Talk:SAFE Port Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
SAFE Port Act is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).


Contents

[edit] I bet the Mafia is happy it passed

Now serious gamblers will be forced to go to the underground to get their action. Good job government, you just helped the Mafia gain more customers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.87.49 (talk • contribs) .

As of right now there are online poker sites still operating, the government may find it difficult to enforce the act you may want to read this Msnbc article, and even if they were able to do so I doubt a serious gambler is going to go to the mob for a game, they will likely find some other way to play online, a home game or they will play at a casino, You may have seen the movie Rounders once too many times (just kidding) but seriously read the article and you’ll see what I mean. :) --Sirex98 06:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people."

I removed the following from the bottom of the article:

It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people.

Because it didn't really fit, and had the feeling of vandalism. I think the sentiment expressed is important, though, but I really don't know anything abut the Safe Port Act, so I don't really know. Anyone? --Badger151 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't do "sentiment". That sort of passage is not encyclopedic. 2005 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but if there is a significant group that is against the act, for this reason, I though it might bear mentioning. --Badger151 21:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add that persons engaged in illegal gambling, which was previous possible on the internet due to loopholes in enforcement, are opposed to this act? After all the changes in the law didn't do anything to outlaw gambling. They simply deals with how financial institutions deal with the proceeds of something that was already illegal. Did anyone here actually read the definitions in Sec. 5362(10)? --Holford 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protectionism

Shouldn't we mention the rumors of protectionism? There have been a large number, especially from the UK, Gibraltar and Australia, where many of these companies were based. I think it needs a mention at least, of course the word "rumor" would need to appear with it ;)

Segafreak2 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A line or two about Antigua's World Trade Organization ruling would be appropriate, although another ruling is due in a couple months, which would be more relevant since the previous ruling was prior to the Safe Port Act. 2005 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pub.L. 109-347

The correct number of this law is Pub.L. 109-347, according to THOMAS. Markles used the USPL template to cite this, but due to a typo, linked to 109-367. 2005 noticed the broken link and reverted Markles' edit. The USPL template, linked to 109-347, would work correctly, except that the document is not available yet from the Government Printing Office web site. When this link: Pub.L. 109-347 starts working, we should revise the article. US 30 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone's fixed it. --Pesco 02:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional supporters

I cleaned up the new paragraph on Jim Leach and Bill Frist. They are still serving in the Congress until their terms expire January 3. While it is relevant to this article that they were behind UIGEA, I'm not comfortable with calling out only those two. It smacks of editorial comment. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl supported UIGEA too, and he was reelected. US 30 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

12/10/2007 - I made sure to add Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA], who co-authored H.R. 4411, and Jon Kyl who took over the gambling prohibition torch from his dead father Iowa Congressman Jphn Kyl. Please do not remove mention of these players. They were as instrumental as Leach and Frist in starting the illegal (accordin to the WTO) prohibition of online gambling in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.37.119 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Washington Watch

There is a dispute between user 2005 and anonymous user 193.95.179.200 regarding the link to the Washington Watch website. The referenced page is at best a secondary source. However, it links out to two significant places: one, the text of the law, which is duplicative of a link already on this page, and two, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the law. This analysis focuses entirely on the port security provisions of the law. Therefore, as a compromise, I am removing the Washington Watch link, adding a section to this page regarding port security, and linking directly to the CBO analysis from the port security section.

There is another dispute between the same parties as to the ordering of paragraphs discussing gambling sites' reactions to the law. I agree with 2005's position. Sites dropping U.S. customers are more significant, since they illustrate the effect of the new law, than those not doing so. But the issue of paragraph ordering is hardly worth a discussion, let alone a revert war.

I don't own this page, so feel free to keep tinkering. US 30 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doyle's Room should be added

It should be added to the list of online poker sites that don't accept US customers. From March they will allow players to withdraw from their accounts. User Sbpatel.

[edit] The SAFE Port Act is about Gambling?

Amazing what is considered teh most important element of this legislation - gambling. Wikipedia is many things, but balanced it probably is not. 130.20.3.179 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're free to add information on other aspects to this legislation, you realize? Hey jude, don't let me down 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's considered "the most important element" because the rest of it is uncontroversial and not any more noteworthy than any other similar legislation. Indeed, that is why the online poker gambling rider was attached in the first place. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to point it out, "uncontroversial" and "not any more noteworthy" is your POV, Furrykef. Remember the Dubai Ports World controversy? Port security, at times, is neither uncontroversial or unnoteworthy. I think it's more that the SAFE Port Act, dealing with just port security, was a "must pass" bill, not any less noteworthy, which is why the rider was attached. But you're right, Hey jude, it's up to each individual to add content. If anyone feels like something should be in an article, they can add it. I suppose the original comment was just a wry social commentary vs. a call to action. --Pesco 01:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTO section

The WTO section is gross misstatement of the consequences of the case. The Safe Port Act was not mentioned in the case (it hadn't been passed yet) and the case says nothing specifically about the anti-gambling provisions of the Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.182.4 (talk) at 03:49, 18 April 2007

[edit] Someone ("2005") keeps reverting my edits

I've added information to the article in the gambling section, citing SPECIFICALLY which poker websites are still accepting U.S. players, but someone keeps reverting my additions, falsely labeling it as "spam." My information was not at all intended to be seen as spam, and upon review, I find it difficult to see how someone could interpret it as such. Anyway, I'm not going to bother checking back every day to re-add information that someone wrongly deletes, so I'll leave that up to someone else who wants to review the information. --Josh1billion 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Using external links inline might look like spam. If you want to add a link to the source of your information I would suggest using a proper reference instead. /213.67.50.84 21:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The inline link is clear spam, and something that could be found on hundreds of sites, but more to the point the addition is ridiculous. The current text talks about all online gambling companies, differentiating reactions from the public companies to the private ones. The addition weirdly changes the focus to poker and mentions specific companies when there is no need to call one out over another. So besides the spam, the addition clearly is not welcome. This is not a poker article. This is an article about legislation, and to a smaller degree the reaction of the entire online gaming industry, not just one aspect of it. 2005 21:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The online gambling aspect of the legislation is a very important part of it. Millions of U.S. citizens gamble online, and this legislation has practical implications directly affecting each one of those people. It is perhaps the single most practical effect of the legislation for those millions of citizens. I'll admit that just pasting the link in may seem like spam, but the correct solution is not to omit that information, but to change how it's presented. I will change it into reference format if it makes everyone happy. --Josh1billion 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: It's been changed to a reference. It is fine as is, now. Do not continue to remove the information unless there is good reason to do so. --Josh1billion 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop spamming this link. The "good reason" to remove it is this is an encyclopedia, not a game guide, or a place to promote one company over another, or a place to promote one website over hundreds of others with the same data. This article is about the SAFE Port act, not which specific cardrooms allow US play and which don't. the article mentions some do and some don't. Naming three specifically is wildly inappropriate, especially referencing it with a marginal, anonymous source. Please don't add it again. 2005 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, spam = advertisement, and the citation of a webpage is NOT advertisement of the said webpage. Also, your words "anonymous source" indicate that you have not done your homework. The page I cited is a list maintained by FlopTurnRiver.com, which is a known, reputable source for information on poker. It is not an "anonymous source" as you have stated. If you are somehow trying to accuse me of advertising that website, I'll let it be known for the record that I am not affiliated with the site and rarely visit it anymore as it is (personally, I rarely play Poker these days). Anyway, back on topic, you have also subtly made the accusation that the information of which websites have stood up to the legislation would turn the article into a "game guide," which is flat-out ridiculous. Also, you have suggested that listing several poker sites which allow U.S. customers as examples is unfair to the other poker sites which aren't listed as examples; remember that I earlier tried adding the list directly to be fair to all websites, but even then, you protested. --Josh1billion 09:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The idea flopturnriver is a reliable source on the Safe Port act is ridiculous. You need to read WP:RS and WP:V. Obviously an anonymous website, even if it is a known poker one, does not meet the criteria here to be cited, especially in the face of far superior citable sources. Addionally, why are you continually adding a poker-centric link? Why not a list of bigo sites taking US players? What about blackjack sites? Your addition makes no sense. Please now stop adding this inappropriate text to the article. 2005 10:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. After reviewing your talk page, it appears that you have quite a history of removing information from articles without valid cause, which is considered an act of vandalism. Please stop deleting information unless you have valid reasons and information to support your decisions. --Josh1billion 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a little nitpick... according to Wp:vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Just a little pet peeve of mine since people cry vandalism far too often. Crimson30 22:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my wording. --Josh1billion 22:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 11th of July

I understand that on the 11th of July 2007 the UIGEA (affecting poker, etc., web sites) became law, having had its 270-odd days since it was "passed" (I don't pretend to understand all the ins-and-outs). I think there should be some mention of this in the article by someone knowledgeable. E.g. on that day pre-paid USA Visa cards that previously worked at online gambling sites were no longer accepted. EdX20 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That date has no special significance. UIGEA has been law since it was signed. Regulations should have been created by now, but the US government almost never publishes regulations in a timely fashion. 2005 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

I only just noticed that FullTilt is back to real money. Has there been some new clarification/interpretation of the UIGEA? -Crimson30 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused about something. FullTilt has always been real money. 2005 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split gambling section to its own article

I consolidated the gambling parts of the article into its own section and added the "Split" template to the article. As noted by the article, the gambling sections of this law at one point had been its own bill. The gambling title of the law has its own short title. The article & talk page are dominated by the gambling aspects of the law, so I feel the gambling sections should be found in its own Wikipedia article that more accurately describe its content. I would leave a header on the remaining SAFE Port Act article with a link to the gambling article, and I would propose this entire talk page become the gambling article talk page. Thoughts? --Pesco 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the split to be a good decision. Currently, we have certain users constantly complaining whenever the gambling section of the article grows to more than a few sentences, but the gambling title of the law has very practical implications which should definitely be examined. It could be argued that the gambling aspects of the law directly affect Americans more than any other aspect of the law. Personally, I'd rather see the article kept as a whole and have more information in the gambling section of the article, but as I mentioned earlier, certain users always complain when that section grows, so I feel that a split would be a good compromise. --Josh1billion 22:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is not unduly long, so what would be a rationale to split it? Giving the legislative history of the Act, splitting it would be deceptive. So, absent any need to split it, splitting it would be inappropriate. 2005 02:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The rationale to split it is that the majority of the article content is not about the subject you would assume by the article title. WP:NAME says that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." The casual person interested in an article about internet gambling shouldn't be expected to know to read the article about the SAFE Port Act. As far as legislative history, the gambling section had a passed bill in the House of Representatives. Just because for political reasons the U.S. Senate plopped it into another bill doesn't mean Wikipedia has to keep the articles together. As I mentioned above, the gambling section has its own short title in the law, making it quite a distinct section of the law. The gambling sections of this law can officially and accurately be called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which as a Wikipedia article name would give a much better description of the gambling content of the article. The new article can give the legislative history, describing how it was attached to the SAFE Port Act. --Pesco 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
How do you conclude "the majority of the article content is not about the subject you would assume by the article title"? The article is about the Safe Port Act, which has a gambling section. Read what you just quoted above. A general audience would expect text about a law to be in the article about the law, not under a (long) subheading. Just because you have specialized knowledge doesn't mean a general audience does. Then of course the long subheading redirects here anyway, which begs the question again, why would you want to split this text into two places? You can come up with excuses to move a section, but it goes counter to NAME, user-friendliness and an accurate depiction of events (as well as leading to duplicate categorization). It wouldn't be the end of the world to break it in two, but since there are no positives in doing it and several negatives, why do it? 2005 14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless the article were significantly longer, it wouldn't make any sense at all to split this into multiple articles. A more constructive approach would be to lengthen the coverage of the non-internet gambling aspects of the article, if you want to balance it out. Rray 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
3 of the 86 Sections of the SAFE Port Act have to deal with internet gambling. And those three sections have their own short title, "The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006". Why not use the actual title of that section for the Wikipedia article about that part of the law? I think this is especially important in this case since the UIGEA was added to another law for political reasons. Like I said, Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons. I think it's just more in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia to have an article name reflect the overall content of the article. To think of an anology... Let's say an article on the United States had content that was 90% about the state of Nevada. Wouldn't you expect to read great detail about Nevada in the Nevada article? Or should people just demand that others add more content about the other 49 states to equal it out? If the split were to go through, I would definately support leaving some information in the SAFE Port Act about the UIGEA, but with the "See main article" template pointing to the real UIGEA article. I definately plan on making the port security sections of the SAFE Port Act article longer, but I thought the split would be a good place to start. --Pesco 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"Like I said, Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons." Of course we should. You seem to have a political agenda here. Sorry, but our job is to deal with what is, not "fix" things to what we would poltically prefer. Once again, if there was a space issue that the 83 non-gambling sections not getting the space they deserve, then splitting might make sense, but that isn't an issue, so the piece of legislation should be dealt with in one place. It's more covenient this way; it doesn't make a "fix the political issue" point by separating them; and it doesn't break the many links pointing to this page. There is no reason to break it up, and again several very plain reasons not to, so I'd suggest you forget about you "fix the US government's political maneuvering" idea because you could spend the rest of your life on that. (We can revist this after you expand the port part and we see how long the article is then.) 2005 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You make way too many assumptions, 2005. I have no political agenda. Just because something is more convenient for you doesn't mean it's convenient for everybody else, either. I've stated several very simple reasons to split which you've ignored. I'd suggest you not make assumptions about the motivations of others. I didn't say "fix the US government's political manuevering", so please don't quote it as if I said it. I don't believe you should be asserting control over when issues are revisted, either. With regards to this issue, my only intent was to have article names that accurately reflect the majority of the content of those articles, not to fix a law. I was pointing out that the UGIEA part of the Act was a relatively small addition to an already comprehensive bill on a vastly different subject. --Pesco 06:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You said "Wikipedia shouldn't have to perpetuate something the U.S. Congress did just for political reasons". That is what YOU wrote, and that is flat wrong. The fact of the matter is the Act was a relatively comprhensive bill with something tacked on, on a vastly different subject. That is what it is, and our articles should reflect that, unless as with all articles, more space is required. 2005 07:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add here that User:2005 seems to be a petty tyrant who has a big WP:OWN problem with this article that is unbecoming to him. -- Konk Republik (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone a "petty tyrant" is a personal attack. That kind of behavior isn't really allowed here, and it's also not going to help you achieve your goals here. Rray (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the people who are saying that the article should NOT be split in two. The act is ONE act and to break it into two is to imply they are separate acts. If you feel that the poker aspect is unduly weighed, then add to the rest. But the majority of people who are interested in the act are interested in the online gambling aspect... which was the SAFE Port ActBalloonman (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I proposed the split I removed the template since the idea is unpopular here. (The conversation died down in October.) Just as a note, it is one piece of legislation, but it is two acts: "TITLE VIII-- UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT. SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the 'Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006'." Why did Congress give its own short title? Because it's a better description of the gambling-related content of the legislation. When I have time I will try to develop the security-related provisions of the legislation and then hopefully this issue can be revisited. Here's a hypothetical question: What happens to this article if the UIGEA part of the law is repealed? Pesco (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)