Online poker players tuned into last week’s House Financial Services Committee on internet gambling can recall a letter cited by Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) that claimed online poker games could be compromised.
The memo, dated November 13th and written by FBI Cyber Division Assistant Director Shawn Henry, addresses six questions put forth by Bachus regarding the current state of affairs in the online poker world. The report states, “The technology exists to manipulate online poker games in that it would only take two or three players working in unison to defeat the other players who are not part of the team.” Henry’s analysis speculates as to whether online poker sites would spend the time and money needed to combat these tag team maneuvers: “It really comes down to a cost analysis for the vendor. How much money will I make or lose by detecting cheating and implementing safeguards?”
The letter from Henry then addresses money laundering possibilities in private online poker tournaments before Bachus asked if “qualified personnel” existed to regulate the game should it be legalized. Henry responded, “FBI investigative resources are focused on our highest priorities, that being counterterrirosm, counterintelligence, and cyber threats to critical infrastructure.” No mention of online poker or internet gambling is given in Henry’s response to this question.
Henry questions the age and location verification mechanisms that online poker sites currently have in place. Henry responds, “For age verification, the possession of a credit card is usually the only validation these sites require. Credit card numbers are easily compromised and can be bought by the hundreds on several ‘underground’ websites.” On the question of location verification, Henry asserts, “While geolocation can be accurate when used to determine the physical country of residence, it becomes exponentially less accurate when determining the city or zip code.”
Also discussed in the letter from the FBI Cyber Division official are bots, programs against the Terms of Service of most major sites. In addition, Bachus asks whether U.S. law enforcement officials have had any conversations with their counterparts overseas where internet gambling is regulated about “potential vulnerabilities.” Henry emphatically claims, “The FBI has not engaged in this discussion with our foreign partners.” On casino bot programs manipulating online games, Henry admits, “While casino software could very easily be employed to manipulate games, the FBI has no data in this area.”
The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) was quick to point out the pitfalls of Henry’s letter. Its Executive Director, John Pappas, charged, “Every concern the letter raises is better addressed by licensing and regulation than by prohibition. The letter misconstrues much about the current state of online poker, but it does so in a way that clearly makes the case for why federal oversight is necessary. Licensing and regulation is the most protective measure we can take to ensure the online community can be properly monitored while maintaining our internet freedom.”
The PPA added that Congressman Peter King (R-NY), the current Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, conveyed that money laundering and terrorism financing were not taking place through internet gambling. The PPA explains that online poker sites use credit databases to address age and location and that the Department of Justice has never found evidence that organized crime benefited from internet gambling. In total, the lobbying group notes, “In defense of Mr. Henry’s letter, it is intended to address the status quo, not the internet poker landscape under HR 2267.”
Age verification was one of the many issues discussed at last week’s hearing, which focused on HR 2267. The bill, proposed by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) crafts a complete licensing and regulatory framework for the internet gambling industry in the United States.
So stupid. Why would they invent potential compromise situations when 2 have already gone down? A fraud company with enough capital to get going could just potripper people – it kind of already did…twice.
Now I am not saying that I agree with the decision or the argument but for Pete’s sake would the opposition even pretend like they are researching! So stupid.