[linuxrocks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Putting the ethical issues aside from knowingly playing against underage players -- ethical issues which are serious; this constitutes a serious problem for the industry as a whole. *If* sites are powerless against preventing underage players from playing, then those who want to prohibit said sites have a powerful argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

No i dont think i agree. Perhaps someone that follows internet law better would know more, but i remember hearing a story lately about some site (most likely was porn) not having the responsibility to age verify and that it's something that is a parents responsibility.

If thats actually way off base and the ruling was for the other side, then well i guess poker is [censored], but i dont see underage players being a big issue for poker legalization.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Age verification" is one thing for MySpace; it's entirely another for gambling websites. Poker sites' ability to prevent underage players from accessing their games is a huge hurdle that needs to be overcome before legalization becomes palatable in the US.

This is tangential to ucla's OP, but underage players should be treated as the same kind of threat to online poker's viability as multi-accounters are. If we're trying to make the game as ethical and transparent as possible in order to appeal to legislators and the public-at-large, then collectively shrugging our shoulders to under 18s who we know play online is foolhardy at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about under-age people accessing poker sites, they can also access porn sites. There's no way to prevent that technically (Side note: I am a CS PhD). There are technical limitations to how you can verify identity online.