remember reading a post from someone actually in the banking field (no link, unfortunately) the gist of which was this: Banks are the most heavily regulated business in America and they get new regulations almost daily. These are a headache, but are complied with because there is no other alternative.