Best roulette casino

Australian anti-gambling politician Senator Nick Xenophone has won himself a truckload of publicity in the media Downunder this weekend with his thoughts on banning free iPhone apps related to gambling.

The senator feels that such applications are irresponsible and should be outlawed, claiming that numerous slot machine applications, some backed by gaming giants like Harrah’s Entertainment, can be downloaded for free and are identical in payouts and features to machines in casinos.

“It’s irresponsible to allow these applications in the hands of children,” Xenophon told Australian Associated Press. “We already have a big enough gambling problem in this country and there is no doubt this will fuel gambling addiction.

“Kids can become poker machines experts years before they are legally allowed to set eyes on a real machine.”

AAP points out that some of the applications are recommended for 12-year-olds and upwards, while others offer no minimum age suggestions.

“The use of money, albeit fantasy, drills home a false impression that poker machines can be a source of money or income,” Senator Xenophon told the news service. “Having a recommended age description of 12 is totally inadequate. This is a training application for kids to lose real money when they turn 18.”

Xenophone intends doing something about the situation, and plans to raise the issue in Parliament and call on the federal government to hold an enquiry and take action.

“There needs to be a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling laws because otherwise we will see a new wave of problem gamblers as soon as these kids turn 18,” Senator Xenophon said.

Despite approving in principle the idea of online gambling legalisation and regulation, the South African government continues to dither on actual implementation, leaving the pastime technically illegal.

That hasn’t stopped online gambling companies from openly advertising their offerings in the country, but it has presented the Reserve Bank with a problem on international transactions that might involve ‘illegal’ internet gambling.

The Times Live reports that there is no simple way to tell the difference between legal and illegal financial transactions….but there is nothing the Reserve Bank can do to stop them.

The Bank is apparently looking at ways in which to block transactions with offshore gambling sites, The Times reports, revealing that the Bank has issued a circular proposing to use the national payments system to flag and block transactions with offshore gambling websites.

While the banks have not yet formally responded to the circular, there are already grumblings about the implications, the article notes, underlining the many conceptual problems.

“The first one is how you know whether the merchant that initiates a transaction is an online gambling site,” The Times opines. “The credit card companies have a basic classification system for merchants, like “accommodation” or “meals”, when a transaction is processed.

“But there is nothing very scientific about those classifications. If you have a meal in a hotel, you might just be charged for “accommodation”. Same if you pop into the hotel’s casino.

“The second problem is whether or not the credit card holder is in South Africa. A transaction that is illegal for you to do from South Africa is perfectly legal for you to do when visiting Monte Carlo. The systems that process all such transactions have no easy way of telling the difference.”

Like several other governments, the South African authorities have passed the buck to the banks, asking them to come up with a way of telling the difference. But that could mean the time, resources and expense of constructing new software to monitor and assess all transactions going through the banks’ systems.

The report also points out that it will require the active collaboration of the credit card companies to determine just who the merchants are that initiate transactions.

According to the report, the banks – as in other countries – are less than enthusiastic about the idea, arguing that the costs simply are not worth it.

The Times also notes that there is some legal dispute over whether the gambling itself is in violation of South African gambling legislation, quoting the long-running litigation between the authorities and Piggs Peak Casino in neighbouring Swaziland, where the online casino argues that its online site does not amount to gambling in South Africa and is therefore not subject to South African gambling legislation.

“That’s quite tricky philosophical territory,” The Times reports. “Whether using an [online] casino’s website amounts to gambling in your home or gambling on the website’s servers based in another jurisdiction or country.”

At the end of the day, when it comes to dollar-based online gambling, the Reserve Bank wants to call a halt, says The Times, going on to ask if the costs of picking up on illegal transactions are worth it, especially when it would not be too hard for the merchant to get around the prohibition by reclassifying himself.

Meanwhile, online gambling continues to occupy a South African limbo-land, where the government appears despite several years of research, debate, hearings and legislation to be procrastinating, leaving the pastime technically illegal, if accepted in principle.

The ongoing and bitter row over Australian federal government attempts to censor the internet, which recently saw US intervention and meetings in Washington DC with Australian politicians is generating growing pressure on the Rudd government.

A wide range of Australian mainstream media are currently reporting on the negative reaction of the Obama administration to the censorship attempts, which involve ISPs blocking a questionable blacklist supplied by an Australian government communications agency.

The Sydney Morning Herald and other major Aussie newspapers like The Age and the Brisbane Courier-Mail reported that earlier this month the US ambassador to Australia, Jeff Bleich criticised the Rudd government’s internet filtering proposal, saying the same goals can be achieved without censorship.

Speaking on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program, Bleich said the “internet has to be free” and that there were other means of combating bad content.

“We have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described,” he said. “We have other means and we are willing to share our efforts with them … it’s an ongoing conversation.”

Bleich added: “The internet needs to be free. It needs to be free the way we have said the skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They’re shared resources of all the people of the world.”

Simon Sheikh, chief executive of the online activist group GetUp, supported Bleich’s comments, calling on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to “step in and end this farce”.

“The US ambassador is the latest to join the swelling ranks opposing the scheme, which now include Google, Yahoo, Save The Children, Reporters Without Borders, The Greens, Senator Nick Xenophon, and shadow treasurer Joe Hockey,” he said.

“Over 120,000 Australians have joined GetUp’s campaign against the internet filter, and polls show 86 per cent of Australians are concerned about the government’s internet filter plans.”

Queensland Liberal Senator Sue Boyce has pressured the Rudd government to be more forthcoming with the content of its “talks” with the United States on the issue. In a letter to Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, she demanded that full details of its discussions with the US be made public.

Foreign Minister Smith elected to act as traffic cop, simply referring the matter to Communication Minister Stephen Conroy’s office, where a spokeswoman merely confirmed press reports that Australian and US officials “have met in Washington to discuss the issue recently”.

The spokeswoman would not reveal further details of the discussions but said, “Australia is not alone in its approach and we applaud the European Commission that announced just last week that it would require members states to ensure that websites containing child pornography are blocked.”

Conroy remains committed to the proposed legislation, and said that the US State Department had requested “background information only” on the filtering policy.

“I find it difficult to reconcile a statement that the US government had ‘raised concerns’ with Minister Conroy’s assertion that the US government had only asked for ‘background information’,” Boyce commented.

“It is a deplorable situation when Australians have to rely upon the frankness of a foreign diplomat to provide information about bilateral discussions on a very important matter because relevant Australian ministers either dissemble or just refuse to say anything.”

Media reports have pointed out that, unlike the system in some other countries, which is typically limited to child porn, the Australian model to block internet content unilaterally deemed unsuitable is much broader and will cover innocuous material. And the internet blacklist will not give citizens the chance to find out what is censored and why.

Lake Macquarie councillor Anthony Birt, has written to Liberal MPs imploring them to oppose the legislation, say the filter will not address the major cyber safety concerns of parents. He said parents who were concerned about content their children were viewing online could already install software filters and website blockers on their computers.

“While not achieving its major objective, this system will simultaneously restrict free speech and access to legal content and controversial material on the internet, in a secret way behind closed doors with no accountability,” Birt wrote.

Colin Jacobs, chairman of the online users’ lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said he was mystified as to why trying to regulate the global internet like an Australian newsagent was a priority for the government.

“As the dialogue with the US indicates, trying to do so is doomed to fail and completely ignores the enormous benefits we reap from keeping the internet open,” Jacobs said.

“They are now defending the policy on the basis that it will stop people ‘accidentally’ stumbling across abhorrent material. That’s an astoundingly weak justification for more censorship, and the filter won’t even be able to accomplish that.”

Conroy has continued to defend his censorship proposal, describing it as a modest regulatory measure that will combat illegal activity.

“For all its technical brilliance, the internet is a distribution and communications platform. Having no regulation to combat illegal activity actually weakens all that is good about the internet,” he said.

“This is a modest measure, which reflects long-held community standards about the type of content that is unacceptable in a civilised society,” he said.