[LINK] Fwd: [Politech] Step aside, war on terror -- now it's war on Internet gambling [econ]

[Deus Ex Machina]

its a general problem with government, always looking to do something to
justify its every increasing size.

Vic

Rick Welykochy [pirkeepie at yahoo.com.au] wrote:
> The Yanks are now onto the Internet gambling case.
> 
> But unlike us Aussies, they attack with some ammunition to back
> up their intentions. In this case, the financial institutions
> that process gambling payments will be targeted.
> 
> Now why didn't the lily-livered milquetoast cowards that try to
> pass as our politicians implement something like that?
> 
> Does anyone know what effects the anti Internet gambling legislation
> has had hear? My guess: zero impact. LOL, I recall our favourite luddite
> indicating that offshore gambling will become prohibitively expensive
> once on-shore gambling is irradicated, due to the cost of "long distance
> phone calls!"  Ya gotta laugh or die trying :)
> 
> cheers
> rickw
> 
> 
> --- Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> wrote:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:41:58 -0700
> > From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
> > To: Politech <politech at politechbot.com>
> > Subject: [Politech] Step aside,
> > 	war on terror -- now it's war on Internet gambling [econ]
> > 
> > The House of Representatives today voted 317 to 93 for a bill that tries 
> > to prohibit offshore Net-gambling. It targets Internet service providers 
> > and financial intermediaries, namely banks and credit card companies 
> > that process payments to offshore Web sites:
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6092852.html
> > 
> > Here's the vote total, which is largely (though not completely) 
> > partisan, with the Republicans supporting the so-called Unlawful 
> > Internet Gambling Enforcement Act:
> > http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml
> > 
> > Here's the text of the bill, which says ISPs can be forced to block 
> > access to offshore gambling sites after being slapped with a court order:
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04411:
> > 
> > There are two interesting asides here.
> > 
> > First, how will this work on a technical level? The Federal Reserve is 
> > supposed to come up with regulations applying to certain "designated 
> > payment systems" (including not just credit cards and Paypal but also 
> > eGold and FirePay). Those DPSs must find ways to block payments 
> > representing a "restricted transaction," which should be entertaining to 
> > try to identify.
> > 
> > Second, the bill contains carve-outs for, say, horseracing. That's 
> > according to no less an authority than the National Thoroughbred Racing 
> > Association:
> > http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=pac&style=red&id=18064
> > 
> > But a vote on an amendment (admittedly, a poison pill one) to cover 
> > *all* forms of Internet gambling failed:
> > http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll361.xml
> > 
> > -Declan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Politech mailing list
> > Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> > Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ____________________________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Personals: It's free to check out our great singles! 
> http://au.personals.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link