It goes to show how far they will go to get what they want. The law they violated, and it is a law, was tacked on to a port security bill at the last moment and never actually had to pass on its own merit. Not that it really matters now that it is on the books.
It shows how far who will go to get what who wants? These poker sites did seemingly try to circumvent a law meant to keep them from using American financial institutions for transactions. I wasn't taking issue with anything in particular in your original post. I just read an article on the topic a little bit earlier, and I thought that others might be interested. Coming to think of it, though, I don't really equate our inability to play online poker with the loss of a 'freedom.'
Here is another little something interesting on the same topic.
-Mark
You linked to inaccurate information. The law in question did not make Internet poker illegal. It forbid banks from processing electronic payments to gambling websites. It is terribly worded and if they ever actually enforce it, the cost to banks to comply with the law will be astronomical.
I consider the interior of my home to be a sanctuary and if it is perfectly legal to play poker in most casinos, then it should be perfectly legal for me to play online. Poker should be either legal or illegal. If it is legal to play in casinos with certain restrictions, age, sobriety, etc.. then it should be legal to play online with similar restrictions.
Last time I checked one of the freedoms I used to enjoy was the pursuit of happiness.
I take it that our idea of 'freedom(s)' is somehow not quite the same. That's all right. I still wonder what information that I linked to is inaccurate because I'm not quite sure I see where you are coming from. Maybe you took issue with the sentence I wrote earlier, "Coming to think of it, though, I don't really equate our inability to play online poker with the loss of a 'freedom.'" That doesn't indicate I think it is illegal, and I state earlier that I understood the legislation was to forbid, like you put it and I did as well, albeit in slightly different words, "...banks from processing electronic payments to financial websites."
Maybe I just wasn't clear enough in what I wrote. I will easily take blame for that. There is also a chance you think my information is inaccurate. If the linked information is really inaccurate, I'd like you to explain how it is inaccurate. I don't really see a great explanation in what you wrote above. Just saying.
-Mark
When it is your turn and they take something away that you really enjoy, don't be surprised when nobody cares or understands. That is how the process works, you take a tiny little freedom here, you require just a little more government approval there and one day we will all look up and say, "WTF?, when did this happen!"
I have an issue with your second link, he says the UIGEA, made Interent gambling illegal, which did not. It says banks can't process transactions from illegal gambling sites. Poker is not a game of chance. It is a game of skill with an element of chance. I can't choose the odds on my lottery ticket and the slot machine is preset to a certain payout percentage, but I can damn sure fold 7,2 offsuit UTG so there is a grey area that the UIGEA should have clarified regarding poker.
I can quote the entire text of the UIGEA if you want. The pursuit of happiness is a fundamental freedom, important enough to be included in the Declaration if Independence.
The Act Became Effective on October 13, 2006
UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT of 2006
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ''Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006''.
SEC. 802. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PAYMENT INSTRUMENT FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ''SUBCHAPTER IV—PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING
''§ 5361. Congressional findings and purpose ''
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: ''(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers. ''(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites. ''(3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry. ''(4) New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders.
Ok, so the article refers "illegal gambling" and that Tzvetkoff "...was accused of creating an
illegal system (emphasis mine) that allowed the poker sites to skirt U.S. laws against online gambling and collect more than $500 million in transactions." It doesn't actually refer to the UIGEA by name. I might - I just might - concede that referring to it as illegal gambling might be a little loosey goosey. That also means that you should probably take issue with Preet Bharara, of first article acclaim and the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who stated that the defendants “...concocted an elaborate criminal fraud scheme, alternately tricking some U.S. banks and effectively bribing others to assure the continued flow of billions in illegal gambling profits.”
More importantly, I'm afraid you are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to that second article. I posted it to show a particularly intriguing aspect of the investigation, which is the involvement of this Tzvetkoff character.
And, anyways, I'm just not sure I buy your interpretation of "how the process works." That's okay. We don't really have to agree about that. Also, I don't really have any great opinion about the merits of poker as a game of skill or a game of luck.
Enjoy your day with a great cigar and an equally great cup of coffee. At least, that is what I'm trying to do.
-Mark
