Current Government Initiatives
Justification for Regulation
One might question what the big deal is with allowing those who care to
partake in Internet gambling to do so. Those opposed to the activity
have their reasons. First, many online gambling sites require users
to establish international bank accounts or give credit card numbers in
order to play. Whenever money is moving quickly and untraceably via
encryption, there is cause for alarm. Some believe that online gambling
could lead to international organized crime and money laundering.
There is also the fear of fraud. If and when gamblers win, will they
actually be paid? Currently, there is no reason to trust any of the
online gambling sites. Perhaps this is the gambler’s problem, but
there are also concerns that should concern us all.
Parents are worrying about the impact of Internet gambling on children.
We know that pornography currently runs rampant on the Internet, and what
is to say that gambling will not become as easily accessible and prevalent.
Of course, parental control software that can block and screen web sites
containing material inappropriate for children is already available.
Internet gambling sites may want to consider becoming actively involved
in promoting and advertising such software to show they are acting responsibly.
Current Laws and Precedents
U.S. legislation surrounding Internet gambling has recently been introduced
within the last year. There following three pieces of legislation
are associated with the legality and prevention of Internet gambling.
-
Federal Interstate Wire Act: This act "bans using ‘wires’ to transmit
information on betting or actual bets across state lines or to foreign
countries." This law could only be used to prosecute the operators
of online casinos, not Internet access providers or actual gamblers.
-
Travel Act: This act "bans US citizens from traveling, using the
mail or any ‘facility’ in interstate or foreign commerce for illegal activities
or their promotions." Broadly interpreted, this law could potentially
threaten US citizens operating Internet gambling sites overseas.
-
Crime Control Act: This act allows the government to define what
does and does not constitute illegal gambling, and could be used to prosecute
Internet access providers.
While these laws attempt to limit Internet gambling, several loopholes
exist. First, they focus only on gambling or crimes involving interstate
transactions, which leaves significant room for interpretation and appeal.
Second, even if these laws could be extended to Internet gambling, enforcement
would be costly and complicated given today’s unrestricted environment.
This is not to say, however, that the government has not tried. In
early March of 1998, the federal government charged 14 people with operating
six illegal on-line gambling services offshore. The US Attorney claims
the existing laws are sufficient while one of the defendant’s attorney
contends that the US has no jurisdiction over operations based in countries
where betting is legal.
Recently, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) formed
the Internet Working Group to (1) amend Section 1084 of the Federal Interstate
Wire Act to ensure Internet gambling is illegal, and (2) establish a joint
enforcement strategy with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade
Commission to stop the spread of Internet gambling including offshore cooperation.
Senator John Kyl (Arizona) is making waves by taking the recommendations
of the Internet Working Group into the Senate. Legislation has also
been introduced in the House of Representatives, by Bob Goodlatte (Virginia)
to prohibit Internet gambling.
State Activity and Legislation:
Minnesota
While the federal government has created a commission for a two-year study
on issues surrounding gambling on the Internet, some states have been quicker
to act. In many states, the Attorney General has filed charges against
Internet casino operators. For example, a judge in Minnesota, where
gambling is illegal, held that the state could regulate Internet betting.
The judge determined that Minnesota has criminal jurisdiction over on-line
gambling if it is offered to state residents.
In this case, the state was able to prove that the defendant offered
its products and services to Minnesota State residents through web advertisements.
Other courts have established that something more substantial than advertising
is required in order for the state to have jurisdiction, merely having
a web site that can be accessed is probably not enough. Applicable
precedents in this case include the Supreme Court finding that when a person
uses a telephone to commit a crime, the offense takes effect in the place
where the hearer, not the speaker, is located. Further, the Minnesota
Attorney General cited a case where person filed a rifle from an Indian
reservation across a boundary into Minnesota and the Minnesota court held
they could try the case because the shots took effect in Minnesota.
Targets of New Legislation
While much of the current and proposed legislation is directed at shutting
down operators of Internet gambling sites, they are not the only ones being
targeted. Internet Service Providers (ISPs), index providers and
advertisers, fund transfer providers, and home users could all be targets
for prosecution. However, the similar issues of jurisdiction and
enforcement will also apply these groups.
Operators
US citizens and corporations are always subject to the jurisdiction of
the US. This country can exert jurisdiction over its citizens for
conducting gambling anywhere in the world, despite that the activity may
be legal in the place where it’s conducted. Most operators hide their
activities by using surrogate servers and other means, and the US would
have to have the person(s) charged extradited from a foreign country to
be brought into court here. This extradition is not easily accomplished—the
US must have a treaty that specifically names Internet gambling as a reason
for extradition from the country in question. No such treaties exist
currently. Further, the countries where the operations are located
are presumably collecting tax revenue from corporations and would not want
to lose the business. Lastly, even if the US managed to bring an
operator into court, there are still uncertainties concerning the current
laws.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
Unlike site operators, ISPs are subject to federal regulation. In
some countries, the government allows only certain groups (like universities)
access to the Internet. In others, the government is the only ISP.
Given the First Amendment to the Constitution, these policies would not
work in the US.
Another option for the government is extending the Federal Communication
Commission’s (FCC) authority to govern content on the Internet. ISPs
would be required to now the nature of content they provide, a somewhat
unrealistic expectation. Attempts have been made to apply similar
expectations to on-line service providers, but have failed with the reasoning
that booksellers could not be required to know the contents of every book
in the shop.
However, one significant finding was against Prodigy, an on-line service
provider. The court held that because Prodigy maintained editorial
control, like a newspaper, they could be held liable for defamatory matter
posted anonymously to a bulletin board. Since then, Congress has
modified the Communications Decency Act to protect ISPs: No provider or
user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher
or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Index Providers and Advertisers
If the government extends the authority of the FCC to govern content on
the Internet, advertising materials would be reviewed in much they same
way they are for television and radio. Since the FCC issues the operating
licenses, it then has the authority to fine or suspend the license of any
station that broadcasts gambling advertisements. However, Internet
advertising is on sites that are operated privately (or operated outside
the US), and the FCC could not quite revoke a license it has not issued.
Funds Transfer Providers
This group could be the easiest for the government to go after for two
reasons: the majority of firms providing financial transactions are US
companies, and there are a manageable number of them. These firms
could be guilty of aiding and conspiring with an overseas casino to commit
a crime and therefore be held liable.
Home Users
The consumers of gambling are one of the hardest groups to target.
First, there are still no clear laws asserting the illegality of gambling
on the Internet. Second, enforcement agencies would require proof
of the activity. This implies an insider (family member) reports
the activity, the government sets up a sting site, or the enforcement agency
uses a wiretap that is able to decrypt communication on the phone line.
On-Line Gambling Advocates
Interactive Gaming Council
Among the shouts of corruption and fraud, there do exist some advocates
of Internet gambling, and they have developed some possible solutions to
the concerns discussed above. The Interactive Gaming Council (ICG)
"provides a forum for companies to address issues and advance common interests
in the global interactive gaming industry." The idea is that
if Internet gambling is going to exist, why not regulate it rather than
putting it into the hands of overseas operators or potentially, organized
crime. The ICG has developed a Code of Conduct for the gambling industry
as a whole. The ten issues addressed in the code are: regulatory
compliance, accountability, consumer privacy and data collection, truth
in advertising, dispute resolution and audit trails, limiting access by
minors, controlling compulsive gambling, banking and transaction processing,
prize payouts, and corporate citizenship. If adhered to, the
proposed Code of Conduct could lend credibility to Internet gambling sites.
World Wide Web Consortium
The World Wide Web Consortium is also doing its part to build credibility
among Internet sites. For instance, they have recently developed
a rating program which rates sites based on certain content criteria.
This protocol proposed to make this happen is called Platform for Internet
Content Selection (PICS). Both Microsoft Explorer and Netscape Navigator
have agreed to support the protocol, however, it has yet to receive widespread
acceptance. Rating all Internet sites is also a tremendous feat that
may not even be feasible.
Conclusion
While there are many issues surrounding Internet gambling, the larger questions
associated with the use and regulatory environment for the Internet are
critical and far-reaching. The essential question that needs to be
addressed is the following: Should the Internet be regulated? And
if so, by whom? Entrepreneurs looking to start new Internet businesses
have to be vigilant about what the government might do in response.
While resolving these questions will likely take years of struggle and
debate, until then, "Happy Internet Gambling!"
Back to Table of Contents
15.963 Class Web Site
Internet
Gambling Information
Directories of On-Line
Casinos
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at jcliffor@mit.edu