Analysis: Net gambling next on ISP filter hitlist?

 
Page 2 of 2 | Single page

Wagering service providers Betfair, Betchoice and the Australian Internet Bookmakers Association (AIBA) also made submissions to the inquiry, which was conducted by the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

The Committee was tasked with the inquiry on 24 June and was expected to report by 2 September. However, it said this week that it was "unable to provide a comprehensive report at this time".

The AIBA highlighted the Act's distinction between online wagering and 'internet gaming', which included simulated casino games and poker machines.

"There is a different risk profile for each form of gambling," the AIBA wrote. "For wagering, the internet is merely a communication channel."

It argued that ISP-level blocking of international gaming sites was unfeasible, and payment blocking was difficult to implement.

Online poker sites UltimateBet, Absolute Poker, PartyPoker, PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker were among 2602 links appearing on ACMA's 11 March 2009 blacklist, according to whistleblower site WikiLeaks.

But prohibition of online gaming was not the appropriate policy response, the AIBA wrote.

"The Act [IGA] has been worse than useless ... the Act is unenforceable internationally, and so operators outside of Australia have ignored it.

"The sensible response is to regulate online gaming," the ABIA wrote. "Australians would then at least have the option of playing with online sites under Australian responsible gambling controls."

Compared to offline gambling, the internet offered "a number of advantages in the delivery of responsible gambling strategies", including access to betting history and counselling information, the ABIA wrote.

The association also highlighted the potentials of "pre-commitment" facilities that would allow players to set deposit and loss limits that would remain in place for a specified period.

Pre-commitment was also touted by smartcard technology vendor Regis Controls which, in its parliamentary submission, stated that a smartcard could identify, authenticate and monitor players both on and offline.

Using Regis technology, players would be required to apply for a smartcard with proof of age and identity.

Each player would be issued with a daily, fortnightly or monthly gambling limit following processes similar to a credit check, and in accordance with Government-established guidelines.

"The cards would need to be the only method for anyone to access online or interactive television or mobile phone gambling provider sites, including betting shops and pokies machines," the company wrote.

Julia Gillard, leader of the Australian Labor Party, yesterday made headway into forming a minority Government by promising to implement pre-commitment technology on every Australian Poker Machine by 2014.

In a separate parliamentary submission, the Gambling and Public Health Alliance International recommended that the existing Act be scrutinised and amended from a global perspective.

"Interactive and online gambling is a global activity provided by global businesses, some of which seek to avoid consumer protection obligations, in the pursuit of 'easy money'," the alliance wrote.

"This concern is not unique to Australia, and needs to be addressed through international cooperation.

"The Alliance believes that Australia, along with New Zealand, is well placed at government level to provide leadership in seeking international policies and protocols associated with online and interactive gambling."

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Analysis: Net gambling next on ISP filter hitlist?
"@Tom Brown: Fair go, Tom, if I couldn't think of anything to reply to what you had said, I'd just shut up instead of calling you rabid ;-) So perhaps you could now tell us why you feel it is ..."
By anonymous
 
 
 
Comments: 16
RDEFCON1
Sep 3, 2010 2:44 PM
That's right: prohibiting Australian on-shore sites just forces users to go off-shore - thereby limiting the regulatory control over the providers and removing the option for Australian users to choose a more trustworthy and reliable domestic provider. Dumb law.

So go for it. Introduce another dumb law to block access to off-shore sites. I'll just use a VPN to by-pass the filter, and keep playing poker like I want to.

btone
Sep 3, 2010 3:30 PM
I cannot read RDEFCON1s comment because AAPT's spam/scam popoup has come through the portal and blocked it out, together with the Comment window, so i am typing blind. The popup has no x to close it and has effectively converted me to an anti AAPT advocate in one neat exercise in online advertising epic fail.

brownbear
Sep 3, 2010 3:34 PM
Can I take everyone back to the 1950's when betting in any form in NSW was illegal. The result was a swag of illegal SP bookies, illegal casinos and illegal two up schools. Punters complained they were being ripped off and there were allegations of corruption at the highest levels of government. This was the reason that the TAB was started.
Now these do gooders who want to control everyone elses life because they are scared of losing control of there own want to take us back to the bad old days of graft and corruption and increased crime.
Wake up Australia and tell these "do gooders" where to go.
RB
Sep 3, 2010 3:57 PM
I love it ... there's an Ad at the bottom of the page that is trying to go get me to sign-up for online gambling.
RB
Sep 3, 2010 4:01 PM
If only we had a mandatory filter that the government could just plug-in whatever content is flavour-of-the-week-to-block!!

ap
Sep 3, 2010 5:57 PM
Given the other headlines (at least in NSW), I think it appropriate that the Federal Government immediately introduce a mandatory Internet filter on all politicians - they are obviously an untrustworthy bunch of scoudrels, steeped in every vice known to mankind. Or is it just more "research" to see what the rest of us are up to and so they know what they should block next?
scan06disk
Sep 3, 2010 8:18 PM
What is wrong with this country.... ? why all this sudden "lets all be good over the internet" attitude and waste billions $$$$ ????, leave this sluggish informative tool ALONE YOU FARTWITS !!!
DazzaJ
Sep 4, 2010 9:44 AM
Remember the Labour party are not going to FILTER the internet?
Remeber that the FILTER is only to protect children from CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Remember that the FILTER that isn't going to be instigated is ONLY for unclassified content?
IF they restrict only gambling then it should be restricted to ALL sites. IE TAB, XLotto, and every other online GAMBLING site.
Labour should be filtered, permanently.
Maxxi2
Sep 4, 2010 1:40 PM
DazzaJ, you are bit out of date mate.

RC sites would make up the blacklist as of the most recent proposal, and they would simply add illegal OS gambling sites to the RC category. After all, the OS gambling sites are illegal...

scan, where do you billions$$?

All the oS gambling site operatos need to do is apply for a license and pay Aussie taxes and they would probably be OK... It is your's and mine tax bucks being sucked off by these guys, ie you are paying for it.

Go figure.
anonymous
Sep 4, 2010 6:17 PM

Trusting as ever, Maxxi.

Conboy lied to us before the election about the imposition of secret Internet censorship, shoving it off for a report until safely after the election. Would anybody like to speculate what the report will come up with for a Gillard govt?

The ease with which the filterati now propose instantly adding another complete sector to the banned list shows the real agenda of the people who want to impose control on what information we can access on the Net.
DazzaJ
Sep 5, 2010 8:47 AM
The filter is still going to be implemented but probably through the back doors rather than being open about it - thats the Labour way.
Secondly the "Interactive Gambling Act of 2001" does state its illegal for operators to run a "real money" gambling site specifically for Australian residences. (Remember we're Australian so not deemed bright enough to make up our own minds and choices.)
Anyway it also points out that these online casinos etc can be Australian owned, and that even though the fines COULD be up to $1million a day, theres lots of ifs, buts and maybes, so realistically its rarely enforceable.
This idea of closing the Australian peoples eyes to everything that some left wing churchy tree hugger deems unsuitable, doesn't fix any problems. It just turns Australia into a dictatorship type country.
It makes me wonder what's next. Filter information sites such as wikileaks.org, freespeech.com or wikipedia? Filter News? Filter blogs? Filter opinions on online stories?
P.S. Has this story or site been officially classified or is it refused at this stage?
maxama
Sep 6, 2010 7:15 AM
The way i see it, as long as you're betting in Australia (playing Tattslotto), the government can get $$$$$ "revenue" but it's not okay if you bet online as the money that "DOESN'T" go into government pockets.

Just how money hungry can the government be!!! Disgraceful. This is NOT how a democracy operates. Forced policies.
Ice
Sep 6, 2010 10:28 AM
get over it no where in the australian constitution is there a clause that says we have free peach or any sort of rights the Australian government of the tim if they hold the majority in both houses of parliment can do whatever they like whenever they like
Ice
Sep 6, 2010 10:28 AM
speach no peach
Tom Brown
Sep 6, 2010 2:37 PM
I am pro filter and I agree with many of the criticisms above except those from scan06disk, DazzaJ and anonymous who appear rabid and worthy of ignoring.

If there is a law to prohibit overseas gambling sites then the government is obliged to take action to stop such sites, similarly if there are laws about content then they are obliged to take action. If they don't they are not doing their duty even though it may be unpopular.

If you want to allow all types of internet content then you need to change the law, end of story.

If the critics take such action to change the law to legitimise such content then I will be the critic.

My current criticism is that the government has not fulfilled my expectations to rid us of these criminal sites.
anonymous
Sep 6, 2010 4:33 PM

@Tom Brown: Fair go, Tom, if I couldn't think of anything to reply to what you had said, I'd just shut up instead of calling you rabid ;-)

So perhaps you could now tell us why you feel it is being rabid to point out exactly what is currently being proposed? Discuss.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote