Online poker fucked by puritain DOJ retards

[smellsofgummybears]

aka another day in the Land of the Free

But 48 hours ago, any American could point their browser at www.pokerstars.com (amongst other websites) and within minutes be playing poker at stakes from pennies to porsches

Not anymore. Visit that website and one learns that the domain has been seized by the FBI. Players from civilised countries that value personal freedom can still play (in the case of pokerstars, by visting www.pokerstars.eu)

In a self congratulatory press release by some scumbag pseudo-politicians at the DOJ, we learn that:

Originally Posted by FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge JANICE K. FEDARCYK

These defendants, knowing full well that their business
with U.S. customers and U.S. banks was illegal, tried to stack
the deck. They lied to banks about the true nature of their
business. Then, some of the defendants found banks willing to
flout the law for a fee. The defendants bet the house that they
could continue their scheme, and they lost."

Well, maybe. But that makes not a jot of difference to the real issue here - a toxic combination of protectionism and puritanism once again stifles life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Never trust a woman named Janice. I learned that when I was a lot younger.

Oh, and fuck the US for thinking it's police of the world, again. Most of the people charged have not set foot in the US since the poker boom. These sites were offshore and frankly none of your business.

[Chefguy]

If they're doing illegal business with U.S. banks, how is it NOT our business?

[smellsofgummybears]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

If they're doing illegal business with U.S. banks, how is it NOT our business?

Ignore that part, it is a total abstraction from the real issue. They want you to be discussing that.

Anyone can see that this is really about internet poker. Let's discuss that.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Cheer up. There's always Three-card Monte.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by smellsofgummybears

Anyone can see that this is really about internet poker. Let's discuss that.

In that case, there's already a thread on it in the Game Room.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

If they're doing illegal business with U.S. banks, how is it NOT our business?

Yeah, but why does it have to be illegal? Because taxes don't get paid on the money? I don't think the USA is overly oppressive like the OP seems to imply but if I want to gamble my money (or not, they do have free poker too) on the internet why can't I? Why is it any business of the government?

[smellsofgummybears]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

In that case, there's already a thread on it in the Game Room.

[Procrustus]

It's illegal because a bunch of assholes in Congress made it illegal. I have no interest in playing internet poker, but I'm with the OP on this one. First they came for the on line poker players, and I didn't speak up because I'm not an on line poker player......

[MOIDALIZE]

Good. The vast majority of the players on these sites are degenerate losers. It's WoW with a little cachet.

What I want to know is what took the government so long? That credit card payment law has been on the books for years.

[smellsofgummybears]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

Good. The vast majority of the players on these sites are degenerate losers. It's WoW with a little cachet.

What I want to know is what took the government so long? That credit card payment law has been on the books for years.

So are the vast majority of people on the internet. And are you picking on degenerate losers because the cool kids would beat you up, or what?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

Good. The vast majority of the players on these sites are degenerate losers. It's WoW with a little cachet.

What I want to know is what took the government so long? That credit card payment law has been on the books for years.

So things should be banned because (people who are in your opinion) degenerate losers enjoy them?

Do you want WoW banned? It doesn't even have the cachet, after all.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

It's not the fault of the DOJ, it's the fault of congress and, most likely, lobbyists representing the casinos.

[Simplicio]

Seems silly to blame the DOJ. Its not their fault online poker is illegal in the States. Blame Congress and campaign to get the laws changed.

I don't have any problem with online poker being legalized, but given that it is illegal, I don't think the DOJ should turn the other way while banks take proceedes from illegal activity. Especially the "flout the law for a fee", banks shouldn't be allowed to help launder money, even if the activity that generated the money was largely harmless.

[smellsofgummybears]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Seems silly to blame the DOJ. Its not their fault online poker is illegal in the States. Blame Congress and campaign to get the laws changed.

But why do they have to enjoy it so much? Read that quote again.

Like I said: third rate politicians.

[Giraffe]

My question is this: what about states like California, where poker is completely legal? If I want to connect to a website to participate in an activity that is legal both where I am and where the website is, how is that a problem? Why is the government even getting involved?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

It's not the fault of the DOJ, it's the fault of congress and, most likely, lobbyists representing the casinos.

Okay the law is the law is a good point. However this appears to be a jackass law, would non-jackasses brag about doing a jackass thing as part of their job?

I say no they would not.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Even the jackassiest laws have their die-hard fans, as we've seen time and time again on this board.

[smellsofgummybears]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

My question is this: what about states like California, where poker is completely legal? If I want to connect to a website to participate in an activity that is legal both where I am and where the website is, how is that a problem? Why is the government even getting involved?

Actually it isn't "completely legal" where the house gets involved. There's a monopoly.

Not sure if I'm allowed to link to other forums but even before this California residents were on shaky ground, technically. You will be able to find more info with google.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by smellsofgummybears

But why do they have to enjoy it so much? Read that quote again.

Like I said: third rate politicians.

Eh, people who do a job enjoy it when they're successful. In general we want the DoJ to do their upmost to enforce the law, not spend a lot of time musing on the relative worth of those laws. Thats the legislatures job.




Giraffe, internet gambling is illegal in the US, which includes CA. The legality of poker isn't really relevant.

[smellsofgummybears]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Eh, people who do a job enjoy it when they're successful. In general we want the DoJ to do their upmost to enforce the law, not spend a lot of time musing on the relative worth of those laws. Thats the legislatures job.


Giraffe, internet gambling is illegal in the US, which includes CA. The legality of poker isn't really relevant.

Disagree. One should not enjoy the parts of your job where you are unpleasant bitch.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by smellsofgummybears

Disagree. One should not enjoy the parts of your job where you are unpleasant bitch.

You never met my wife...

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Giraffe, internet gambling is illegal in the US, which includes CA. The legality of poker isn't really relevant.

I think you're completely wrong. Can you point to a law that says it is illegal for someone to play poker on the Internet in a state where playing poker in a card room is legal? Because the government hasn't had much luck making this case -- they've had to focus on the laws surrounding how money is transferred to and from these sites in order to restrict online poker.

If online poker was inherently illegal, it would have been a very simple matter to prevent any U.S. players from playing a single hand, at least from a U.S. IP address. This hasn't happened, because it's not clear that it's illegal even in states where brick and mortar poker is illegal (since the site you're playing on is located in a place where poker is legal), and certainly not in states where poker is allowed.

[Cat Whisperer]

Jesus, I was hoping this was a zombie thread from the idiocy a couple of years ago where online poker was outlawed in the US. So, new idiocy in online poker in the US, eh?

Procrustus - exactly. I have no idea why there wasn't a huge outcry in the US when your right to play poker online was taken away. I thought you guys valued your freedoms.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

I think you're completely wrong. Can you point to a law that says it is illegal for someone to play poker on the Internet in a state where playing poker in a card room is legal? Because the government hasn't had much luck making this case -- they've had to focus on the laws surrounding how money is transferred to and from these sites in order to restrict online poker.

If online poker was inherently illegal, it would have been a very simple matter to prevent any U.S. players from playing a single hand, at least from a U.S. IP address. This hasn't happened, because it's not clear that it's illegal even in states where brick and mortar poker is illegal (since the site you're playing on is located in a place where poker is legal), and certainly not in states where poker is allowed.

Your right being a player of online poker isn't illegal, its just illegal to run the site or to use US banks to transfer the money. The people in question seemed to have been arrested for breaking the last part, they used US banks to transfer their proceeds.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Your right being a player of online poker isn't illegal, its just illegal to run the site or to use US banks to transfer the money. The people in question seemed to have been arrested for breaking the last part, they used US banks to transfer their proceeds.

You're almost there. It's not illegal to run the site, it's illegal to run it in the U.S.

So now we're left with the retarded law restricting how U.S. banks can transfer money to poker sites (which was designed to try to stop online poker without actually criminalizing it). The sites in question may have broken that law, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a legal way to transfer money to poker sites from the U.S., e.g. from U.S. banks to non-U.S. banks, then from there to the poker site.

Does that justify the Fed's seizure of the sites U.S. domains? I'd argue no. If Goldman Sachs is found to have possibly violated SEC laws governing how they trade derivatives, the Feds don't freeze all customer accounts and padlock the doors to the building while they resolve it.

The whole thing is a pointless shell game because the government can't or won't outlaw online poker directly. The only effect is to annoy a bunch of people who aren't doing anything wrong.

[Ograbme]

Only two gambling puns in the press release? I expect better from my civil servants.

[Implicit]

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

Jesus, I was hoping this was a zombie thread from the idiocy a couple of years ago where online poker was outlawed in the US. So, new idiocy in online poker in the US, eh?

Procrustus - exactly. I have no idea why there wasn't a huge outcry in the US when your right to play poker online was taken away. I thought you guys valued your freedoms.

It isn't new idiocy, it is the DOJ enforcing the stupid law that was made in 2006, which effectively outlawed online poker in the US. That law barred the transfer of funds to online gambling sites from any US financial institution (including banks, Visa, Mastercard, Netteller, etc.). The offshore poker companies named in this indictment flaunted that law and allowed US players to continue to deposit money, using third party banks or online money transfer companies.

[Cat Whisperer]

Ah, enforcement of the old idiocy. Gotcha.

[thirdname]

The whole idea of online gambling seems crazy to me. How can you trust them? It seems like it would be really easy to alter cards dealt, dice rolls etc to give an advantage to the house or a player colluding with the house, or to give a player info about what cards other players are holding.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by thirdname

The whole idea of online gambling seems crazy to me. How can you trust them? It seems like it would be really easy to alter cards dealt, dice rolls etc to give an advantage to the house or a player colluding with the house, or to give a player info about what cards other players are holding.

Do that too often and people will stop using your site. If you get caught, you'll probably (I assume) find yourself in all kinds of trouble. Do online poker sites report to any kind of gaming commission that makes sure they're on the level?
It seems to me you're fear is no different then playing video poker. Of course, I assume most video poker machines are checked for fairness by a gaming commission to make sure the owner/operator isn't cheating.

[gaffa]

Originally Posted by thirdname

The whole idea of online gambling seems crazy to me. How can you trust them? It seems like it would be really easy to alter cards dealt, dice rolls etc to give an advantage to the house or a player colluding with the house, or to give a player info about what cards other players are holding.

Exactly. The lesson here is that the people running these sites thought they could pull one over on the US government, and induced banks to engage in criminal activity. You think they are going to treat Joe Schmoe fairly?

Originally Posted by Joey P

Of course, I assume most video poker machines are checked for fairness by a gaming commission to make sure the owner/operator isn't cheating.

Every machine in every place where gambling is legal is regulated and monitored. Random web sites? Not at all.

My sister lost her house because her now ex husband gambled it all away on Internet poker. Fuck on-line poker sites. Fuck them right in the ear.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

The whole thing is a pointless shell game because the government can't or won't outlaw online poker directly. The only effect is to annoy a bunch of people who aren't doing anything wrong.

Well, people are going to jail for breaking the law. So some people are obviously more then annoyed, and while I disagree with the law, I don't think I'd say that the people that broke it (or the banks that knowingly aided them) weren't doing anything wrong.

But I think the best course is to try and change the law rather then get snipey about the wording of DoJ press releases when they do their job and enforce that law. Barney Frank has tried to pass a law legalizing online gambling every year (as well as regulate it, so that it isn't prone to the abuses thirdname fears) for the past several years. So call your congress-critter and ask them to support that bill.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Do you want WoW banned? It doesn't even have the cachet, after all.

I'm still shaking my head over WoW being full of degenerate losers...

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

It's not the fault of the DOJ, it's the fault of congress and, most likely, lobbyists representing the casinos.

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Seems silly to blame the DOJ. Its not their fault online poker is illegal in the States. Blame Congress and campaign to get the laws changed.

That's what I thought, but I get the feeling that at least in some libertarian circles, they either don't want the DOJ to be enforcing (what they think are) immoral and unconstitutional laws (or perhaps rather, "going after the REAL criminals and not wasting their time investigating online poker"), and/or they think that the non-gambling charges are trumped up so that they can shut the sites down.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by thirdname

The whole idea of online gambling seems crazy to me. How can you trust them? It seems like it would be really easy to alter cards dealt, dice rolls etc to give an advantage to the house or a player colluding with the house, or to give a player info about what cards other players are holding.

I agree with you for everything but poker -- playing online slots for example strikes me as about as smart as stuffing money down a storm drain. With poker, the house has far less incentive to play anything but a straight game. The house makes the same money regardless of who wins or loses a hand, and poker players are notorious for harvesting and rigorously analyzing statistics. Even the faintest whiff of impropriety will cost the sites more than they could possibly gain by trying to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the rake.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

It's not the fault of the DOJ, it's the fault of congress and, most likely, lobbyists representing the casinos.

It was due to the power of casinos. The congressmen just work for them. But casino owners did not want the competition.
The online poker is not regulated and has had some serious cheating going on.

[Darth Nader]

[cough]Absolute Poker[/cough]

[eulalia]

Someone has a firefox add-on to redirect to new domains from the ICE-seized ones. I suspect this would work for the poker domain seizures if they have new names.

[Invisible Chimp]

Originally Posted by gaffa

My sister lost her house because her now ex husband gambled it all away on Internet poker. Fuck on-line poker sites. Fuck them right in the ear.

No, fuck your ex-brother-in-law.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by gaffa

My sister lost her house because her now ex husband gambled it all away on Internet poker. Fuck on-line poker sites. Fuck them right in the ear.

Hey, what a coincidence! I won a house playing on-line poker! Yay for online poker!

[gonzomax]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...3752500&page=1 Here is the story. It was only ended because some serious players saw players making enough eccentric, yet successful moves that they began to realize somebody could see their hole cards. They did all the leg work and handed it over to authorities.

[gonzomax]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...09502425.shtml This story suggests it is more than one site and they will fold up shop and rename ,starting over.

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by Giraffe

The house makes the same money regardless of who wins or loses a hand

Unless one of the players is/is working for the house.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Implicit

The offshore poker companies named in this indictment flaunted that law...

Nitpick: flouted.

[smellsofgummybears]

Originally Posted by gaffa

My sister lost her house because her now ex husband gambled it all away on Internet poker. Fuck on-line poker sites. Fuck them right in the ear.

Your ex brother in law is a fuckwit. It is no one's fault but his.

[bucketybuck]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

Unless one of the players is/is working for the house.

If you want you can start an episode of the "omg online poker is rigged " debate, but lets be honest, it has been done a million times by the poker playing community, and I very much doubt you have anything to add to it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...dition-255990/

http://www.billrini.com/2004/11/30/p...ker-is-rigged/


My opinion on the OP? You all have a really fucked up country you know that? What are you scared off, that a little gambling is going to jeopardise your immortal souls?

[jz78817]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

My opinion on the OP? You all have a really fucked up country you know that? What are you scared off, that a little gambling is going to jeopardise your immortal souls?

and I'm sure yelling at a few of us on a message board is going to do so much to change that...

[MOIDALIZE]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

My opinion on the OP? You all have a really fucked up country you know that? What are you scared off, that a little gambling is going to jeopardise your immortal souls?

Funny, that's the same argument Ireland's banks made.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by bucketybuck

<snip>

My opinion on the OP? You all have a really fucked up country you know that? What are you scared off, that a little gambling is going to jeopardise your immortal souls?

Heh - I don't get it, either. You can gamble in person, but not online? Yeah, it's easier to lose more money that way, but the US is a country that is always yelling about "nanny state" - some nannying is okay, but not other nannying? There's obviously something else going on here to have prompted this inane law.

I have to agree with others, gaffa - if your brother-in-law was dedicated to being an addicted gambler, he would have found a way. My husband has been gambling with online poker sites for about six years now - I think he's pumped $50 into the sites he goes to. You can't blame online gambling for your brother-in-law's addiction any more than you can blame distilleries for alcoholism.

[kidchameleon]

Can we blame online poker for the OP getting banned?