US Government attempting to make banks reject transfers

Check out this article from the WSJ - it's about the fight by the Government of the USA to prevent banks from processing online gambling related transactions.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115678595442947434-lMyQjAxMDE2NTM2MDczODA1Wj.html

It almost looks like it can't be done and it won't be done, be a pain right in the patottie for the banks.

It`ll never work. Even if the US authorities could iron out all the technical problems, anybody with half a brain could easily find a way round.

For example, open an account with a UK bank (or a Swiss one, or French or any other place where gambling is legal), transfer some money from your US account to the foreign one, then from there to the Poker Room.

Egon Towst said:

For example, open an account with a UK bank (or a Swiss one, or French or any other place where gambling is legal), transfer some money from your US account to the foreign one, then from there to the Poker Room.

Click to expand...

Egon, I like that idea. This will be first on my list of things to do if the tards in congress actually push this through somehow (which I highly doubt).

Although, if the entire banking industry has to overhaul their entire system, that is a software development contract I want in on. That's retirement waiting to happen for consultants.

Egon Towst said:

It`ll never work. Even if the US authorities could iron out all the technical problems, anybody with half a brain could easily find a way round.

For example, open an account with a UK bank (or a Swiss one, or French or any other place where gambling is legal), transfer some money from your US account to the foreign one, then from there to the Poker Room.

Click to expand...

That's true, but honestly how many 'casual gamblers', or more importantly - new players (aka fish), will go through all that hassle? If there are no fish left then US poker players won't be able to win money so easily

Seems like its quite hard for the banks to do this, and im guessing Expensive too,,, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. buck

The law makers will get bills passed to spend billions to cover the costs for banks to make this happen. The need to protect the US from terrorists is all they need to argue the need for the bill. Thank God for the fat-3 piece suited-viagra taking-cigar smoking-Bush hind end licking bastards that are thinking of us little guys and protecting the homefront at the same time.

Nick said:

That's true, but honestly how many 'casual gamblers', or more importantly - new players (aka fish), will go through all that hassle? If there are no fish left then us poker players won't be able to win money so easily

Click to expand...

If there is a way to make money on it someone will find an easy way to do it.

Nick said:

how many 'casual gamblers', or more importantly - new players (aka fish), will go through all that hassle? If there are no fish left then us poker players won't be able to win money so easily

Click to expand...

I take your point, Nick, it could be bad, but not terminal I think. Even if all American players are taken out, they only represent about 40% of the online poker community (depending whose estimates you read).

Not all of that 40% will stop playing, because the keen types will find a workaround such as the one I suggested. Maybe a very high proportion will, because (as Babe says) the financial incentive is certainly there for companies outside of US jurisdiction to build them an off-the-shelf solution. It`s near impossible for any one national government to control the internet, and I could see a situation arising where all a would-be American player has to do is google "poker" to find 100 ways of circumventing the restrictions.

Yea I agree, I can't imagine it will make that much of a difference... after all, in society in general a lot of people are gambling behind peoples backs and outside of the law. I just think that the government outlawing it is just some more bad publicity that gambling (and the internet) doesn't need.

For sure, if this did get passed then there would be a huge amount of sites offering workarounds, and I wouldn't be suprised if you see TONS of neteller copycats springing up from numerous offshore locations around the globe, they'll have a field day.

With all this in mind I will consider expanding my meager business empire to include the selling of my autograph ( for $50, $100, $200, $500 etc ) as many times as you want to buy it.
I will most likely in reality only charge you $1 for this transparent transaction and deduct the VAT from your purchase.
I will then redistribute your remaining cash purchase to the site of your desire.
This scheme of course will only be launched if the powers that be for some bizarre reason get their perverted way and the sky falls in.

zinzan1000 said:

With all this in mind I will consider expanding my meager business empire to include the selling of my autograph ( for $50, $100, $200, $500 etc ) as many times as you want to buy it.
I will most likely in reality only charge you $1 for this transparent transaction and deduct the VAT from your purchase.
I will then redistribute your remaining cash purchase to the site of your desire.
This scheme of course will only be launched if the powers that be for some bizarre reason get their perverted way and the sky falls in.

Click to expand...

Just one more idea that I'm adding to my list of circumvention techniques on the outside chance these idiots in congress actually pull this off.

Nick will have to post a link to ZinZan's page to buy the autographs.