A less optimistic article

[TruePoker CEO]

I think Anthony Curtis is summarizing his own, rather practical, concerns as a website operator fairly.

The article provides some good links for people who want more lawyerly information and analysis.

(I always trusted his advice 20 years ago on where to get a free shrimp cocktail in Las Vegas, he never let me down.)

[stormy455]

No. No one knows more. We won't until the regs come out. The act specifically prohibits checks, but it also give the regulators directions not to be overly burdensome with the regulations. Current technology doesn't give banks the ability to monitor checks without physically inpsecting each check. That would be overly burdensome. You can bet that banks will lobby hard to make sure that they don't have to do that. I think it's a safe bet to assume that paper checks will be exempted from the regulations, but we won't know anything for sure until they are drafted.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, this article is a very poor amateur attempt at analyzing the bill. We have much more thorough poor amateur attempts at analyzing the bill in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

PairTheBoard

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
This article sucks. Just glancing through it I found [ QUOTE ]
What is controversial is the fact that the ISPs may have to deny you access to the online gambling sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
which was a part of earlier bills but was flat-out not included in the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The copy I'm reading says a US District Court can give an injunction that would notify an interactive computer service to block access to an offending online site. The service doesn't have to be proactive about blocking. Any attorneys here to state this better or set me straight?

The article is average IMHO.

[JPFisher55]

It is more like 40 million checks a day, I think. Might include echecks and EFT's. BTW, on their website, Neteller says they use echecks to transfer money to your bank.

[JPFisher55]

It's part of the law, but I do not think that blocking Internet access to a site that offers free poker, regardless of whether it offers real money poker is valid under the fifth amendment.
What about the due process rights of those who wish to access the site to play free poker which is legal under this law?

[Silent1]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/debacle.c...men=1&sub=0

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know Curtis, but given everything I have now read, I caution people against readily believing anything that comes out of Vegas. I think they are a big part of this problem, and the bill is in their favour. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose if the outside firms go under while plans are made to legalize their offerings.

[jaypoker420]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's wrong about checks - we already know that the Banks won't have to check those

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no we don't. It's widely assumed, but it won't be known until the regulations come out. Checks are specifically prohibited in the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of my good girl friends works fairly high-level at the bank I use. She says rest assured, the banks really don't give a damn about this law, and won't. All that may happen is the code that some banks put for debit card transactions may be applied to what she said as "individual" sites. My one bank card hasn't worked on any site but UB in years. That bank has different policies.

The government isn't going to put any money towards enforcement, remember - this is just a rider on a LARGE defense bill. Most of your congresspersons haven't even READ this bill, much as they don't read hardly ANY of the bills.

If the government isn't going to put any money into the enforcement of it, you really think the banks will?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of your congresspersons haven't even READ this bill, much as they don't read hardly ANY of the bills.

[/ QUOTE ]
Support the Read the Bills Act.

[HumanACtor]

[ QUOTE ]
That article just has the worst possible interpretations, and doesn't reflect any knowledge greater than the average poster here. Furthermore that rag is probably a shill for the B&M casinos who aren't our friends in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the best article Ive read so far on this issue, and its clearly not in favor of the action.

Notable quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
(The Italian government instituted a similar policy this year when it ordered all ISPs in Italy to block access to about 600 listed companies that were online gambling sites operating without licenses from the Italian government.)


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It boils down to the Republican party pandering to the grass-roots conservative voter base prior to this November's elections. More pertinent, perhaps, Senator Frist has presidential ambitions for 2008, and Representative James Leach of Iowa has been one of the most active Congressmen to support prohibition of online gambling. What’s the tie-in? Go to Wikipedia.org and type in "Iowa Caucus." The first line you see is this: "Since 1976, the Iowa caucus has been the first indication of which candidate for President of the United States would win the nomination of his or her political party at that party's national convention." So with this move, Frist isn’t only courting the conservatives, he’s currying the favor of Iowa’s Jim Leach.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, the bill specifically exempts all trades under the Securities Exchange Act. In other words, it doesn't apply to stocks and bonds, which are part of the most extensive online-gambling system of all. Investing in Enron is better than gambling online, at least according to the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]