'Black Friday' and associated fallout megathread

[dj11]

If in UK, lots of places have free wi fi zones where you just ask them for a code

True, same here in the US, but you are authenticated via the ISP you pay to provide you internet. And thusly you are identified, and identified with a particular (semi-) legal location. The fact that you connect in Holland or Hong Kong is immaterial. The fact that you connect via an authentication in the US is material.

 

[katymaty]

True, same here in the US, but you are authenticated via the ISP you pay to provide you internet. And thusly you are identified, and identified with a particular (semi-) legal location. The fact that you connect in Holland or Hong Kong is immaterial. The fact that you connect via an authentication in the US is material.

Thought if you connect via a cafe/restaurant/hotel etc you connect via their ISP.

What happens if you give a relative /friend in Europe your login details:eating:

 

[Brave_n_Crazy]

Honestly, the ban probably takes your billing address as its source. Otherwise people could simply use an IP-masking program to appear to be playing in Europe

 

[katymaty]

Add this, it is very likely that the Feds are monitoring these threads, and probably have old useless spies, living abroad, trying all these workarounds, and reporting back.

Sounds like the Cold War !!!!!!!!!!

KGB vs FBI winner gets to take on the CIA and James Bond waiting in the wings

 

[roundcat]

Now that the "ZOMG the sky is falling" panic has moved through my brain and I look more closely, several things occur to me.

1) I knew when I deposited money into poker accounts that I was doing so under a very grey legal cloud. I chose to deposit anyway. I think this applies to most US players.

2) The fact that sites were using third party processors at all sounded enough of a warning bell in my head to prevent me from making large deposits. The whole situation has screamed "play at your own risk" for years.

3) Getting a check for a poker cashout from a florist or pet-supply company should have made any sane person feel like they were a bit actor in an episode of The Sopranos. There's only one reason a check wouldn't just have the name of the processor, and that's because the transaction is not legal.

The bottom line is, we knew we were playing with fire and chose to open the marshmellows. Blaming the government for daring to enforce the law governing proper banking procedure just because it negatively affects us is, to borrow a phrase, results-oriented. If indeed those indicted did participate in the creation of shell companies in violation of Federal law, then they should be prosecuted just as they should be were they operating a chain of brothels or any other enterprise.

It seems people love to scream about corporations not paying their fair share of taxes and the shady things they do to avoid it, until the corporation is one that gives them something they want. You can't have it both ways. A kind criminal is still a criminal.

So, I will calmly continue playing the sites I can and become more active in the politics of getting online poker legalized.

Excellent post. Those checks always looked funny and I wondered every time whether they'd clear (they did).

I still resent government interference in this in the first place, though, via UIGEA.

 

[elsif]

The ban via the pokerstars website is using your Mail Address to decide whether or not you are American.

If Pokerstars would simply change their application to allow you to change your Mail address to a different country, you'd be able to do so, and thus able to use the service afterwards.

In fact, if you sign up for a new account with a bogus Canadian address, you should have no issue transferring your money from your old US account to your new Canadian account.

Also:
When a domain is seized, you would expect the DNS servers to be changed.

Pokerstars.eu: udns1.ultradns.net udns2.ultradns.net
pokerstars.com: udns1.ultradns.net udns2.ultradns.net

This is what 'WHOIS' reports for the domain.

A query against the .COM DNS servers (operated by Verisign in the US), reports:
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @h.gtld-servers.net NS pokerstars.com
pokerstars.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.cirfu.net.
pokerstars.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.cirfu.net.

Isn't Verisign in direct violation of the law regarding gTLD's as spelled out by ICANN for listing different WHOIS information for the domain than is being published in the DNS?

Shouldn't the owner of the domain now be listed as:
FBI's Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit

Does anyone else find it weird that the FBI is using Amazon.Com's services to blackhole these domains? Why would Amazon.com open themselves up to boycott?

Contact information for Amazon.com, facilitators of this government takeover, are:
RTechPhone: +1-206-266-4064
RTechEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com

 

[katymaty]

This whole thing reminded me of an email I received last year from intertops Poker

It was in November, so loks like poker sites were being cautious then. Intertops is on the Cake Network

This e-mail is to notify you that your withdrawal has been processed via Neteller , therefore, the funds are available on your account.

We kindly ask that you never disclose the details of this transaction when speaking with your bank i.e. that this transaction relates to winnings from your online casino account.

Should you encounter any problems with this transaction, we advise that you contact us first to rectify any issue before going to your bank.

Thank you for playing at Intertops!
Sincerely,
Karen.

 

[dmorris68]

True, same here in the US, but you are authenticated via the ISP you pay to provide you internet. And thusly you are identified, and identified with a particular (semi-) legal location. The fact that you connect in Holland or Hong Kong is immaterial. The fact that you connect via an authentication in the US is material.

I'm not sure what you're getting at dj, but when you access the internet outside of your home or wherever it is you pay for internet service, you're using the ISP of wherever you are -- not yours. I can go across the street to my neighbors house and login through his wifi, and I'll be using his ISP, not mine, and my ISP will never know about it.

If you go abroad, then you're certainly not connecting or authenticating through your own ISP, unless you purposefully VPN back to your home service and then go out from there, and nobody would do this to play poker.

Going to any public hotspot or that of friends/family will only use your ISP if *they* use the same ISP as you do.

 

[katymaty]

I'm not sure what you're getting at dj, but when you access the internet outside of your home or wherever it is you pay for internet service, you're using the ISP of wherever you are -- not yours. I can go across the street to my neighbors house and login through his wifi, and I'll be using his ISP, not mine, and my ISP will never know about it.

If you go abroad, then you're certainly not connecting or authenticating through your own ISP, unless you purposefully VPN back to your home service and then go out from there, and nobody would do this to play poker.

Going to any public hotspot or that of friends/family will only use your ISP if *they* use the same ISP as you do.

Thats what i was trying to say but you put it better than me

 

[tenbob]

Moving to another country is fine, and atm most EU countries (apart from ireland) is fine. However in Ireland we have a criminal assets bureau, which has pretty wide sweeping powers for seizing the proceeds of crime, withir it be earned in Ireland or abroad. So whilst playing poker is perfectally legal in Ireland, it still can be considered proceeds of crime if earned in the US (pending this case obv).

What it means for the ordinary Joe, is that even for me in my business, if I deposit into a bank account any amount over €10K, the bank is required by law to report it, and hold the funds until it clears. The banks make creating a bank account EXTREMLY difficult and cumbersome. The good thing about this whole thing is that money laundering drug money for example is next to impossible. The CAB system is currently being examined as a solution to proceeds of crime for the rest of the Eurozone.

 

[Brave_n_Crazy]

I still resent government interference in this in the first place, though, via UIGEA.

As do I. I have read the law and find it somewhat amusing. Essentially it is void in any state which allows online gambling

Sec. 802. § 5362. 10

(B) INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.
The term 'unlawful Internet gambling' does not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where
(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single State;
(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of such State, and the State law or regulations include-
(I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of such State; and
(II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with such State's law regulations
​

So it seems our focus going forward will need to be dual; legalization of online poker in individual states, which is likely easier than the second part, legalization at a national level.

The law itself is rather sweeping, with applications far beyond online poker. It's also interesting that Sec. 803 (Internet gambling in or through foreign jurisdictions) fails to make any mention of the fact that it is likely a violation of at least two WTO agreements to which the US is party.

 

[dmorris68]

In fact, if you sign up for a new account with a bogus Canadian address, you should have no issue transferring your money from your old US account to your new Canadian account.

Flagrant TOS violation that could get both accounts suspended or forfeited. I don't see how the circumstances are an excuse to blatantly violate the sites' TOS.

Also:
When a domain is seized, you would expect the DNS servers to be changed.

Pokerstars.eu: udns1.ultradns.net udns2.ultradns.net
Pokerstars.com: udns1.ultradns.net udns2.ultradns.net

This is what 'WHOIS' reports for the domain.

A query against the .COM DNS servers (operated by Verisign in the US), reports:
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @h.gtld-servers.net NS pokerstars.com
pokerstars.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.cirfu.net.
pokerstars.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.cirfu.net.

Isn't Verisign in direct violation of the law regarding gTLD's as spelled out by ICANN for listing different WHOIS information for the domain than is being published in the DNS?

What law? ICANN is essentially a private, non-profit arm of the US Govt. There are no criminal laws around ICANN, only contractual obligations between it and its registrars such as the UDRP. And even if there were, you can be sure they would be in the US's favor anyway. The original mandate for ICANN came from the US Govt, who managed global DNS before ICANN took it over. They still maintain close relationships with the US Govt, and are in partnership with the US Dept of Commerce. So I can assure there there is nothing to get in the way of the US DOJ doing what it wants with seized domains.

Shouldn't the owner of the domain now be listed as:
FBI's Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit

AFAIK legal domain seizures as part of a criminal action don't go around updating WHOIS data to show new ownership. It often isn't even a question of ownership, as they're seizing control and not necessary ownership. At any rate, a minor detail that simply doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Like them or not, the DOJ and the US Attorney's office involved in this are not amateurs. They pretty well know what they're doing and I'm willing to bet my entire bankroll that the sites in question are not going to beat the charges. Maybe the UIGEA can be separated from online poker during all this, but bank fraud and money laundering are serious charges that won't go away and I don't see how they'll be dismissed. We can argue that the unreasonable UIGEA set them up to have to do this, but that's never a legal defense and we should all know that.

Does anyone else find it weird that the FBI is using Amazon.Com's services to blackhole these domains? Why would Amazon.com open themselves up to boycott?

Contact information for Amazon.com, facilitators of this government takeover, are:
RTechPhone: +1-206-266-4064
RTechEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com

LOL, court orders are an amazing door opener. Amazon is a US operation that is under the jurisdiction of the DOJ, and must honor whatever warrants and orders they are provided with. Don't try to put this on Amazon. Besides, there were actual serious crimes alleged here that have nothing to do with poker, so I'm not sure why you would expect Amazon to act any different.

 

[vagas35]

To all the uk players playing Pokerstars, i made a $500 withdrawal today after reading this just to test the waters, and had no problem using visa debit.

I also note there are 300k players on stars at the moment seems like a lot after whats happened

 

[arahel_jazz]

Also:
When a domain is seized, you would expect the DNS servers to be changed.

Pokerstars.eu: udns1.ultradns.net udns2.ultradns.net
Pokerstars.com: udns1.ultradns.net udns2.ultradns.net

This is what 'WHOIS' reports for the domain.

A query against the .COM DNS servers (operated by Verisign in the US), reports:
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> @h.gtld-servers.net NS pokerstars.com
pokerstars.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.cirfu.net.
pokerstars.com. 172800 IN NS ns2.cirfu.net.

Isn't Verisign in direct violation of the law regarding gTLD's as spelled out by ICANN for listing different WHOIS information for the domain than is being published in the DNS?

Shouldn't the owner of the domain now be listed as:
FBI's Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit

Does anyone else find it weird that the FBI is using Amazon.Com's services to blackhole these domains? Why would Amazon.com open themselves up to boycott?

Contact information for Amazon.com, facilitators of this government takeover, are:
RTechPhone: +1-206-266-4064
RTechEmail: aes-noc@amazon.com

The .com domains are (and should still be) owned by Pokerstars and Fulltilt. For lack of a better word, the FBI "hijacked" the domains at the root by inserting a higher priority A-record.

This whole "seize the domain" crap is funny as hell. If you enter "fulltilt.com" into your browser, you can bypass the FBI block and it goes to the UK site. They (the FBI) were also lazy for using Amazon-EC2 for the blackhole. Really, unless they go after the physical servers (which they can't - unless Interpol cooperates for evidence gathering) the whole .com thing is a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

But it is typical. Think about it - 98% of American players have no idea what a WHOIS database, or a DNS A-record is. Therefore, the attention grab that the FBI got by seizing just the .com domain was all about publicity. Not functionality. It was up to the individual sites to limit the real money play by the Americans on the site. The FBI had nothing to do with it - except threaten the sites with further harassment.

 

[Leo 50]

It is really becoming clear to me that soon we will only be able to play on a US site licensed and regulated by the US government and run by one of the large BnM Vegas casinos.
That is fine with me but I am really worried about the costs, rakes, membership fees etc.
Without competition Vegas will be able to run them anyway they want

Check out this blog
http://thc-blackfridayforonlinepoker.blogspot.com/

 

[Tangerine 53]

So - if I have a bill with my mother-in-law's name on it and use her address saying I am living there - they would accept that?

Very doubtful Debi. For money laundering regs in the UK the requirements are along the lines of:

• Photo ID (normally passport or driving license). I'm guessing that if you have these they're not UK?
• 2 utility bills (mobile bills are not normally accepted) showing your name and the address of the property you live at. The bills must be relatively recent (no more than 3 months old as a guideline).

Hope this helps...

 

[Debi]

So if someone moves over there legitimately to live with a parent, etc for a while - they would not be able to play poker there because all of the utilities would already be turned on in their parent's name?

 

[Pascal-lf]

You'd have a bank statement surely?

Surprised at lack of overlays

 

[arahel_jazz]

An interesting article on DNS seizures... emphasis in red added by me.
Feds Seize Poker Websites; Founders Indicted

from the guilty-until-proven-innocent dept

It appears that the federal government has really fallen in love with its new found ability to simply seize whatever websites they don't like. The latest is that the FBI (not DHS this time) has seized the three largest online poker websites, PokerStars, full tilt poker and Absolute Poker, and indicted the founders of those sites. Some have already been arrested with warrants out for the others. Because, you know, poker is destroying society or something. While at least this time it actually commenced legal actions in association with the seizures, the more the government does this, the more it's going to make sure this new favorite tool (domain seizures) gets shot down by the courts.

First of all, whether or not those sites are illegal is something of an open question. Back in 2006, as part of a bill to protect our ports and harbors (I'm not kidding), Congress passed a "ban" on online gambling. But it's been a pretty open question as to whether or not poker sites really applied. There are questions as to whether or not poker is a game of skill or chance, with at least one court saying that it was the former, and thus not necessarily "gambling."

On top of that, some in Congress have been working hard for a while to clarify that online poker is legal.

Even if you accept the idea that these sites are breaking the law -- which is a big open question -- is it really okay to simply seize the domains prior to an adversarial hearing? File charges, bring it to court, and have the government ask for an injunction, allowing the site operators to state the basics of their case. Seizing the domains seems like a massive government overreach (yet again).

Of course, the interesting thing to me is that this may get a lot more people interested in the federal government's new love of seizing domain names prior to any real due process. Perhaps not that many people are all that concerned when the issue was the "boring" question of copyright, but an awful lot of people play online poker, and they are unlikely to appreciate the seizures...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-seize-poker-websites-founders-indicted.shtml

 

[vagas35]

So if someone moves over there legitimately to live with a parent, etc for a while - they would not be able to play poker there because all of the utilities would already be turned on in their parent's name?

Just last week i tried to open a new online bank account, they asked for a utility bill with my name and address on it, the problem was i just sold my flat and moved in with a family member so had no bills at the new address in my name. I still have not managed to open it yet

 

[Debi]

You'd have a bank statement surely?

Yep - we have recent statements with my husband's name on them - and he is calling tomorrow to try to get my name added to the account. The recent statements were sent here to the US however. He can change his address on the account to his mother's address in England - but not sure if a statement would be issued in time.

Just last week i tried to open a new online bank account, they asked for a utility bill with my name and address on it, the problem was i just sold my flat and moved in with a family member so had no bills at the new address in my name. I still have not managed to open it yet

We already have a bank account there so that is not a problem for me.

 

[arahel_jazz]

And the backstory continues to build...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/web-kings-life-on-the-line/story-fn6ck45n-1226039907165

Not sure how accurate C&M is, but this adds an interesting dimension to it all.

 

[Egon Towst]

Surprised at lack of overlays

Me too.

 

[onemorechance]

Surprised at lack of overlays

I think at euro friendly times mtts are reaching their guarantees pretty comfortably. Pretty sure I remember seeing some decent value really early morning our time though

 

[coolnout]

DanFleyshman

Asked the Cake Network to BLOCK US players from the Victory poker site. They are supportive of my decision. Hope it gets regulated 1 day!

17 minutes ago via web

looks like cake is pulling out of the US as well.