Interpreting HR4411
 

From "Definitinos."

[ QUOTE ]
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, 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 wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.

[/ QUOTE ]

All internet gambling in the US is "unlawful," and falls under this definition. Unless or until some internet site obtains a license from some US state, it is, has been, and will continue to be, "unlawful."


[ QUOTE ]
MONEY TRANSMITTING BUSINESS AND MONEY TRANSMITTING SERVICE- The terms `money transmitting business' and `money transmitting service' have the same meanings as in section 5330(d)

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't bothered to read section 5330(d), but I'll go out on a limb and predict Neteller, Firepay, etc., are all "money transmitting services." They are not, however, located within the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Sec. 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling

`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-- [money].

[/ QUOTE ]

This says PS, Party, and the rest are breaking the law by taking your money. There were already breaking US law by taking your money, however. Whether this new, additional law will stop them is up to them. I'm not them, so I can't predict. I'm guessing, however, that it won't stop them, any more than the old laws did.

Note: this proposed law - and every anti-gambling Federal criminal law (of which there are several) - applies to gambling businesses, not to customers, punters, banks, ISPs, gamblers, whatever.



[ QUOTE ]
`Sec. 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions

`(a) Regulations- Before the end of the 270-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and prevent restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and prevent restricted transactions in any of the following ways:

[/ QUOTE ]

This section requires the Federal Reserve System and the AG to come up with some regulations for banks that are supposed to "identify and prevent restricted transaction."

It's important to note, that this section requires US institutions to comply with regulations that have not yet been drafted, and that the penalties (if any) are entirely civil. In other words, they're saying, "Some other guys (not us) are going to come up with some easy-to-follow instuctions, and as long as you comply, you're off the hook. Nothing bad can happen to you." Furthermore, they're saying, "If you don't comply, we'll go to court and ask a judge to tell you that you have to."


[ QUOTE ]
Sec. 5366. Criminal penalties

`(a) In General- Whoever violates section 5363 shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Section 5363 is the section that makes it a crime for gambling sites to take Americans' money. Again, it doesn't make it a crime for Americans to gamble, or to send money to poker sites, or to send money to Neteller.

Also, please note, all the provisions that could potentially apply to American businesses are located in sections 5364 and 5365 ("Civil Remedies"), NOT 5363.


To sum up, the bill makes it a crime to do something that is already illegal, and that's only done by companies that have carefully removed themselves from US jurisdiction.

And it says that somebody (not Congress) is going to come up with an easy way for banks and ISPs to keep you from gambling on the internet, even though (to my knowledge) there's no easy way to do that.

If someone with more technical knowledge could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. But to my understanding there's no way anybody can keep track of where everybody's going on the internet, and there's no way for your bank to know what you're going to do with your money, once you've transferred it to a third party.

All this goes to the heart of the internet gambling problem. The US is not about to give up its right to conrol/regulate/tax and license gambling within its borders. BUT, there's no EASY way to stop it.

Unless the government is prepared to send the troops to Gibraltar, or to start arresting American citizens, or to shut down half the internet, I don't know what they can do.

And this bill doesn't appear to contemplate doing any of these things.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, it doesn't make it a crime for Americans to gamble, or to send money to poker sites, or to send money to Neteller.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read the phrase
[ QUOTE ]

"Sec. 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling

`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-- [money].


[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that this 'in the business' is understood to mean the poker sites or the sports book. But, I get a bad feeling that an aggressive Justice Department could go after poker pros. Aren't they 'in the business' of betting and wagering?

I'm very interested in more analysis of what this law actually means to the individual gambler. If it's true that the law doesn't provide any penalty for our participation in real money online poker, or for slipping around banking rules restricting money movement, then maybe it's not as bad as I feared. If there's no penalty for continueing to deposit and play, then maybe a fairly substantial number of people will keep playing.

B.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

The bill doesn't provide any penalty for players gambling on the internet.

Anything is possible, but I don't think the law is intended to target poker pros, and I don't think Federal prosecutors are likely to construe it that way. For one thing, if they meant to target players, they easily could have said that.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

"
If someone with more technical knowledge could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. But to my understanding there's no way anybody can keep track of where everybody's going on the internet, and there's no way for your bank to know what you're going to do with your money, once you've transferred it to a third party."

This will be similar to how effective catching people downloading copywrited movies and mp3's, which is also illegal if I remember correctly. You need too many different organizations and groups working together and way too much manpower to actually be effective. Also, it seems they would need assistance from overseas companies and places where they have no jurisdiction. I can only imagine many middle fingers being given if the US Govt came knocking.

Whether or not banks will accept Neteller EFT's or checks is my biggest concern. How much Neteller would asissts in this whole process is also another. My guess is they would fight with everything they got since complying means losing a majority of their customer base. Even if Neteller dissappeared, many new places would start popping up all over the place.

Also factor in how dynamic the internet is, and it will be virtually impossible to stop. Again, you would need a huge ammount of manpower, and even still couldn't stop all of it. Casinos will get new IP's and new domain names, change whenever they have too. The big casinos and poker rooms have pretty much an unlimited budget to find ways around it compared to the people policing it. This is with only the casino side of circumventing.

I personally dont think that this will even make the Senate before the floor closes for the year (or whatever the hell it is called).

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

Hi, Dave. Great site, btw. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm not a technical person, at all, but that's my understanding. I don't think you can really keep people from visiting the sites they want to visit.

As far as Neteller is concerned, they may say banks can't transfer money there anymore. "May" - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. After all, Neteller is not a gambling site itself, and - supposedly - you can do other things with Neteller, besides gamble.

Even if they do, though, I can't but imagine Neteller will just change its name, or its domain. Or Firepay, or another company will take over. It seems like it'll be easier for them, than it will be for the Feds to keep up.


Anyway, and on a different tangent, all this talk about "banning" internet gambling, as if it were something new, misses the point. The US has always regulated, taxed and licensed gambling within its borders. And, as a matter of law, it has an absolute right to do so. The only difference is that the internet makes it much harder for them to do it.

Before, if somebody set up an unlicensed casino, the police would just bust up the joint. Now, the joint is in Gibraltar, and the police can't get to it. And, because of the internet, they can't keep us from getting to them.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

As long as all the companies are off shore it doesn't matter.
The idea that PokerStars etc would say no thanks to billions of dollars because they US wags their fingers at them and says bad company your breaking our law...if you'de locate yourself in the US we could actually do something about it....but your offshore...so we can only wag our finger at you.


This is more of a simplery slope type problem....if they do this then whats next...and whats next after that...etc etc

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

FYI news.com is a good source for this stuff sometimes. Here's the last article I saw.

http://news.com.com/FBI+plans+new+Ne...l?tag=nefd.pop

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

Links to HR 4411 text version and PDF version

Hey Linus,

Trying to read this document, it's quite a load. What do you think about the provisions that may allow the government to make ISPs strip access to prohibited sites?

Benjamin

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

I agree that you can always deposit your funds into a third party (such as Neteller) and then have them deposit your funds into the online casino. So, I agree with Linus that this should be a non-issue.

However, if the law is successful at forcing ISPs to prohibit access to the sites, then what? I mean, even if the avid poker player could get around this, it will still kill the game because the fish poker players would not be so diligent.

Which brings me to the question of how this could possibly be constitutional. Congress's power to regulate commerce does not mean that they can restrict access to view, read, and download stuff from the web. That's all protected freedom of speech. Party Poker, for example, always advertises itself on T.V. as a free poker school--not a money gambling site. And you can use the Party Poker program for play money--wherein you never exchange a single dime. So, how can Congress force ISPs to restrict access to a site that offers something completely legal?

If they do start restricting access to sites like Party Poker, couldn't Congress restrict access (through local ISPs) to any internet site they want? Isn't this what the U.S. was so critical of China about--restricting ISPs from providing access to certain internet sites? God, I love America.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Linus, what are your thoughts on this?

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

i just wanna punch em all in the head.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limitation Relating to Interactive Computer Services-

`(1) 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 this subchapter, or a hypertext link to an online site violating this subchapter, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under this section under section 5367;

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this to say that if the government obtains an order from a judge, the order shall be limited to telling the ISP (or internet server or whatever it is) that it must remove a casino that's located on its server, or remove links to casinos that are located on its servers.

In other words, they can't "punish" the servers. They can just tell them to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
`(B) be available only after notice to the interactive computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying they have to have a hearing, before they can get an order telling them to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
`(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity violating this subchapter;

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying they can't put any obligation on servers to monitor what's on their servers. They're free to leave the links there, until a judge tells them otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
`(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and

`(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying the government must tell them EXACTLY what to do. "Take down gambling links" isn't enough, they have to say which links.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

In other words, internet providers are an important constituency, the the law is going out of its way to make things easy for them.

They're not willing to put any burden on US industry.

Instead, the burden is on law enforcement to go to court and obtain orders from Federal judges telling servers specifically which links need to be removed.

Going to court is time-consuming and cumbersome. Given that many servers are not in the US, and that links can appear and disappear at the click of a button, I'm guessing trying to police the internet this way is going to be a lot like trying to sweep the ocean back with a broom - frustrating and ineffective.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]

If someone with more technical knowledge could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. But to my understanding there's no way anybody can keep track of where everybody's going on the internet, and there's no way for your bank to know what you're going to do with your money, once you've transferred it to a third party.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
`(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and

`(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying the government must tell them EXACTLY what to do. "Take down gambling links" isn't enough, they have to say which links.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you asked for a technical opinion... I am a network engineer, have been since the early days of the Internet, ran a couple of IPS's, built a datacenter or two...

Now speak strictly from a technical point of view, not moral, or the law or anything else.

Yes your ISP can 100% for sure block your access to PS, PP, UB, etc.

Are there ways to get around your ISP's efforts to block you? Yes. Can the ISP stop that traffic too, yes. Can an ISP block just any thing you want to come up, yes. It's only a matter of time, motivation and money.

There is a technology that is refered to as IPS (intrustion prevention system). This a device, or software that scans each and every tiny piece of information that passes thru it. It would be placed between you and the Internet. They use what is called a "signature" to match traffic to filters, filters written to block traffic. The signatures can be updated at any time. In fact most IPS vendors update their signatures at least once a week, often more than once a week.

In fact I work for the best of breed IPS manufactor for my current "day" job right now. And I can assure you that I can block any P2P (e.g. asureus, [censored]) application, or any application that I know the destination IP's for. And if some new application comes out, or some application gets updated, I will have a new hot signature to apply to traffic in a week or less.

So to sum it up, unless you bypass your ISP completely, you can be blocked.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If someone with more technical knowledge could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. But to my understanding there's no way anybody can keep track of where everybody's going on the internet, and there's no way for your bank to know what you're going to do with your money, once you've transferred it to a third party.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
`(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and

`(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is saying the government must tell them EXACTLY what to do. "Take down gambling links" isn't enough, they have to say which links.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you asked for a technical opinion... I am a network engineer, have been since the early days of the Internet, ran a couple of IPS's, built a datacenter or two...

Now speak strictly from a technical point of view, not moral, or the law or anything else.

Yes your ISP can 100% for sure block your access to PS, PP, UB, etc.

Are there ways to get around your ISP's efforts to block you? Yes. Can the ISP stop that traffic too, yes. Can an ISP block just any thing you want to come up, yes. It's only a matter of time, motivation and money.

There is a technology that is refered to as IPS (intrustion prevention system). This a device, or software that scans each and every tiny piece of information that passes thru it. It would be placed between you and the Internet. They use what is called a "signature" to match traffic to filters, filters written to block traffic. The signatures can be updated at any time. In fact most IPS vendors update their signatures at least once a week, often more than once a week.

In fact I work for the best of breed IPS manufactor for my current "day" job right now. And I can assure you that I can block any P2P (e.g. asureus, [censored]) application, or any application that I know the destination IP's for. And if some new application comes out, or some application gets updated, I will have a new hot signature to apply to traffic in a week or less.

So to sum it up, unless you bypass your ISP completely, you can be blocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sucks. Let's all hope the senate lets this die.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

So, it appears that the ISPs have the technical ability to block sites fairly effectively, but that the law would not require them to be proactive about blocking them.

So, if the Justice Dept (or whoever is in charge of this if it passes) tells all the ISPs to block the major sites, they'll be blocked. But if the sites change the addresses, then there is a legal process that the JD has to go through to tell them to block that new address, rather than the ISPs being told to figure it out and block them on their own.

So, it seems likely to me that the sites will be able to stay ahead of the ISPs on this front.

The law would still kill casual participation. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] But, it's looking somewhat feasible for determined US players to keep playing ... no penalties in the law for the player, cash out to check?

B.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
The law would still kill casual participation. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] But, it's looking somewhat feasible for determined US players to keep playing ... no penalties in the law for the player, cash out to check?
B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that will be great. We'll all be playing a bunch of sharks rather than the casual fish who currently make the game so lucrative for those who know how to play it.

Re: Interpreting HR4411
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, it appears that the ISPs have the technical ability to block sites fairly effectively, but that the law would not require them to be proactive about blocking them.

So, if the Justice Dept (or whoever is in charge of this if it passes) tells all the ISPs to block the major sites, they'll be blocked. But if the sites change the addresses, then there is a legal process that the JD has to go through to tell them to block that new address, rather than the ISPs being told to figure it out and block them on their own.

B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Benjamin, I'm not sure about that. The bill seems to limit it to links and sites "that reside[] on a computer server that such service controls or operates."

In other words, they can only order ISPs to shut down sites and links on their own servers, not on somebody else's. And, of course, poker sites are all on foreign servers.

What I don't know is how search engines like Google work.

When you search for "Party Poker," and the link comes up, is that link "on" Google's servers?