Some countries around the world issue licenses for online gambling sites.[1]These jurisdictions charge a fee for a license and sometimes also charge tax on the earnings of the website. Some of the countries that issue these licenses include Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, Costa Rica, as well as the United Kingdom.[2] Although the regulations enacted in these jurisdictions differ in the level of regulation, it still allows the operators of these sites to display they have a license and draw customers to their sites. To an extent, licensing adds legitimacy and brings credibility, which raises revenue. It also makes customers feel more comfortable placing bets and moving money through these sites. Generally speaking, websites licensed in Europe are trust worthier than those licensed in the Caribbean because of stricter rules operators must adhere to.[3]

In the U.S. it is illegal for an operator of a gambling site to “knowingly accept [money], in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling…”[4]Although operating a gambling website in the U.S. would not be legal, what is the court’s power against companies operating these sites outside the U.S.? This was part of the conflict raised when the DoJ seized the domain names of various sites because it prevented companies from operating in countries where it is legal. Over the years, the UIGEA has not prevented Americans from using the Internet to access these sites and gamble; although after the domain name seizures it has become harder to do.

Where the operators of these sites claim to be varies. Some claim to be located where they are incorporated, some where the server hosting the website is, others where they are licensed, and some simply just in cyberspace.[5] Opponents of online gambling sites have successfully claimed jurisdiction by state and federal court where an interactive website is received by a user. This would mean any court could exercise jurisdiction over a website. One legal expert in the Las Vegas area said “”A recent case in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an Internet site should not be subject to place-based city zoning regulations, because it operates in “cyberspace” rather than in a specific location. Therefore, traditional prohibitions against general, location-based gambling may not apply in cyberspace. Moreover, the fact that a growing number of states felt the need to enact legislation specifically outlawing Internet gambling suggests that this argument may be persuasive.”[6]

Zippo Mfg. Co. V Zippo Dot Com, Inc., established a test to determine personal jurisdiction over an absent defendant:[7]

“[T]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. . . .At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet.  If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end . . .is a defendant [who] has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to [forum resident] users . . . . The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer.”

Under this test, it may be easier to exercise personal jurisdiction over many of these gambling sites. It seems exercising personal jurisdiction over these sites also may not be contested by operators of sites the DoJ seized. To the online poker players it’s a shame to see gambling operators reaching settlements with the DoJ. The operators are getting away while they can at the expense of losing the online gambling community as it was prior to Black Friday. Whether or not the court should exercise power over these websites is a matter of opinion and outlook on the structure of the Internet. Should the U.S. be the ultimate arbiter in cases like domain name seizures?

I’ve attached the trailer to an online poker documentary for you to watch. It’s interesting to see the diversity of poker players who have come to play the game.

As this blog series draws to a close, we will discuss the social benefits and harm to social media and other technology used to facilitate cyberstalking.  Today’s blog will follow up on recent developments in social media and cyberstalking technology while weighing the benefits and harms to society.

First let’s discuss some of the benefits of social media, e.g. Facebook and Twitter.  It is obvious that these instruments allow you to connect with friends and family on a large scale.  Additionally the speed in which pictures and events can be disseminated at the rock bottom price of free is a definite plus for social media.[1] To illustrate the social benefits, let’s explore the use of Twitter and Facebook by your sister, let’s call her Julia Clever.

Clever had a baby two weeks ago.  Today, Clever used Facebook send pictures of her bundle of joy to her friends and family.  She also tweeted her joys and anxieties about life with baby to her Twitter followers.  Note that the tweeting started on the birthing table.  TMI.

Anyway, all Clever’s five hundred family and friends can see the baby’s first bath[2] and receive painstaking details about every small nuance of the baby from now until he graduates from college.  If Clever had to send this information out via snail mail, she would have stopped at birth announcements based on the postage costs alone.  Let’s be frank, if it were not for social media, most of Clever’s five hundred Facebook friends and Twitter followers would not have known that she was pregnant.  Unfortunately, this immediate dissemination of information is a gift and a curse.  The curse is that others may also see the information about Clever’s baby including her friendly neighborhood psychopath.  I know some of you are thinking, but Facebook has privacy settings.  Yes, it does.  However, in 2009, Facebook changed the privacy without your knowledge. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRoIImAYo6w.  The changes included making your private information public and sharing your personal information with app makers and advertisers.  Yes, this sounds like Anita Life 2.0 all over again.  Furthermore, deleted information could still be found on Facebook.  Do not dismay, as recent as November 30^th, the FTC put a stop to Facebook’s violation of your privacy. Facebook must now alert its users every time it makes changes to its privacy settings and must subject itself to data auditing every two years for the next 20 years.  Finally, Facebook must remove information from their database on deactivated accounts.  If Facebook refuses to comply, it will be fined $16,000 per infringement of your privacy.[3]  Facebook has approximately 150 million U.S. users, multiply that by $16,000 … well that fine is enough to make Facebook walk the straight and narrow.[4]  A similar investigation has commenced in Europe.[5]  There is a silver lining to that story and a benefit to society, although Facebook cannot return to you all the information that has left its site during last two years in which it changed your privacy settings, Facebook is now obligated to keep your information private.

As for Anita Life 2.0 aka Google, she has a privacy channel. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/user/googleprivacy?blend=7&ob=5.  If you watched the video you will learn that Google has made the effort to have you control the dissemination of your information via Google.  For example, you have the option in Google Talk to have your chat occur off the record.  Google Dashboard allows you to view all of the information associated with your Google account and change the privacy settings on the information.  Further, Google features dataliberation that allows you to move your information out of Google.  Google has also made strides in protecting your privacy but it has also expanded its reach.  Another breaking story, Google Maps has gone inside.  Watch out Mr. and Mrs. Boring, Google Maps has not gone undercover, it has gone inside buildings and airports.[6]  Your stalker does not have to stop at the front door, he or she can now track your movements all around the store but so can the pesky salesperson who thinks you might shoplift a pair of tacky pink mules.

For those who are directionally challenged, Google Maps is a good thing.  You can now get your Christmas shopping done faster by allowing Google Maps to point you to the exact location of your next money-pilfering depository.  This version of Google Maps is already in some airports and stores, but is only available on Android phones.  If you did not figure it out, the harm is even less privacy.  Google Maps can track you to the restroom, Stall #2.

And allow others to track you as well with pinpoint accuracy.  But Google Maps can also help you get from Terminal 1, Gate 16A to Terminal 5, Gate M20 at Chicago O’Hare airport.

These are just a few examples of the double-edged sword which social media and technology provide to society. Here are a few more.  Social media and mobile phones limit the amount of face-to-face interactions and preserve the anonymity of the user. The technology has shrunk the world, making it easier to communicate with people thousands of miles away.  Some technology also allow users to communicate in other languages.  However, this freedom has a downside, ask Zeoli, the Maryland-based Buddhist leader from Vol. 4, Twitter’s Quandary:  The Humpty Dumpty Twitter User and the First Amendment, who was stalked, harassed and threatened from a man in California.  Also ask the 16 year old from Vol. 5 whose stalker, a WoW teammate, drove from Canada to the her U.S. high school to deliver gifts to someone he has never met before and has only had contact with her through a computer game.   Let’s not forget about the New York cop who harassed his ex-girlfriend by assuming her cyber identity to solicit unwanted dates in Vol. 1.

The take away from this blog series is guard your cyber identity because you do not know who may be watching.  Do not give out personal information, check your privacy settings and read the privacy policies for your gadgets and social media sites.  Lastly, check out this public service announcement on cyberstalking, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VYqdNftbJg&feature=related.  Thanks for reading, even the remaining cyberstalkers:)

Disclaimer:  Again, this blog is NOT meant to provide your rabid frenemy aka your friendly neighborhood cyberstalker with an arsenal of new materials to follow and harass you.  Yes, that was a CYA.[2]  I have my suspicions that there are still a few crazies out there still reading this blog.

With that said, there are a number of devices including Android phones, Apple devices and GPS tracking devices such as OnStar that make it easier to track, harass and threaten their victims.

In last week’s blog, we discussed tracking by Google in Android devices via the Pessano case.  This week we will discuss the ability of Apple devices and the OnStar system to track a cyberstalker victim.  We will also look at the tracking features within the devices themselves and the actual capability of the devices to actually track individuals.

In October of this year, Apple released iCloud, a remote computer server service that allows users to store data such as music, video and documents for later download to multiple devices.[3]

ICloud came on board with the release of Apple’s new operating system upgrade.  Also contained in the upgrade is software for tracking your mobile devices and Apple apps. See http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27Apple-Q-A-on-Location-Data.html.  In essence, Apple created its own personal LoJack system for its devices and apps.  In Apple’s privacy statement, Apple claims that they do not track individuals.  Instead, any tracking software is used in conjunction with its location-based services.[4]   Apple’s privacy policy also states that any personal information it collects is anonymous and encrypted and only the information necessary to run its apps is collected.[5]  However, even if Apple is stalking you, I am sure you are more concerned with the possibility that an ex-boyfriend, spouse or psycho cellmate could one day cyberstalk you via your Apple mobile device.  All one needs to do is enter iCloud with a password and track the laptop, iPhone or iPad.  You can even send a tune or message through the cloud to your Apple device.  For all you stalkers with the personal password to your prey’s device, you can track movements and sent your threatening messages even by song.  Again, Every Breathe You Take or the Psycho theme, are great selections.  The cloud even bypasses any volume indicators remotely.  But if freaking out your victim with a few remote messages is not enough MobiSlealth[6] goes farther.  MobiSlealth is an iPhone 4 tracker app.  The program works by downloading the tracker app onto the iPhone 4 (the phone must be jailbroken).  The app will not appear on the phone so that the phone’s owner will not know that you have added the software.  MobiSlealth not only tracks the location of an iPhone, but it also allows the stalker to read emails and text messages, view photos, call logs and browse the phone’s history, and remotely monitor and record the surroundings.  For you cyberstalkers out there, this is a dream and the cost is just $40 for 3 months and $150 for 12 months.   Of course, in MobiSlealth’s disclaimer, the company claims that the software is designed to spy on children and employees and not spouses, significant others or adult children.  (Great, like that is any better.)  MobiSlealth’s informs its purchasers that spying on spouses or significant others or adult children could violate state or local laws and MobiSlealth’s will cooperate with law enforcement. In other word, MobiSlealth will turn your crazy behind over to the Po-Po, but in the meantime, show them the money.

As mentioned previously devices by Apple and Google (Android phones) are not the only tracking devices.  Even the car company, GM, has a tracking device, you may have heard of it,  OnStar.   OnStar is a “real-time communications hub that regulates vehicle security and diagnostic.”[7]  However, according to Jim Kobus, a communications manager at OnStar in an article by Craig Howie of AOL Autos, OnStar cannot track any vehicle’s location until a customer makes contact by his or her own volition or the system detects a blowout or crash.[8]  Kobus further noted the only exception is due to vehicle theft.  At that time OnStar must receive a valid police report to track your vehicle.  If it receives this information, OnStar can remotely slow down a vehicle or stop it.  So for you would be cyberstalkers, OnStar will not do your bidding unless you are bold enough to file a stolen vehicle report with the police and if you had enough information to confirm that the vehicle is in fact yours.  There are two problems for would be cyberstalkers who want to use OnStar’s tracking feature to do its bidding, the first is that filing a false police report could land you in jail and second, you cannot call OnStar all day long claiming that the same vehicle has been stolen in order to track your ex-boyfriend or girlfriend.  Sorry would be cyberstalkers, you need to find another way to track your prey.  As an FYI, OnStar like Google collects and stores data on its customers.  In fact in January of this year, OnStar changed its privacy statement to inform customers that it can continue to collect information on its customers even after they have deactivated the OnStar system.  See http://www.theblaze.com/stories/onstar-announces-tracking-continues-even-after-cancellation/ and OnStar’s privacy policy http://www.onstar.com/web/portal/privacy.

I am sure some of you are wondering if this is cyberstalking because there was no threat.  Let’s remember that if the victim suffers emotional distress, it may be.  It would be hard to make a cyberstalking case against Google, OnStar or Apple for the reasons stated in last week’s blog and the fact that it is unlikely that a potential victim would feel threatened by these.  However, your crazy stalker girlfriend or boyfriend may use these devices to stalk, harass or threaten you.  See Cell Phone Spying Software Leads to Mobile Cyberstalking Nightmare in the attached http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/cell-phone-spying-software-leads-cyberstalking-nightmare/story?id=10020677#.TtWEkWC618s.  In the article a woman discusses how her ex-boyfriend planted spyware on her cell phone.  The boyfriend was in jail for felony cyberstalking and planned on killing her shortly after he was released.  The spyware he installed allowed him to see not only her location but other information on her phone.  He also sent her message such as “How was dinner?” shortly around the time she had dinner.  Eerie.  I don’t know about you, but I would be scared.

In conclusion, there are a number of ways to track, harass and threaten an individual using today’s technology as illustrated by OnStar, iPhone and Droid, oh my!  Furthermore, there are more gadgets and software that can do the same.  However, it is better that you are aware of the technology and take the necessary precautions to minimize your cyber footprints.  Do not take those incriminating pictures with your mobile devices, turn off location devices, read the pop-ups prior downloading an app, be mindful of the cloud and again contact your congressman and let them know to vote for the Do Not Track Online Act of 2011.

1. Have you ever gambled for money or made sports bets in a casino? If so, what games did you play?

A – Yes, Roulette, blackjack, and poker.

B – Blackjack, 3-Card Poker, Roulette, Texas Hold’em, Craps, Slots and Sports Betting.

C – Yes, Texas Hold ‘em.

D – Yes, Poker, Blackjack and slots.

E – Yes. Texas Hold’em Poker.

2. Have you ever gambled or made sports bets online? I so, what games did you play?

A – No

B – Blackjack, Texas Hold’em and Sports Betting

C – Yes, Texas Hold ‘em.

D – Yes, Poker and Blackjack.

E – Yes, Texas Hold’em Poker.

3. Have you ever gambled online for money? Why or why not?

A – No, I did not trust the companies and other players to be fair.

B – Yes, because I like to gamble and there are no other alternatives for where I live.

C – Yes.  The competition is better when money is on the line.

D – Yes, it’s cheaper and more convenient than going to a casino.

E – Yes, because I thought it would be fun since there were no casinos close to me and I thought I could make some money.

4. Have you ever played online poker? If so, which online provider did you play on?

A – Yes, I have used Full Tilt and others.

B – Yes, Full Tilt poker.

C – Yes, Full Tilt Poker.

D – Yes, Party Poker and Full Tilt Poker.

E – Yes, Full Tilt Poker.

5. Do you feel there is any difference between gambling in a casino versus gambling online?

A – Yes, in casinos you can see and interact better with other players. It is easier to tell the professional players from the casual players in a casino.

B – Yes, I’d much rather gamble in a casino.  Being in the casino is part of the experience.

C – Yes, human expression and bluffing are often lost during online play.

D – Yes, online is less personal and more suspect. It just seems shadier.

E – Very much so.

6. When was the last time you played online poker or gambled online?

A –5 years ago

B – Maybe 6 months ago.

C – Six months ago.

D – A few years ago.

E – 1-2 years.

7. How often would you say you play online poker or gamble online?

A – Rarely, less than 3 times a month

B – Before the Poker websites shut down a few months ago, I would gamble in spurts.  Play everyday for a few weeks, then go weeks or months without playing again.

C – Rarely.

D – I had phases. I would play every day and then not play at all for like 6 months.

E – Rarely.

8. Do you feel secure that online poker providers will take care of any money you deposit?

A – No

B – Not now after all the reports of Ponzi scheme things at Full Tilt.

C – Yes.

D – I did. Now I feel naïve.

E – Not anymore after the Full Tilt Poker scandal.

9. Does popular poker stars’ endorsement of online poker providers give you a greater sense of security in these poker providers? What is your reaction to a U.S. government claim that professional poker players Howard Lederer and Chris “Jesus” Ferguson have been given $38 million and $24 million respectively from Full Tilt Poker over the years?

A – No, their endorsement is not related to the policies of the providers.

B – I think I originally picked Full Tilt because of the amount of professional poker player’s endorsement.  I wouldn’t use Full Tilt anymore now though because of the scam they were involved in.

C – I feel that having professional backing does help fund better security.  Since poker is such an up and down game with some chance involved, I don’t have a problem with companies paying players a steady income.  However, the supposed earnings made by those players is too high.

D – Wow. That is a lot of money. It did add credibility to me though.

E – Yes. I am not surprised the got money, but I would like to know if they really approve the company.

 10. Do you consider poker a game of skill or a game of chance? Why do you feel this way?

A – Poker is a mixture of both. I have seen Amateurs with a lot of luck win big, and have seen Professionals without a lot of luck still win.

B – Absolutely…over the long run, it’s a game of skill.  There are a reason you see the same people playing on TV and the final table’s of tournaments.  Over a few hundred hands, luck plays a role, but a few thousand or hundred thousand, the skilled players will make the money.

C – I feel that poker is mostly skill that is why most of the same players make it to the final tables so often.  75% skill and 25% luck.

D – Both. There are definite elements of luck but skill is definitely involved as well.

E – Skill. Betting a certain way can lead people to think what type of hands you bet on. There is a reason the same poker players are always at the final table.

11. Critics of online gambling cite its potential to steal money, money launder, enable gambling addicts, and corrupt America’s youth. Do you believe any of these claims have merit? If so, what can be done to counter them?

A – The claims of stealing money and enable gambling addicts have validity. If the providers used a trusted source such as Paypal might lessen fear of stealing money. Enabling addicts is part of the business so I’m not sure how to fix that.

B – Certainly now I believe about the stealing and laundering more than I did before.  Addicts are going to take advantage of it like addicts of any vice do.  More people gamble responsibly than irresponsibly.  There are always going to be people that abuse something, we can’t get rid of it because a few people ruin it for everyone else.

C – Counters like having to be 18 would help; I’m sure you have to have a credit card, which is another buffer.  I don’t believe online gambling corrupts, however.

D – The theft and money laundering do seem to have merit. I can see criminals using the websites to move money.

E – All claims have some merit, but I believe it is up to the government to monitor all fund tracking and the addicts should be able to block gambling websites.

12. Are you familiar with the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA)?

A – No.

B – Yes.

C – No.

D – No.

E – Not in detail.

13. The UIGEA was a last second addition to a U.S. port security and safety bill that made it illegal for money to be processed in relation to online gambling? Does knowing this change your thoughts or future habits concerning online gambling?

A – No, because I do not play online for money.

B – No.

C – No.

D – Sounds like Congress to me.

E – Yes.

14. The United States has filed charges of money laundering against PokerStars, Absolute Poker, and Full Tilt poker with claims that they lied and bribed banks in order to continuing operating in the United States after the passage of the UIGEA. How does this news affect you?

A – This does not surprise me.

B – Doesn’t really affect me.

C – I will pay very close attention to Terms of Service and my accounts when playing in the future.

D – Well depends on what kinds of money laundering it was. If it was gang related then shut them down, if it was just to stay operating then I do not know if the UIGEA was repealed if this action would continue.

E – It almost turns me completely off to online gambling.

15. Recently, the United States Department of Justice has claimed that Full Tilt Poker is an elaborate Ponzi scheme alleging that Full Tilt Poker has stolen over $300 million from players’ accounts. How does information affect you? Does it surprise you?

A – No, with the popularity of Full Tilt the amount stolen could have been higher.

B – I won’t use the website anymore and it does surprise me.

C – If true, this would make me second guess playing poker online.

D – Completely shocked. I had no idea. Shows I have not played in a while though.

E – Even though I used Full Tilt Poker, I was never affected by the scheme, but it definitely makes me more cautious and surprised that they would do something like this.

16. The islands of Antigua and Barbuda have brought lawsuits against the United States to the World Trade Organization (WTO) claiming the UIGEA violates global trade agreements. The WTO has ruled against the United States, but the United States has not complied with the WTO’s orders. With online gambling being a global market, does this stance by the United States surprise you? Anger you? What overall reaction do you have to this information?

A – America has passed and dealt with issues such as this before. Laws against pot or other drugs, alcohol, or prostitution are in America’s past and they were not protested by the world in this manner.

B – I think it’s wrong, but it doesn’t surprise me that US Government thinks it can do what it wants.  Those island countries though should have done a better job of regulating the companies, now I hope internet gambling doesn’t get hosted out of there anymore.

C – The US stance is not surprising, assuming we generate the most money from the enterprise.

D – That’s crap that the U.S. isn’t complying but not surprising.

E – I am surprised by the stand that the U.S. has made about the situation but I feel it was more so due to lack of judgment and poor decision making.

17. Do you feel online gambling should be legal? Why or why not?

A – I feel that if it was better regulated such as casinos are then it would be fine to be legal.

B – It should be legal.  I should be able to do almost anything out of my home that I want.

C – If it stays legal it should be closely controlled.

D – It should be legal in my opinion. It needs to be kept safe but I don’t think the arguments against it prove to be that it is best to make it illegal.

E – If monitored, I do feel like online gambling should be legal. Unfortunately, the government has not been as strict on the providers as to what their limitations and taxations need to be in my own opinion.

18. Many in Congress are trying to get the UIGEA repealed so that Congress could tax online gambling. If online gambling was taxed, would you still play?

A – If it were similar to the taxes on money won at a casino, then I would still play.

B – I would have no problem with a regulated, US based company paying taxes on Internet gambling.

C – If it is reasonable, then yes.

D – We should tax it. I am in favor it.

E – Possibly.

19. Do you think online gambling providers could regulate themselves or should the U.S. government be involved with granting online gambling licenses or other forms of regulation?

A – Just like casinos, a government or outside regulation firm is needed.

B – The US Government should regulate, or at least on the state level like state gaming commissions do.

C – They should be allowed to regulate themselves, as the Internet itself has no general owner either.

D – Now, it looks like they needed to be regulated by the government. It doesn’t seem like that can be trusted.

E – The government should definitely be involved with granting online licenses. I feel like this would actually create more success for the companies as the players would increase due to a heightened sense of security.

20. Does anything in this questionnaire change your thoughts concerning online gambling? Does anything in this questionnaire make you think you will change your online gambling or online poker playing habits?

A – No, I do not play much or for money so these questions do not change my thoughts about online poker.

B – No, I already knew all of this and have made my decisions prior.

C – The alleged stealing of millions from player’s accounts and US non-compliance makes me uneasy about reassuming my online poker playing.

D – I knew of some of this but now I will no longer be playing poker online.

E – It’s definitely going to make me think twice before I get involved in it again.

I found interesting that all five have done some sort of gambling or poker playing online. All five also played poker on Full Tilt Poker, the provider that is currently in the most trouble. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one would admit to having played anytime recently. Also perhaps not that surprising is that all consider poker to be a game of skill. In fact, most referenced a poker movie quote from “Rounders” about the same players being in the final tables of tournaments. One of the issues courts are grappling with is whether poker is a game of skill or luck, but maybe looking to poker players is not the best source to gain clarity on this issue as they are likely to believe in their own skill. Most admitted there are some negative side issues that accompany online gambling, but they seemed to think that with proper regulation these negatives do not outweigh the positives. All responders expressed surprise at the Full Tilt scandal and stated they would no longer play on the provider. It also caused them to take a more cautious approach to online gambling. Overall, it seemed like the responders were seemed to think online gambling should be legal, regulated and somewhat open to taxation. They were relatively informed of the scandals and recent laws but still were in favor of online gambling despite them. I do not know what the future holds for online gambling. But its proponents seem to be in it for the long haul and willing to continue to fight for legalization. As for how Congress feels, online time will tell.

Again, let’s say you have a ‘friend.’  We will call her Anita Life 2.0.  This time Anita Life is not 40 with four cats, but instead she is a thirteen-year-old Internet search engine with over 150 cats, I mean domain names.   This younger Anita Life is even more aggressive and unpredictable than the first.  Forget the Riesling, this Anita Life is on a cocktail of drugs and steroids.  She knows everything about you, tracks your every move, stores, sorts and catalogs the information for later use.  She even speaks a multitude of different languages and is well versed in a number of different fields.  But this time, Anita Life 2.0 is not YOUR personal stalker, but everyone globally shadow.  This global cyberpsycho makes Anita Life look as harmless as a newborn baby.

But is Anita Life 2.0 even possible?  Yes and her real name is Google.

I know it sounds crazy, but Google aka Anita Life 2.0 has taken keeping tabs on you to a level even the FBI and your ex-girlfriend combined could not match.  At the base level, Google Maps has made it easy to find anyone even on private roads, ask Mr. and Mrs. Boring[1] of Pennsylvania.  Apparently, their private road and no trespassing sign leading to Mr. and Mrs. Boring’s secluded private residence did not clue in Google.   Instead a Google representative drove up to their residence, parked in the Boring’s private driveway and took 360-degree pictures of their house and pool.

After viewing the post of their residence on Google Maps, Mr. and Mrs. Boring sued Google Inc. for amongst other things invasion of privacy and trespass.[2]  Unfortunately for the Borings, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania did not believe that Google did anything wrong.  The Court instead found that a reasonable person would not consider Google’s intrusion highly offensive.

Further, the Court opined that the reasonable person having ordinary sensibilities would not be shamed, humiliated, or have suffered mentally as a result of a vehicle entering into his or her ungated driveway and photographing the view from there.  To further add insult to injury the Court determined that the Borings do not allege that they themselves were viewed inside their home, which was relevant to their claim of seclusion.  To all of the Borings’ claims, the Court did not find that a reasonable person would be highly offended by Google’s action.  Apparently the Borings were too boring.  Maybe next time Google Maps comes around, the Borings will be sunbathing in the nude on the side of the pool.  For now, score one for Google and nothing for the ordinary person.

Fast forward one year to 2011, Joe Pessano of a Florida resident and two other Texas residents filed a class action suit against Google and its app makers for privacy violations on its Android phones.[3]   The class members claimed that Google and app makers did not disclose its comprehensive tracking of users nor did the defendants obtain users informed consent to the tracking OR its creation, storing and transmitting of individual users location and other sensitive data such as the user’s income, sexual orientation, ethnicity, camera phone and picture information.  In other words, if you have an Android phone, Google and its minions

 know where you are almost every minute of the day, how much you make, where you live and how to get there, whom you may be screwing and any pictures of that torrid affair the minute it is taken with your camera phone.  Even your crazy ex-girlfriend does not have that kind of access nor does she have the mental storage capacity to keep this information on you until eternity.  And although she may be a very savvy social media user, her powers of dissemination of information may be 1% of the speed to which Google can spread the word or in your case the picture evidence.  However, unlike your ex-girlfriend, it is doubtful that Google can be prosecuted for cyberstalking.  Even if a state prosecutor tried, a company cannot serve a sentence for cyberstalking.  Score 2 for Google.  However, Google can be sued for invasion of privacy.  Yeah!!!  But there is no guarantee that Google and its cohorts will be held liable under a privacy claim.  The case is still in the early stages of litigation and we will have to wait and see if Anita Life 2.0 gets the monetary equivalent of cellblock D for cyberstalking.

In the interim how do you get rid of your psycho computerstalker Anita Life 2.0?  Well, you cannot just decline to use the map function on your Android phone or decline any tracking feature.  That would be too easy and make too much sense, plus Anita Life 2.0 planned for just the moment when some users declined the function.  In the evident that some ordinary person decides to get a clue and disable the tracking feature, the Android phone continues to gather information on the phone, storing it in the device until you are ready to use the tracking feature again and then it forwards the information to Google or its minions.  This information is stored for advertising purposes.  The information sent to Google does not only include tracking information, but also other personal information gathered via use of the device and/or apps.   Note that the information gathered is more than what is necessary to use the app or the phone.  The silver lining – your crazy ex-girlfriend (Anita Life) is not the one gathering the information.  Yeah, I think!  The downside – Android users are charged for the transmission of the data to Google and its minions.  The information slows down the data speed causing the customer to incur more data charges.  The brilliant attorney in the Pessano v. Google case came up with this argument.

Well going back to the likelihood of the plaintiff’s winning this case, I am not sure how it will come down, but the federal government is not waiting for the answer.  The federal government proposed on May 9, 2011, the Do Not Track Online Act of 2011.  See http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=85b45cce-63b3-4241-99f1-0bc57c5c1cff.  The Act allows individuals to opt out of the information gathering schemes illustrated above by Google, in the alternative, the provider must anonymized an individual’s personal information or delete the information based on the provisions of the service.  The penalties for a violation of the Act is an unspecified amount multiplied by the number of days that the person is not in compliance with the rule by an amount not greater than $16,000 with a max penalty of $15,000,000.  Unfortunately, the Act does not specify if the $16,000 is per act or an aggregate total imposed on one defendant.  Additionally, for a company as big as Google, $16,000 or $15,000,000 may be worth it if the company stands to collect billions, as mentioned in the Pessano lawsuit, for collecting and storing tracking and personal information on individual users.  Smaller companies may be deterred by the fine, however, companies as big as Google, may weigh the cost and benefit and determine that it is better for them to pay the fine than to forego the potential information of keeping tabs on you.  This is where Google may be more touched than your ex-girlfriend.  To scare you just a bit more, Google and its minions are not the only ones watching you and tracking you, read next week’s blog on all the other mobile devices.  I know this is like a train wreck that you cannot look away from.  Right now you really do not want to know any other ways in which your privacy has been compromised, but in the immortal words of G.I. Joe – knowing is half the battle.

By next week, you will have even more pieces to help you protect your privacy.  Today’s lesson is to encourage your congressmen to vote for the Do Not Track Online Act of 2011.  The bill is not perfect, but do you really want Anita Life 2.0 aka Google and her minions to continue the practice of monitoring you in its capacity as Big Brother?

Opponents to online gambling argue legalization would be disastrous.[1]Such opponents consist of conservative groups like the Christian group Focus on the Family.[2] By 2010, Americans were gambling $16 billion a year on online poker alone and an estimated 1.8 million Americans were playing it.[3] According to the Congressional Committee on Taxation, legal online gambling could generate $42 billion in tax revenue over the course of 10 years.[4]With all the budget problems Congress seems to be having and the wars it has to pay, it’s surprising they would ignore such a huge revenue producer. Ironic enough, online gambling is legal in our nation’s capital where officials hope it will bring in about $13 million a year in tax revenue.

A big point of contention with the UIGEA and poker players is whether poker is a game of skill or chance. Proponents argue no matter how skilled a poker player is, at the end of the day they cannot tell you which card will flip next. I think this really undermines the calculations many skilled players undertake. There’s a reason why you see the same familiar faces in the final tables in the World Series of Poker. Professional poker players can predict what cards players have, which cards will be turned next, and the probability of players having stronger hands fairly accurately.

If online poker were to be legalized, it could produce a lot more in revenue than live poker and provide people another source of income. The UIGEA refers to gambling as the reason for collection problems on debts in it’s legislative findings and others argue gambling can become addicting. Would the amount of revenue a government could make in taxes justify its legalization? I had the chance to speak with someone who played poker online prior to Black Friday. He had software that recorded all the hands he’s played and allowed him to analyze many aspects of the game afterwards. He was playing 1,200 hands per hour which in person he’d only be able to play about 30 hands per hour. It would take 40 hours in person to see what he saw online in 1 hour. In 10 months he saw over 300,000 hands online. When I asked him what he thought about legalization with heavy taxes, he said he would rather pay a premium to play online than play in person.

Who and how taxes may be applied may be a bit complicated. Gambling is a matter of state law, each state determining whether individuals can gamble within their border. Internet gambling crosses state and international lines. Should the state and federal government tax individuals? Some factors to consider with the legalization of gambling is the impact on existing legal gambling. Players may not go to casinos as often which means they wouldn’t spend money on their travels(airplane fares, gas, hotel, etc) and casinos would see a decrease in revenue. In a study of economic impacts of commercial casinos and online gambling, traditional casinos were found to help local communities and be very important. It provides tourism revenue, more job opportunities, and tax revenue for states to then pour into schools and other projects that online gambling did not provide.[5] This study grouped justifications for prohibiting online gambling into sovereignty protection (each state creates its own policies), consumer protection (consumers will be subject to issues such as dispute resolution that may not be as favorable online), and economic protection (jurisdictions with traditional casinos offer economic benefits to the community in the form of jobs and taxes that online gambling don’t provide).

Another study found online gambling to be hurtful to the U.S. economy in it’s current state. This study concluded online gambling deprives states  of revenue needed to function and hurts consumers in the form of higher fees and interest rates as a result of uncollectable gambling debts.[6]It also argued it’s harmful beyond the economical aspect by creating addictive behavior and causing family disintegration. [7] Although online gambling right now may be hurtful because it is not regulated, I would say these findings may be irrelevant if online gambling were to be legalized. The harmful effects would be controlled in the form of government regulation and taxes. Local communities would still receive benefits from extra money their governments would have at their disposal to invest. Online gambling is a reality lawmakers should accept and regulate instead of ignoring and missing out on a revenue gold mine.

Full Tilt Poker is an online poker provider based in Ireland.[1] Created by professional poker player Chris “Jesus” Ferguson, Full Tilt poker hoped to cash in on the explosion of online poker playing following the 2003 World Series of Poker.[2] Ferguson convinced other notable professional poker players, most notably Howard Lederer, to join the Full Tilt crew in return for 10% stock in the up and coming corporation.[3] Ferguson himself took a 20% interest in the corporation. Since then, Full Tilt has paid Lederer $38 million in fees and Ferguson $24 million. Full Tilt then tried to lure amateur players to its poker provider by promising them the chance to play with some of the world’s best players. The strategy worked as Full Tilt became extremely popular, once hosting a single tournament of 54,000 players.[4] Full Tilt operates by providing an online location for people to play poker against one another. Full Tilt then takes a rake, or a fee, from each player for using the provider to play. Players play with credits that Full Tilt gives them in return for money. To simplify this explanation, a player would transfer $50 from his or her bank account into their Full Tilt account for 50 credits. Full Tilt then deducts player’s credits as they plain in poker games or tournaments. In these games, if a player wins the poker game or tournament, he or she can win vast amounts of credits depending on how many credits it cost to enter the game and how many players were involved. A player can then cash out by exchanging the credits back into money and transferring it back into his or her bank account.

Things got bad for Full Tilt Poker on September 20, 2011. Already charged with money laundering and violating the UIGEA, the U.S. attorney’s office amended their civil suit against Full Tilt Poker to allege it is a “massive Ponzi scheme”.[5] The amended complaint alleges that Full Tilt Poker never had the actual cash-on-hand needed to cover the deposits made by its players.[6] The complaint claims that Full Tilt Poker was $130 million short of what they claimed to have for U.S. players and as of March 31, 2011 owed players worldwide $390 million but only had $59 million on hand.[7] An indictment specifically named all 23 directors of Full Tilt claiming they took millions of players’ funds despite knowing the online poker provider was not financial stable.[8] U.S. attorney Preet Bhara stated, “Full Tilt also cheated and abused its own players to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. As described, Full Tilt insiders lined their own pockets with funds picked from the pockets of their most loyal customers while blithely lying to both players and the public alike about the safety and security of the money deposited with the company.”[9]

Of course, Full Tilt Poker has responded to this charge. Full Tilt claimed the disparity in money was not due to theft but due to problems with money collection from players’ bank accounts.[10] Essentially, Full Tilt credited players with money, but then failed to actually collect that money from the players’ bank account.[11] The problem centers around Arizona based Vensure Federal Credit Union and Utah’s Sun Bank, financially troubled institutions that Full Tilt was using to get around the UIGEA money transferring laws (i.e. money launder).[12] As the government began to look into these financial institutions, they stopped processing Full Tilt money transfers from 17 states thus creating the money discrepancy. Full Tilt then says they simply mismanaged the situation and never stopped crediting the players’ accounts for their intended transactions nor did Full Tilt ever go back and delete the poker credit given to the players for the non-deals.[13] The government does not believe this is simple answer to the issue and points to the fact the owners of Full Tilt were still taking $10 million from players’ accounts a month.[14]

A change is on the horizon for Full Tilt Poker. Just two weeks ago on November 17, Groupe Bernard Tapai (GBT) acquired Full Tilt Poker.[15] The United States Department of Justice brokered the deal where Full Tilt surrendered their assets to the U.S. government, which then sold the corporation for $80 million.[16] The U.S government will then pay back the money to American Full Tilt players that had their money frozen and GBT will be responsible for paying back foreign players their money.[17] Players will need to apply with the Department of Justice to get their compensation.[18] Although there is some fear that players will not file claims due to tax concerns and the legality issue with online gambling. In return for the deal, the U.S. government will drop their civil charges against Full Tilt Poker but the charges against those named in the indictment (like Ferguson and Lederer) will remain.[19] The exact specifics of the deal are still being worked out and Full Tilt Poker shareholders still have to approve the deal, but this is certainly interesting and breaking news. What will happen to Full Tilt in the future will be interesting to see. Will players trust the new ownership? Will other poker providers be affected by the scandal? Will this criminal activity hurt proponents of making online gambling legal again in the United States? Does this prove that governments are necessary to regulate any online gambling? A lot remains to be seen, but Full Tilt’s actions certainly did not help the case for legalizing online gambling.

And with that, blog number seven comes to a close. My next blog will be my final one of the semester. To wrap up my series on online gambling, I am writing up a questionnaire that I hope to get some anonymous online gamblers to fill out. The questionnaire will share the information I have learned and detailed throughout this semester and see if in being notified of this information changes the thoughts, habits, or practices of online gamblers. If I am unable to convince some online gamblers to complete my questionnaire, I will instead focus the last bog on the future of online gambling and what if anything has changed on the playing field during these past few months.

Prior to the DoJ seizing numerous gambling websites, Kentucky had already attempted to seize domain names on their own. A Kentucky court allowed for 141 domain names to be seized because they were in violation of state law[2][3], regardless of the fact this would affect other states without their permission. When a domain name is seized, users where gambling is not illegal are also denied access. However, a court of appeals granted petitions by the Interactive Gaming Council, Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, Inc.(iMEGA). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU of Kentucky filed amici briefs against the seizures and were ultimately successful.  The appellate court overturned the lower court’s ruling and reversed the State’s ability to seize the domain names.

It is not clear whether online gambling is illegal in all 50 states. When the DoJ seized the domain names of the main gambling sites, many felt this was a step too far. Professor of law and attorney I. Nelson Rose said “[after the DoJ seized these websites] The next to step through could be an Islamic country, which outlaws alcohol, seizing the worldwide domain names of every retailer and restaurant that advertises beer or wine.”[4]Americans are quick to criticize governments internationally. How would the United States have reacted if another country denied Americans access to websites that are completely legal here? When the DoJ seized the gambling domain names, they made it so that these companies would also not be able to host these websites outside of the United States using the .com.[5]

In the first amended complaint against the online gambling companies, the U.S. alleged the domain names “are properties used in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1955 and are properties involved in money laundering transactions.”[6] The U.S. then relied on 18 U.S.C. 981 (a)(1)(A) to claim this property is subject to forfeiture since “any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction in violation of section 1956 or 1957…of Title 18, relating to money laundering offenses, or any property traceable to such property is subject to forfeiture.”[7]

Opponents were successful in overturning Kentucky’s domain name seizures. The DoJ has been much more successful challenging online gambling companies and left owners scrambling to get away while they can. A few of the websites are back running on the .com while others simply set up their sites with a .eu. From an international perspective, should the United States be able to seize a domain name at will? Should there be an international body deciding when a domain name should be taken down?

In New York, the state has imposed fines on jurors who break the law and improperly use technology. In July of 2011, a juror was found guilty of contempt after he texted a friend about a trial he was sitting on.[1] Sadly for him, the friend was an assistant district attorney who reported it to the judge sitting on the case so as to avoid any impression of impropriety.[2] The judge had told jurors not to use technology to communicate with others about the case whatsoever.[3] In this specific case the juror texted his attorney friend while deliberations were taking place in an effort to keep him updated.[4] The man was fined $1,000, and perhaps more importantly, the case was declared a mistrial.[5] I feel the mistrial was the right decision. Even though the juror claimed he was just giving his buddy an update, the chances here for impropriety are so great that the court in the interest of justice could not take the chance.

In Texas, the courts have turned to community service as their deterrent of choice. In August of 2011, a Texas judge found a juror guilty of criminal contempt after he updated his Facebook with his thoughts on the trial he was sitting on.[6] But the misconduct did not end there. The juror actually friend requested the defendant on Facebook after being chosen for the trial.[7] The judge had instructed the juror that he was not to use the Internet to discuss the case.[8] Is friend requesting the defendant and posting your thoughts on a trial technically “discussing the case”? If no one commented back, does one-way communication truly count as breaking the judge’s instruction? At least community service is not too harsh of a sanction.

In California, the state legislature is getting tough on jurors who access the Internet. In August, the state legislature unanimously passed a law that requires judges to instruct jurors that if they access the Internet to do research or discuss the case with others they could be sentenced to six months in jail.[9] The sanctioned juror would be charged and convicted of criminal contempt of court.[10] The law is planned to go into effect in 2012.[11] At first this law upset me. I understand jury duty is our civic duty, but at every trial I have attended the attorneys and judge fall over themselves making sure the jury is happy, engaged, and enjoying their experience. I understand using a smartphone, Ipad, or computer to do research is wrong and compromises the integrity of the trial itself. Still, six months in jail seems excessive to me. You could have a juror who ends up spending more time in jail than the person they find guilty of a crime and that strikes me as unfair and wrong. But the more I look at it, the law is simply requiring judges to tell jurors they could go to jail. I would hope unless it is an egregious example of juror misconduct, no jail time would be given. This law does act as a stick though to hopefully scare jurors into following the law and demonstrates that courts are serious about jurors not accessing the Internet.

The question is not just how to sanction the violating the juror but what to do with the current trial when a juror uses the Internet. The Illinois Supreme Court is deciding how to rule on an appeal after it came to the courts attention that a juror kept a blog about her thoughts and feelings while sitting a civil trial that resulted in a $4.7 million dollar verdict.[12] The judge gave the jurors instructions not to communicate about the case.[13] After the verdict was rendered and the blog was discovered, the attorneys asked the court permission to interview the other jurors to see if they knew of the blog and whether it prejudiced their decisions.[14] This motion was denied.[15] It seems odd to me that the motion was denied. Perhaps the court wants to ask these questions itself. But if the other jurors did not read the blog, why should the verdict be overturned? There was no evidence that anyone contacted the juror during her trial. The blog was in essence an online-diary. I do not think a court would have problem with a diary, so if the other jurors did not know of the blogs existence, I personally do not see the problem of it. Of course, you readers are more than welcome to disagree with me.

In a different case in Arkansas, the Supreme Court is facing an appeal after it was discovered a juror tweeted four times during a trial that sentenced a man to death.[16] The judge instructed the jurors not to tweet but this man did anyway.[17] Specifically, two of his tweets were “This coffee sucks,” and discussing his hesitation to sentence someone to die.[18] The coffee tweet seems harmless enough but the second one presents problems if others @replied to him and he was swayed based on what people said.[19] The state attorney’s office has been arguing that the conviction and sentence should stand due to the limited number of tweets and that in their opinion the tweets were about the jurors feelings not the substance of the case.[20] Should the number of tweets even matter? Cannot one tweet be enough? Moreover, I understand the state’s argument but to me the feelings of a juror concerning the death penalty are extremely important and should not be ignored.

Jurors are not the only ones who are having problems staying off of social media sites. Everyone read the story of the prosecutor who wrote a Gilligan’s Island themed poem on his Facebook after his trial was over.[21] Although the article tried to chastise this attorney and make it seem like was a tragic act against the legal profession, I did not see too much of a problem with it. Calling defense counsel a “weasel face” probably is a slight violation of Rule 3.1 of professional conduct, but I have heard attorneys refer to other attorneys by much worse names than that. I also disagree with the article that this Facebook status update was a violation of confidentiality. From what I can tell the attorney gave no names of case specifics. There was no danger in anything he did and the fact the case was already over meant the trial was not effected in any way. As the attorneys is a state employee perhaps this was not the most professional action, but it appeared to be in good fun and punishing him for that could run afoul of the First Amendment.

One last humorous anecdote involved a question of ethics in New York. In New York, a question was presented to the New York Bar Association if lawyers could essentially give people a prize of money in return for them becoming their friend on Facebook.[22] The Bar Association decided that it depended on the reason for giving the prize.[23] If the reason was simply to gain friends, then it was allowed.[24] If the reason was to solicit business, then it was not allowed.[25] What other reason would an attorney have to “buy” Facebook friends than to solicit business? I am not sure how this could even be determined in order to be enforced.

Looking back at this blog, what do you guys think? Which deterrent do you think will be the most effective? I would think jail time would be the scariest and thus the most effective, but I in my opinion it is also the most unfair to the juror. What, if any, other steps should courts employ to stop jurors from accessing the Internet in relation to the case they are sitting on? Should they take away their computers or smartphones? Or should we just hope and assume jurors who actually came to court and obeyed their summons will also follow the law? What about attorneys? How careful should we be in our use of social media, and when are we actually crossing the line? Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving and see you on Tuesday!

A huge point of contention is whether poker is a game of chance or skill. Obviously, poker players consider it a game of skill, which would not make it illegal under the UIGEA. In 1986, a U.S. District Court dealt with issues related to poker and how it should be classified[5]. Baxter v. United States dealt with a federal tax provision and whether gambling earnings is earned income or unearned income. The individual in this case was a poker player who had played since he was 14 years old[6]. The judge who heard the Baxter case said “”I find the government’s argument to be ludicrous. I just wish you had some money and could sit down with Mr. Baxter and play some poker.”[7] To Baxter the difference was over $100k in taxes. Today’s implication of gambling earnings being considered earned income versus unearned would suggest it is derived using some sort of skill. In reaching it’s conclusion the court reasoned “The money[used in poker], once bet, would have produced no income without the application of Baxter’s skills. As discussed previously, it was Baxter’s extraordinary poker skills which generated his substantial gaming income, not the intrinsic value of the money he bet.”[8] Although Baxter was able to persuade the court his gambling winnings were a result of his skill, there hasn’t been a clear ruling on current gambling statutes to make this point definitive. Proponents of online poker advocate Baxter makes poker a game of skill, therefore not falling under the control of the UIGEA.

At the state level, Pennsylvania has faced the issue of whether poker should be considered a game of skill or luck. In 2010 the Superior Court of Pennsylvania was faced with the same issue poker players face today with the UIGEA. If it were considered a game of skill it would not be illegal, but if it were a game of chance it would fall into the codified definition of illegal gambling. In Commonwealth v. Dent (2010)[9], two defendants faced twenty counts of unlawful gambling after an undercover officer had played poker hosted by the defendants. Under Pennsylvania law three requisite elements to the crime were consideration, chance, and reward. Consideration and reward were not argued but chance was the pivotal point similar to the UIGEA.  Ultimately, the court held poker IS gambling because it is predominantly a game of chance and this was not expressly authorized under Pennsylvania law[10]. In reaching it’s decision the court said

“During oral argument, counsel for plaintiff analogized poker to golf, arguing that while a weekend golfer might, by luck, beat a professional golfer such as Tiger Woods on one hole, over the span of 18 holes, Woods’ superior skill would prevail. The same would be true for a poker game, plaintiff contended, making poker, like golf, a game of skill. This analogy, while creative, is false. In golf, as in bowling or billiards, the players are presented with an equal challenge, with each determining his fortune by his own skill. Although chance inevitably intervenes, it is not inherent in the game and does not overcome skill, and the player maintains the opportunity to defeat chance with superior skill. Whereas in poker, a skilled player may give himself a statistical advantage but is always subject to defeat at the turn of a card, an instrumentality beyond his control. We think that is a critical difference.”[11]

Considering federal and state history on the issue of gambling being skill or luck, we now visit the crack down of online poker by the United States. In 2009, the DoJ ordered four banks to freeze over 34 million dollars in payments owed to about 27,000 poker players[12]. In the first amended complaint by the U.S. against Pokerstars, Full Tilt, and others, the DoJ has charged a myriad of defendants under the UIGEA[13]. This has completely changed the face of online poker and severely limited access by former poker players. There has been a lot of negotiation outside of court and agreements to pay large amounts of money by these companies. It would be interesting for this case to make it up the appellate avenue to determine once and for all whether poker should be considered a game of skill or chance.

Considering Baxter and Dent, which approach is more persuasive? Should online poker be illegal? Is the legislative finding stating “internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry” a persuasive argument for outlawing gambling online considering someone can simply drive to a casino?