Feds Seize More Poker Sites

from the feeling-safer? dept

Tue, May 24th 2011 1:21pm — Mike Masnick

Man. The US government sure does love seizing domain names, doesn't it? Just after seizing a bunch of websites over copyright and trademark issues, it appears that the feds have also seized ten more domains having to do with online poker. What's interesting here is that the government apparently set up its own "fake" payment processing service, and supplied such services to a bunch of these sites:

The investigation into the activities of the two companies included a sting operation in which the Department of Homeland Security set up a fake payment processing company called Linwood Payment Solutions. The company processed payments throughout 2009 both to and from the online poker sites. According to the affidavit, Linwood processed over $33 million in payments over the course of more than 300,000 transactions.

�It is illegal for internet gambling enterprises to do business in Maryland, regardless of where the website operator is located,� said U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein. �We cannot allow foreign website operators to flout the law simply because their headquarters are based outside the country.�

This confuses me. My understanding of the law here was merely that it was illegal to process payments for such sites. Yet, if the government sets up its own payment processor, then isn't it the government that was breaking the law here? Contrary to what Rosenstein states, my understanding was that the law does not actually outlaw gambling sites, just the payment processing for such sites. Perhaps those more familiar with the law can clarify this...?

Separately, that final line from Rosenstein should scare pretty much any foreign company. It appears to be the US asserting jurisdiction over any website in any country. If the Justice Department or Homeland Security doesn't like it, it's gone. Doesn't that seem like an international incident waiting to happen? For years, we've tried to explain to other countries that they can't sue US companies for things online, and yet here we are, claiming jurisdiction over the whole internet.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: domain names, poker, seizure

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Doe, 24 May 2011 @ 1:35pm

This might have an upside
The more the US government seizes domains, maybe the quicker we will get to a distributed system for doing domains so that no one seizure can shut a site down.

In the mean time, I will sit here with my fingers crossed that one of those countries whose sites are being seized doesn't declare war on us for for the cyber-threat we are creating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anymouse (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re: This might have an upside
  Apparently there isn't enough interest in the 'cyber-war' the politicians and their cronies (the ones making billions from the government protecting us from those bad cyber bullies) are trying to claim exists....
  
  So they are trying to find a real enemy for the cyber-jihad they are sure we need to protect ourselves from. I'm sure one of the congress critter's buddies has a 'solution' ready to go to protect us, for the low one time fee of 1 bazillion dollars (taxes, fines, forfeitures, extraditions, licensing, and future protection not included).....
  
  No I'm not jaded or cynical, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 1:36pm

Is it really the case that not enough people actually care? Are there so few people who want actual news reporting that no network will step up to the plate?

I know we have a myriad of web based news operations that do good reporting, but they still don't represent the sheer scale of the major news networks.

There's certainly no lack of material to keep a real news network going. Is that they are so afraid of losing access that they won't bite the hand that feeds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 1:37pm

Well it goes like this:
I you hire a hooker, it's illegal in most places in the US.

If you hire a hooker and she happens to be a cop who takes things a little too far and DOES take your money in exchange for sex, she's done nothing wrong and you're going to jail.

This, I have observed, is what's called a "sting" operation.

Also, these can be stretched out awhile. The 'working' gal you've been seeing every other Thursday night for 2 years might just be a cop and she's waiting to bust you "when the time is right."

/sarc (or am I?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 1:40pm

Second to last paragraph, says the same thing twice about what's legal and what isn't (gambling sites vs payment processor).

Other than that I have nothing intelligent to contribute at this time. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 1:44pm

Caruso...
Looks like in these poker site siezures, the government....

*takes off sunglasses*

Holds all the cards....

Yyyyyeeeeeaaaaahhhhh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re: Caruso...
  Oh dear lord. The last thing we need is for CSI Horatio to wade into this mess...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 2:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Caruso...
    Just so long as it wards off the 'Poker Face' jokes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re: Caruso...
  And so we see why i before e except after c is no longer used as a rule of spelling.
  
  Apart from that
  
  DH Caine
  CSI Pensacola awaits
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 3:34pm
  
  Re: Caruso...
  Marcus is going to come after me for this but...
  
  ....who will fold first?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 2:03pm

Clearly whoever's in charge must suck at poker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lavi d (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 2:03pm

Additionally
"Someone, somewhere, used the internet to commit a crime!"

"We must outlaw the internet!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 2:04pm

Isn't it amazing what the DHS is willing to spend tax payers money on?

You'd think the purpose of the DHS is to protect Americans, yet is Americans who WANT to play poker online who are having the privilege taken away from them.

It's ok for people to go broke buying state run lotto tickets but if that same person wants to bet $5 on a hand of poker online from the comfort of their own home NOPE, NOT UNDER THE LAW OF DHS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 2:06pm

Am I the only one surprised that DHS was actually capable of setting up a payment processing system that worked?

Must have contracted that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re:
  Am I the only one disgusted by internet gambling sites that would use a system built by those clowns? I wonder if they even did enough research to know who was behind that shiny new payment processing company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Who cares? The government is now able to steal the money from the poker winners without resoting to clunky taxation laws! [/sarc]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 2:31pm

They're already using that "global authority" clause of PROTECT IP, eh?
COICA was already obsolete when they started pushing it. Now I guess PROTECT IP will become obsolete before it even gets on the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 2:32pm

I just solved the deficit.
We can't let these foreign companies flout our tax law, just because they operate outside our tax jurisdiction!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re: I just solved the deficit.
  if this works really well then the "Homeland Security" can go after the cruise ship industry. Just because they take Americans on cruises and officially port in Europe shouldn't make a difference, right? Am I seeing the parallel? This is about money after all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cloksin, 24 May 2011 @ 2:34pm

Could someone please explain to me just what exactly poker has to do withhomeland security!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Blatant Coward (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re:
  Now terrorists won't force you out of house and home because they pushed your bluff while you only had a lousy pair of 7's and stole your mortgage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Your Friendly Neighborhood Librarian, 24 May 2011 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  Absolutely nothing...can you say 'mission creep'?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob, 24 May 2011 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re:
  Think it goes like this.
  
  The mafia run casinos, so they must also run online poker sites.
  In addition the mafia are bad guys, and terrorist are bad guys too, so:
  
  terrorists = bad guys = mafia = casinos = online poker
  
  Hence terrorists = online poker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew F (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re:
  Haven't you seen "Casino Royale"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeni (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 5:26am
  
  Re:
  Was wondering the same thing... I mean, are we supposed to feel "safer" now?
  
  What is up with DHS sitting at computers thinking up ways to "get" people who are just sitting in their homes "entertaining" themselves? It's astonishing to see story after story roll out about Internet "seizures" and IP #'s "reported" for potential lawsuits... I mean, how are all these people threatening the home land and/or our collective security??? If someone wants to lose their money playing poker, that's not threatening anyone else but themselves.
  
  These are the kind of things they're robbing me out of house and home for via taxation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 2:37pm

Talk About Spurring On Innovation
I imagine the number of online poker communities that deal exclusively in Bitcoins will increase in volume very shortly . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 3:05pm

Goodbye USA
Nice knowing you USA. In just a decade, you have gone from a prosperous nation to the biggest debtor nation in the world. Your government has bankrupted the country, and now you have let private business take over lawmaking and law enforcement. This is clearly the last desperate gasp for life from a country that was once proud. Goodbye good old USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 3:10pm

This is of course Illegal
The US is acting in direct contravention of WTO rules here. The US has already lost a case in the WTO to Antigua over online gambling. Result: Antigua were given express permission to ignore US IP (Ever wondered why Slysoft (which offers sw to circumvent DVD and Blue Ray copy protection) is based there - and why the US has done (can do) nothing about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zach Mollett (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 4:41pm
  
  Re: This is of course Illegal
  This sort of sheds light on how they run things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 3:27pm

It's amazing how constitutional freedoms don't apply to foreign entities but these laws do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re:
  (or at the border).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Drew (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:16am
  
  Re:
  The constitutional and other law codes only apply when it's good for the government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 4:54pm

This will just cause the sites to switch to a different regional domain like .eu, .ca, or .ag. In the end, it will have no real affect on those who wish to game in the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 5:38pm

US RULES!
Separately, that final line from Rosenstein should scare pretty much any foreign company.

That's right, Skippy, they should be scared. And if they don't like it, I wonder how they'd like a few bombs dropped on them instead. It's about time everyone realizes that the US RULES THE WORLD. Sometimes we let them pretend otherwise a little bit just to keep them happy, but, step too far out of line and ... well, just ask Saddam Hussein about that. Oh, that's right, you can't because HE'S DEAD NOW. Ha ha ha! Now STFU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian Lopez, 24 May 2011 @ 8:42pm

The US government gets away with these seizures because it happens to be in cahoots with VeriSign (which controls both the com and net TLDs).

What if VeriSign started cooperating with countries other than the United States? How would Americans react to other countries seizing the domains of US companies for allegedly breaking the law in those countries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 24 May 2011 @ 10:08pm

Of course Homeland Security runs "straight" to domain seizures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 1:13am

Surely the problem in poker being banned in Maryland is not that internet sites that provide poker, more those in Maryland who attempt to play knowing it is illegal. The sites are doing nothing wrong where they are based. i await law suits from the sites for lose of legitimate earnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 1:17am

one more point why use dot com all 10 used that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 6:15am

It is obviously illegal for anyone to do anything unless some full-o-shit politician is getting their share!

You know the legal system is bullshit when it exists solely so politicians can make money.

RE: in ( cRook county ) Chicago where gambling is illegal the politicians of Illinois and Chicago are trying to clear the way for a city owned casino. Either is should be illegal for all or legal for all, this is hypocrisy heavy in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Raffety (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:37pm

Seizing casino Internet domains
Why bother with a DNS domain at all? If I owned an on-line casino, I'd go get an easy-to-remember IP address to host it all, like 7.11.7.11 or 21.21.21.21, and market the hell out of that.

No more DNS problems! Now, does anyone think DHS can tell every U.S. ISP with an international link to block a given IP address?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hanzo, 6 Mar 2013 @ 2:49pm

i dont think that's a good idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]