Committee rejects biometrics for problem gamblers

Powered by SC Magazine
 

Recommends national standards for machines.

A parliamentary committee has rejected calls to store biometric identifiers on smart cards that would be given to problem gamblers to help prevent big losses on electronic gaming machines.

Handing down a 290-page report today on controversial gambling reform, the committee recommended that a "mandatory pre-commitment scheme apply to all players of high intensity electronic gaming machines by 2014."

High intensity machines were those that had the capacity to cost players up to $1,200 an hour.

Under the committee's proposal, players would be given a card with a default daily gambling limit that could be modified.

Players approaching their set spending limit would be alerted. If they reached the limit, they'd be locked out from gambling further, even if they tried to change machines or venues.

Some industry figures had sought for a biometric identifier to be stored on the cards to verify the player's identity.

Biometrics, it was said, could prevent a player wishing to gamble beyond their limit from simply borrowing or stealing someone else's card to continue spending.

But the committee disagreed, saying that cards need only "to demonstrate sufficient integrity and robustness in order to minimise identity fraud but not require onerous signing up processes or infringe upon individual's privacy."

"The committee explicitly rejects the use of biometrics for identity purposes," the report noted.

"The identification requirements needed to prevent player fraud can be accommodated with less intrusive technologies."

Another key technological reform proposed by the committee was the introduction of uniform national technical standards for operating systems and communication protocols used in gaming machines.

These would be introduced in several phases.

However, the committee recommended that the standards were not applied in phase one – where states and territories would need to alter "high-intensity" gaming machines to accept pre-commitment cards.

"Jurisdictions may elect to use differing technological solutions to meet the national pre-commitment features," the report stated.

Committee head and MP Andrew Wilkie said today that the committee was "happy for the states to achieve their own technical fixes".

The committee also recommended a national body be formed to oversee implementation of pre-commitment.

Wilkie said about 88 percent of gamblers would be unaffected by the proposed new rules because their existing spending limits were low.

He called on the reform's many vocal opponents to cooperate.

"This is an unprecedented Federal [intervention] in gambling in this country," Wilkie said.

"It's way beyond time [for critics] to either work with us and ensure implementation in the most favourable way to the industry or to get out of the way and let us get on with the job."

Vendors like Responsible Gaming Networks already claim to have pre-commitment technology that can be applied to poker machines.

Its system, SAFETY NET, was named in the "Top 20 Most Innovative Gaming Technology Products" at a competition in Las Vegas this week.

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


Committee rejects biometrics for problem gamblers
 
 
 
Top Stories
Beyond ACORN: Cracking the infosec skills nut
[Blog post] Could the Government's cybercrime focus be a catalyst for change?
 
The iTnews Benchmark Awards
Meet the best of the best.
 
Telstra hands over copper, HFC in new $11bn NBN deal
Value of 2011 deal remains intact.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  39%
 
Your insurance company
  4%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  8%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  8%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  3%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  20%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 1827

Vote
Do you support the abolition of the Office of the Information Commissioner?