Porn's New Domain is Good News | News & Opinion | PCMag.comMore Opinion: Rather than argue about what .XXX is,or is meant to be, it is an opportunity. No one expects theadult industry to give up their .com's for a .xxx. I fully expect that they will buy their brands in all domains, as they always have. And parental controls will block porn effectively, as they always have. This won't ghettoize adult content, nor will it make it possible to block all adult content.
But, it can address other important issues. Privacy - the non-profit that will oversee the rules governing .XXX from a multi-stakeholder perspective can require that member sites create strong privacy practices to make sure that the personal information (including financial information) of users is not voluntarily shared with third parties. Security - making sure that the same information is not involutarily released or made accessible due to faulty security means and technologies. Child sexual exploitation - while the US Constitution and many non-US regulatory schemes permit images of adults who appear to be minors engaged in sexual conduct or in the nude posed in lewd ways, .XXX can set rules about images which exploit children or appear to.
.XXX can be about best practices, protecting their users' data and security and about children. And it can do it without requiring all adult sites to move to .XXX as their sole domains. And can require all the .XXX domain holders use tags that make it easier for parental control providers to screen them out.
It may not address everything that all stakeholders hope or fear it does, but it moves us forward just a little. We have to think outside of the box here. Our kids and our privacy need help.
Parry
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sexual Assault via Internet - PCWorld
Sexual Assault via Internet - PCWorldextortion is extorition, whether it is becassue of information found online or offline. Multiple laws were broken, and no new ones need to be written.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Hearings | Committee on Education and Labor
Hearings | Committee on Education and LaborParry Aftab to testify at June 24th Congressional Hearing on cybersafety and cyberbullying, along with Dr. Phil, Dave Finnegan (Build-A-Bear Workshop's Chief Technology "Bear"), a child psychiatrist, principal and a member of Parry's Girl Scout cybersafety initiative, LMK.GirlScouts.org.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Video: NYC schools seek to ban 'sexting' Video
Video: NYC schools seek to ban sexting Video Parry comments on the new proposed rules for NY City schools.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Supreme Court rules on employer monitoring of cellphone, computer conversations
Supreme Court rules on employer monitoring of cellphone, computer conversationsThis decision was not a surprise. The law has been clear for many years that employers may monitor employee's communications when company evices and technologies are in use. What created the controversy here was an "informal" unwritten policy that could have supported the finding that the police department employer, in this case, waived the right to monitor communications.
The lesson? If you are monitoring, let your emplopyees know and remind that about personal use and your ability to view personal communications if they use your equipment. And don't be put in the position of someone claiming an "informal" policy overwrites your formal one.
The lesson? If you are monitoring, let your emplopyees know and remind that about personal use and your ability to view personal communications if they use your equipment. And don't be put in the position of someone claiming an "informal" policy overwrites your formal one.
A fatal case of bullying: 'If only he'd known how much he mattered' | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram
A fatal case of bullying: 'If only he'd known how much he mattered' | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday TelegramI am not aware of allegations of cyberbullying involving Alex. But these are becoming too common and are heartbreaking.
Monday, June 14, 2010
7th Annual E-Commerce Best Practices Conference | Agenda
7th Annual E-Commerce Best Practices Conference | AgendaParry moderates the online safety panel at Stanford June 25th.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
STOP cyberbullying: Cyberbullying - what it is, how it works and how to understand and deal with cyberbullies
STOP cyberbullying: Cyberbullying - what it is, how it works and how to understand and deal with cyberbulliesthe world's most popular cyberbullying website was created by Parry and is run by WiredSafety.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Contending with COPPA Confusion
Contending with COPPA Confusionten years ago we discussed COPPA confusion, yet 10 years later confusion remains.
Yahoo! Gives Parents a B+ for Taking Action to Protect Children Online - MarketWatch
Yahoo! Gives Parents a B+ for Taking Action to Protect Children Online - MarketWatchParry is calling for all families to use this opportunity to chat about safer and more responsible use of digital technologies. With our active wiredmoms program (follow them at wiredmom on twitter), we find many moms are the day-to-day experts for their kids online. Yesterday,some middle schoolers in Queens, NY told Parry that they trusted their moms to help them make the right decisions. "My mom knows me more than I know me," one student told her. All moms (and dads) should take the time with their kids this weekend to Yahoo! themselves and their kids. They should put in their full names in quotes (like "Parry Aftab"), and separately search for their cell numbers, addresses, email addresses and screen names, along with anything else that identifies them. Set an alert for each, as well, to give you an early warning system of too much info or early cyberbullying attacks. Search Facebook as well, adjusting your search privacy settings to keep certain information from being searched and check-out Facebook's new and easier privacy choices. If you find something that shouldn't be out there, ask the site or individual to remove it. If you need help, visit WiredSafety.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Monday, June 07, 2010
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
How to Secure Your Facebook Account - Spending - Technology - SmartMoney.com
How to Secure Your Facebook Account - Spending - Technology - SmartMoney.comThink in 3s - open, friends of friends and friends only.
Facebook's new privacy settings are fully adaptable to whatever you want. But most of us want it to be made easier with default settings in place that approximate our needs. Facebook has treid to design this, and done a pretty good job (IMHO). They have broken the information into three groups (see above). What they think everyone can see, and do see unless you change your settings from the default, name and status (back to this later). What you don't want the world to see, but are okay with letting the friends of your friends see - pics, postings, etc. and private things that only your friends can see - contact info and sensitive info.
I think this works and will be a big help, with one exception - status updates.
Status updates are used in different ways by different people and by different demographic groups. Some use it like a mini-twitter post - a short public-facing announcement to promote a cause, message, etc. Others use it as a group text - to their friends and family. "Going to the mall, see you there at 4pm"
Teens use it that way. Seniors often do, as well as "newbies." I would have liked ot see this defaulted at minimum "friends of friends." But there is an easy fix - change that one setting.
the next time (or first time) you change your status, once the settings are in effect, you'll get a warning "are you sure you want this to be made open to the world?" or some equivalent. When you see that, change your settings if you want them more private.
simpler than you thought!
Facebook's new privacy settings are fully adaptable to whatever you want. But most of us want it to be made easier with default settings in place that approximate our needs. Facebook has treid to design this, and done a pretty good job (IMHO). They have broken the information into three groups (see above). What they think everyone can see, and do see unless you change your settings from the default, name and status (back to this later). What you don't want the world to see, but are okay with letting the friends of your friends see - pics, postings, etc. and private things that only your friends can see - contact info and sensitive info.
I think this works and will be a big help, with one exception - status updates.
Status updates are used in different ways by different people and by different demographic groups. Some use it like a mini-twitter post - a short public-facing announcement to promote a cause, message, etc. Others use it as a group text - to their friends and family. "Going to the mall, see you there at 4pm"
Teens use it that way. Seniors often do, as well as "newbies." I would have liked ot see this defaulted at minimum "friends of friends." But there is an easy fix - change that one setting.
the next time (or first time) you change your status, once the settings are in effect, you'll get a warning "are you sure you want this to be made open to the world?" or some equivalent. When you see that, change your settings if you want them more private.
simpler than you thought!
VH1.com : Paramore : Hayley Williams Twitpic: Internet Security Expert Offers Advice On Protection - Rhapsody Music Downloads
VH1.com : Paramore : Hayley Williams Twitpic: Internet Security Expert Offers Advice On Protection - Rhapsody Music DownloadsIf you're a celebrity or VIP, you should know about the growing number of certified celebrity and VIP programs offered by the social network and technology providers. If they are working with me, or hold the upcoming "Socially Safe" best practices seal, they have to put a program in place to authenticate celebrities and VIPs, and help users and celebs alike know who is real and who is a poser.
if you're a celeb or VIP, reach out to wiredtrust.com. If you're a user and don't know if someone who claims to be whoopi goldberg or justin timberlake is real, ask the site to do what's right...
if you're a celeb or VIP, reach out to wiredtrust.com. If you're a user and don't know if someone who claims to be whoopi goldberg or justin timberlake is real, ask the site to do what's right...
Put off by prying eyes, people push for more privacy online
Put off by prying eyes, people push for more privacy onlineIt's a good time ot start thinking about your privacy. Instead of boycotting Facebook, why not use that day to figure out your friends online, your settings and what you really use FB for? Mark announced three settings, by default. Open to the world - name and status, friends of friends - pics, tags, writings on your wall, etc. and closed to friends only - contact info - cell, email, etc.
I think these are a good start. I am not crazy about having your status made public by default, especially for teens, but you can easily change that.
I think these are a good start. I am not crazy about having your status made public by default, especially for teens, but you can easily change that.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Facebook Privacy Announcement
this afternoon est Facebook will announce changes affecting privacy.
These should be very welcome changes.
if you have a facebook account ( more than 400 million do!)log in later today and view your choices and take time to figure out what you want and how to implement it.
It is and always should be about choice and user empowerment.
These should be very welcome changes.
if you have a facebook account ( more than 400 million do!)log in later today and view your choices and take time to figure out what you want and how to implement it.
It is and always should be about choice and user empowerment.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The world experts Parry Aftab and Tanya Byron will participate in the International Conference on Digital Citizenship ‹ I Congreso Internacional Ciudadanía Digital
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Agenda ‹ I Congreso Internacional Ciudadanía Digital
Agenda ‹ I Congreso Internacional Ciudadanía Digitalthe San Sebastian, Spain conference on cybersafety and cyberbullying.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Password Protection: How to Protect Keep Hackers Out of Your Email - ABC News
Password Protection: How to Protect Keep Hackers Out of Your Email - ABC NewsAre you using one fo the 20 questions to choose your password? President OBama did on his twitter account (his dog's name). Sarah Palin did too.
Portada Colpisa Clasico
Portada Colpisa Clasicothe Spanish conference on cyberbullying - Parry will keynote in Spain, May 21st. Her first book for cyberbullying was written and published just for Spain in 2004.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Facebook Dangers: Site Upgrades Safety Measures, Rejects Panic Button - ABC News
Facebook Dangers: Site Upgrades Safety Measures, Rejects Panic Button - ABC NewsIt's sad that when tragic things happen to young people, everyone points fingers. They don't have to make sense, or be valid, but everyone is looking for someone to blame. I have a great deal of respect for CEOP and Jim Gambler personally, but here I think they are being unfair and unfounded. Their "panic" button isn't a cyber911 link. It, instead connects you to their internet safety materials. While good materials, so are those used by Facebook which recruited 5 of the world's leading cyebrsafety charities, including the one I run - WiredSafety, to donate our expertise and resources to build a collaborative safety center. The CEOP page linked ot from the button has links to UK law enforcement pages and makes it easier to find contact info. But it doesn't evenhave a link to "Protecting yourself from sexual predators online," or anything along those lines.
The "panic" button that Gamble claims could have made a difference here was actually used on MSN, where Ashleigh and her killer held most of their communications before meeting, the rape and the murder. If it would have worked to prevent her from meeting him offline, she would still be alive and well.
There is no one button, one approach or silver bullet. To suggest otherwise is unfair to parents, families and may even make people less safe as they think one button can protect young people from registered and convicted sex offenders on the loose.
That takes education, support of friends and family, and providing help when needed.
The "panic" button that Gamble claims could have made a difference here was actually used on MSN, where Ashleigh and her killer held most of their communications before meeting, the rape and the murder. If it would have worked to prevent her from meeting him offline, she would still be alive and well.
There is no one button, one approach or silver bullet. To suggest otherwise is unfair to parents, families and may even make people less safe as they think one button can protect young people from registered and convicted sex offenders on the loose.
That takes education, support of friends and family, and providing help when needed.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
«La mejor arma contra el ciberacoso es una cena en familia». diariovasco.com
«La mejor arma contra el ciberacoso es una cena en familia». diariovasco.comParry to speak at major cyberbullying congress in Spain, as a follow up to her previous speaking at EU congresses in Spain on cybersafety and youth.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
NewsFactor Network | Facebook Revamps Safety Center for Young Users
NewsFactor Network | Facebook Revamps Safety Center for Young UsersFacebook has begun building out their safety pages, first with their safety advisory board and next with others who have things to share.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Driven to Distraction - Series - The New York Times
Driven to Distraction - Series - The New York TimesThis article earned a Pulitzer prize for the journalists. It's a very important issue.
IT News Online > - - Facebook and Its Safety Advisory Board Launch Robust New Safety Center
IT News Online > - - Facebook and Its Safety Advisory Board Launch Robust New Safety CenterWiredsafety is one of the Facebook safety advisory board members.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Court filing reveals taunted teen's anguish in final hours - CNN.com
Court filing reveals taunted teen's anguish in final hours - CNN.comWhen we talk about cyberharassment and cyberbullying, or even real life harassment and bullying, many adults dont understand the scope of the torment and pain. This investigation shares the final hours of Phoebe Prince before her tragic suicide.
A tragic story of a young female sheriffs officer killed while suspected of texting while driving
toledoblade.com -- The Blade ~ Toledo OhioWiredSafety and Parry will be devoting a great deal of time to this issue. Our Teenangels research discloses that teens driving with other teens who are texting while driving is common. They report that their parents often text and drive as well.
A new product, PROTECTOR by Taser, is being finalized that helps address distracted driving risks and gives parents better control over their young teen's and preteen's cell phone use.
A new product, PROTECTOR by Taser, is being finalized that helps address distracted driving risks and gives parents better control over their young teen's and preteen's cell phone use.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Monday, April 05, 2010
Unvarnished: Person reviews or trollfest? | Molly Rants - CNET News
Unvarnished: Person reviews or trollfest? | Molly Rants - CNET Newswhat should and can a site do to operate responsibly in the reputation world?
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Facebook 'Rager' Causes $45,000 in Damage|NewsChannel 8
Rager Causes $45,000 in Damage|NewsChannel 8 Teens use the info they found online about parents being away to plan a party and trash the house.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Mad as Hell...
This case of Phoebe Prince's harassment and the school's failure to respond to reports and witnessing of the harassment is troubling. It is also my new passion. I always defend schools, often forced to do Herculean tasks with minimsule budgets. But all evidence points to the fact that the school knew and did nothing to stop the harassment of this young teen.
Schools need ot know what to do, before we can blame them. But I understand that they had brought in Barbara Collaruso to advise them and do assemblies. They should have known what to do. Is it the popularity and the athletic success of the students charged with the harassment that kept them from acting?
The DA is doing a terrific job so far. She approached this using the latest methods of charging cyberbullying and bullying, civil rights claims, as well as those traditionally used. She is serious and it shows. I understand that she and many of the state police investigators had attended South Hadley schools when they were younger. I support her in approaching this. It is hard and troublesome. People will criticize her form both sides. But, as I learned in law school - if both sides are unhappy, you're probably being fair.
my 2 cents
Parry
Schools need ot know what to do, before we can blame them. But I understand that they had brought in Barbara Collaruso to advise them and do assemblies. They should have known what to do. Is it the popularity and the athletic success of the students charged with the harassment that kept them from acting?
The DA is doing a terrific job so far. She approached this using the latest methods of charging cyberbullying and bullying, civil rights claims, as well as those traditionally used. She is serious and it shows. I understand that she and many of the state police investigators had attended South Hadley schools when they were younger. I support her in approaching this. It is hard and troublesome. People will criticize her form both sides. But, as I learned in law school - if both sides are unhappy, you're probably being fair.
my 2 cents
Parry
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
South Florida - Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade breaking news, sports, weather, traffic, hurricane coverage, restaurants, jobs, real estate, classifieds and consumer help -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
South Florida - Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade breaking news, sports, weather, traffic, hurricane coverage, restaurants, jobs, real estate, classifieds and consumer help -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.commpther speak about her daughter's attack. gag order in effect on sheriff and defense counsel
Classmates at Deerfield Beach High School show sympathy for beating suspect - Sun Sentinel
Classmates at Deerfield Beach High School show sympathy for beating suspect - Sun Sentinelteen attacked after she sent text messages to a boy telling him he shouldn't be seeing her thirteen yr old friend and disparaging him and his familt - referencing his brother's suicide. Teen in critical condition.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Social Networking: Be Careful What You Share - ABC News
Social Networking: Be Careful What You Share - ABC NewsParry talks about real life security risks of bloggin, tweeting or statusing too much.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Teaser – amFIX - CNN.com Blogs
The Teaser – amFIX - CNN.com BlogsParry and Law Professor discuss sexting law
Lawmakers Propose New Sexting Law For Ohio - Cincinnati breaking news, weather radar, traffic from 9News | Channel 9 WCPO.com
Lawmakers Propose New Sexting Law For Ohio - Cincinnati breaking news, weather radar, traffic from 9News | Channel 9 WCPO.comOhio has proposed a new approach to sexting cases. Parry Aftab supports the Ohio approach.
About.com: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/01/Lawyer-wants-federal-sexting-law/UPI-79331238644351/
About.com: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/01/Lawyer-wants-federal-sexting-law/UPI-79331238644351/Parry Aftab seeks common sense when consensual sexting is discovered but not used ot harass the person in the image.
US 3rd Circuit Ct of Appeals rules against prosecutor in sexting cases
to read the decision: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092144p.pdf
Parry Aftab to appear on CNN International March 22nd at 1:15pm est to discuss censorship online
What is the right role for governments when it comes to controlling information among their citizens? Is China's stance reasonable or realistic? Is Google's response to China's actions reasonable or effective?
Parry Aftab to appear on American Morning CNN 6:30am March 22nd on sexting and sexual exploitation laws
I have worked in this area for years and years, ever since 1995. The first sexting case I was aware of occurred in 1998, before cell phones could take or transmit images. We called it "sexing" in the days before cell phones and the term coined to combine sex and texting. A young teen in NY took a sexual video of herself and gave it to a boy she liked. He shared it with the world.
Now, as MTV and Associated Press polls show that 2/3's of sexting is coerced, and those involved in sexting are 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide, we have to make this a priority.
But how do we advised policymakers? Do we ask them to decriminalize all creation, sharing or possession of images that legally constitute child pornography? If not, what do we want them to do?
Sexting that occurs consensually between teens who are involved can be treated like consensual teen sex with another teen, by amending the child pornography laws to match the statutory rape exemptions for consensual teen to teen sex. But what about those who maliciously spread the images to others, either to get revenge for the teen in the image breaking up with them, or because they want to ruin the reputation of the teen in the image.
In Canada they give limited immunity for the teens involved in the taking and initial sharing of the image, those making up the intimate relationship. Once it moves beyond them, it becomes criminal.
But not all sexting is consensual. A ten year old I know was extorted into taking a sexual image for a few thirteen year olds, threatened with sexual assault if she didn't comply. That's not sexting. That is aggravated sexual assault.
Lawyers do this all the time, so do policymakers. We look at a problem and craft a solution when laws are needed. We can set parameters and help prosecutors understand when community service is best, or counsling is needed, or the teen being charged needs to be treated as a criminal.
Some people think that we shouldn't be ciminalizing "dumb" behavior by teens. But we do all the time. If the drink and drive, it's "dumb" and criminal. If they steal, use a weapon, sell drugs, etc. it's a crime.
What we need to do is remind them of this. Education, awareness, peer-advisors, getting the cell phone companies involved, the digital video and still camera companies involved and the online providers involved...they are all crucial. We need to train prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, etc.
We need to support programs such as MTV's athinline.org campaign. We need to join forces. WiredSafety, the charity I run, has created a coalition called the Stop Cyberbullying Coalition. It handles all aspects of cyberbullying, including sextbullying (when teens spread the images to hurt someone). Our KID team, "kids in danger" team will continue its 15 year quest to stop sexual exploitation of minors.
It isn't justice when one case results in a teen going to jail or having to register as a sex offender for 40+ years, while the same set of facts results in a slap pon the wrist somewhere else. So, we need ot chage the laws. But "decriminalizing" sexting as a blanket policy without looking at the circumstances, whether the actions were predatory, malicious or purely consensual isn't the way. Careful, thoughtful, smart people need to joint forces to find the right way. No kneejerk reactions. But creating exemptions to the law that allow for community service, mandated counseling or no charges under the right circumstances, while giving law enforcement the tools to stop predatory, threatening and true sexual exploitation is.
My 5 sexting tips for teens:
1. If you receive a sexual image of a minor, even if you know them, delete it.
2. Don't take an image you don't want your parents, the police, your principal or a predator to see.
3. What you post online stays online together.
4. If you think what you store on your cell phone is private and no one can access it - think again. How carefully do you guiard it? Do others ever use it? Are you sure your kid brother or your parents aren't "checking things out"?
5. If you love him, bake him cookies, don't send him a sext. And if you love her, don't ask for one.
Now, as MTV and Associated Press polls show that 2/3's of sexting is coerced, and those involved in sexting are 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide, we have to make this a priority.
But how do we advised policymakers? Do we ask them to decriminalize all creation, sharing or possession of images that legally constitute child pornography? If not, what do we want them to do?
Sexting that occurs consensually between teens who are involved can be treated like consensual teen sex with another teen, by amending the child pornography laws to match the statutory rape exemptions for consensual teen to teen sex. But what about those who maliciously spread the images to others, either to get revenge for the teen in the image breaking up with them, or because they want to ruin the reputation of the teen in the image.
In Canada they give limited immunity for the teens involved in the taking and initial sharing of the image, those making up the intimate relationship. Once it moves beyond them, it becomes criminal.
But not all sexting is consensual. A ten year old I know was extorted into taking a sexual image for a few thirteen year olds, threatened with sexual assault if she didn't comply. That's not sexting. That is aggravated sexual assault.
Lawyers do this all the time, so do policymakers. We look at a problem and craft a solution when laws are needed. We can set parameters and help prosecutors understand when community service is best, or counsling is needed, or the teen being charged needs to be treated as a criminal.
Some people think that we shouldn't be ciminalizing "dumb" behavior by teens. But we do all the time. If the drink and drive, it's "dumb" and criminal. If they steal, use a weapon, sell drugs, etc. it's a crime.
What we need to do is remind them of this. Education, awareness, peer-advisors, getting the cell phone companies involved, the digital video and still camera companies involved and the online providers involved...they are all crucial. We need to train prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, etc.
We need to support programs such as MTV's athinline.org campaign. We need to join forces. WiredSafety, the charity I run, has created a coalition called the Stop Cyberbullying Coalition. It handles all aspects of cyberbullying, including sextbullying (when teens spread the images to hurt someone). Our KID team, "kids in danger" team will continue its 15 year quest to stop sexual exploitation of minors.
It isn't justice when one case results in a teen going to jail or having to register as a sex offender for 40+ years, while the same set of facts results in a slap pon the wrist somewhere else. So, we need ot chage the laws. But "decriminalizing" sexting as a blanket policy without looking at the circumstances, whether the actions were predatory, malicious or purely consensual isn't the way. Careful, thoughtful, smart people need to joint forces to find the right way. No kneejerk reactions. But creating exemptions to the law that allow for community service, mandated counseling or no charges under the right circumstances, while giving law enforcement the tools to stop predatory, threatening and true sexual exploitation is.
My 5 sexting tips for teens:
1. If you receive a sexual image of a minor, even if you know them, delete it.
2. Don't take an image you don't want your parents, the police, your principal or a predator to see.
3. What you post online stays online together.
4. If you think what you store on your cell phone is private and no one can access it - think again. How carefully do you guiard it? Do others ever use it? Are you sure your kid brother or your parents aren't "checking things out"?
5. If you love him, bake him cookies, don't send him a sext. And if you love her, don't ask for one.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Peeved Facebook Might Sue Brit Tabloid Over '14-Year-Old Girl' Headline Chaser
Peeved Facebook Might Sue Brit Tabloid Over '14-Year-Old Girl' Headline ChaserToo often journalists and others are looking to hype sitations. It sells papers and can get someone to "stay tuned." But when there are real risks to teens online, this headline was inexcusable. They used Facebook's name to get attention when it had nothing to do with the "investigation" this journalist conducted.
The problem? For this journalist, it's doing it form the UK where defamation laws are much stiffer than in the US. I hope Facebook does sue.
The problem? For this journalist, it's doing it form the UK where defamation laws are much stiffer than in the US. I hope Facebook does sue.
California Court Rules Cyber-Bullying Is Not Free Speech
California Court Rules Cyber-Bullying Is Not Free SpeechCyberbullying may prove costly to these kids and their parents. Private law suit by student who had been tormented online was allowed to continue, as the court ruled free speech is not a defense to harassment.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Facebook stands up to UK.gov's cyberbullying • The Register
Facebook stands up to UK.gov;s cyberbullying • The RegisterThis article articulates the issue better than I can. While I applaude the work CEOP does in tracking down and making sure sexual predators are arrested, when it comes to cybersafety there is not one voice, but many. The "panic" button, isn't a panic button at all. It links to cybersafety resources. It turns out that Ashleigh held most of her communications with her murderer on MSN, not Facebook. And MSN has the "panic" button. That ends the fingerpointing, hopefully.
Facebook has extensive reporting processes and report abuse buttons and trained professionals who receive those reports. I am not sure why one organization, even one as well respected as CEOP, should monopolize reporting and cybersafety messaging when Facebook already works with most leading experts in this field, including CEOP.
I suspect it has something to do with UK budget cuts and the need to remind people how important organizations such as CEOP can be. But that is a valid message in itself. Trying to strongarm Facebook in this poor teen's name isn't the right way to approach this.
my 2 cents,
Parry
Facebook has extensive reporting processes and report abuse buttons and trained professionals who receive those reports. I am not sure why one organization, even one as well respected as CEOP, should monopolize reporting and cybersafety messaging when Facebook already works with most leading experts in this field, including CEOP.
I suspect it has something to do with UK budget cuts and the need to remind people how important organizations such as CEOP can be. But that is a valid message in itself. Trying to strongarm Facebook in this poor teen's name isn't the right way to approach this.
my 2 cents,
Parry
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
FTC Privacy Briefings - Sensitive Data Parry Aftab to Join FTC Panel today
What is “sensitive data?”
“Sensitive Data” categorically includes but is not limited to data related to an individual’s health or medical condition, sexual behavior or orientation, or detailed personal finances, information that appears to relate to children under 13, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical opinions or beliefs and trade union membership.
Four common ways in which sensitive data is exposed
The first three listed are far less prevalent, combined, than the fourth.
1. Intrusion
• Intruders gain access to data through a weakness in the computer system or poor digital hygiene allowing access to computers, desktop and wireless devices
2. Phishing
• Involves a method of extracting sensitive data from unsuspecting individuals through fraudulent emails and communications from seemingly reputable companies and organizations
• Intruders obtain sensitive data by posing as representatives of a legitimate company or organization
3. Social Engineering
• Involves gathering public information that can be gleaned from social networks, online services and community sites, including games, and offline legal sources and combining it in such a way as to understand sensitive and otherwise personal information through de-anonymizing data.
4. Voluntary Sharing of PII
• Online community network users share a tremendous amount of PII all at once or in small portions with the public or with a broad user group
• Some is intentional, while others are shared through poor digital hygiene and failure to use privacy settings or the lack of privacy settings
• This information can be direct disclosure or available through profiling the user’s preferences, groups and surfing patterns, much of which is made publicly available by the user him or herself
• Children are often the source of public disclosures of sensitive data, not only about themselves, but about their friends and family. They may do this intentionally, to harass or torment the person whose information is being disclosed or they may do it without realizing the harm
• Some information is shared, unwittingly, by adults and businesses when disclosing communications, employee information and other sensitive data. In addition, adults, as well as children, share personal information about others either intentionally to harm them or without realizing the harm
Differing definitions of “sensitive data”
There has been a difference in what “sensitive data” means among marketers and privacy advocates in the current push to regulate online advertising. For the most part, the government has had a hands-off approach toward online marketing, giving companies relatively free rein in how they use tools that track what people do online and then use the data gathered to deliver tailored marketing messages.
On July 2, 2009, advertising/marketing industry groups proposed a set of guidelines for self-regulation (http://www.ana.net/news/content/1801) in which they proposed the following definition of “sensitive data”:
The Principle calls for entities not to collect financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions, or medical records about specific individuals for Online Behavioral Advertising purposes without Consent.
However, Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum argued that the definition was too broad and proposed this definition of “sensitive data”:
Advertisers should not collect, use, disclose, or otherwise process personally identifiable information about health, financial activities, sexual behavior or sexual orientation, social security numbers, insurance numbers, or any government-issued ID numbers for targeting or marketing.
The government has not yet shaped any regulation but should it do so, it will likely turn to the FTC to negotiate a compromise definition. The FTC is currently engaging in a series of roundtables focusing on privacy and behavioral advertising.
At the FTC's December 2009 privacy roundtable, panelists raised concerns that collection and third party use of browsing data invades private space by:
1. revealing a user's innermost thoughts, such as a search history that reflect a user's explorations of his sexual identity
2. taking away a user's control over her identity, such as by broadcasting compromising photos of a user at a Cancun Spring Break party to a potential employer
3. revealing sensitive identity or financial information that can be misused by third parties to perpetrate fraud
4. or intruding on a user's seclusion by serving targeted ads during a browsing session that reveal that outsiders are listening in.
These closely track the common law privacy rights available in several states. These include:
1. Intrusion on seclusion;
2. False light (true facts combined in such a way to lead other to a false conclusion);
3. Public disclosure of private facts; and
4. Right of publicity (or identity)
They were always recognized as the core privacy rights because of the likelihood of harm caused by their violation. They are a good place to start when considering sensitive data classifications and its treatment.
Parry Aftab, a privacy lawyer and Executive Director of the cybersafety charity, WiredSafety, identifies sensitive data in two different ways. She identifies sensitive data as “kids, cash and kidneys” meaning the three categories of data regulated within the US – children’s data, financial data and health data which data is most commonly abused commercially.
She also identifies sensitive data as relating to vulnerable groups whose data is most commonly abused by individuals in harassment, reputational attacks and in provocation of physical harm. These include gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and trans-sexuals, victims of crime, medical patients and those with special medical or addiction issues, mental health patients or those suffering from mental health issues, those with special needs and physically- or mentally-challenged and disabled, children, religious and ethnic groups, racial and nationality classifications, litigants and those within the criminal justice system and, in certain cases, senior citizens.
In the former case, regulations already exist to handle the increased risk of disclosure of this information. However, individuals often carelessly or intentionally disclose this information about themselves and others. Once shared, that information is often gathered and used in social engineering, targeted marketing and in building dossiers for multiple purposes. The law typically only protects against the first disclosure and allows consensual disclosure that removes the information form special legal protection.
Vulnerable groups often do not understand their vulnerability online. They often seek support and help online in public forums, or forums that can be easily accessed by third parties. They tend to be less security savvy online and far more trusting of individuals and networks. They either do not use privacy settings, or use them ineffectively. And their information can be gathered, combined with offline and other online data to create risk-profiles or used by stalkers, harassers and hate groups to provoke them online and offline. Physical assaults, crimes against their persons or property and reputational attacks are common.
Aftab’s Socially Safe Seal™, offered through her new risk-management consulting firm, WiredTrust, requires seal holders to create special processes and policies to handle both sensitive data and better protect the vulnerable groups. Her holistic approach includes education, user tutorials and help and specially trained moderators and customer service professionals, and involves the charity, the consulting firm and industry working together to create awareness and implement the best practice standards she has developed over the years.
Sensitive Data & P2P Networks
Also, with the prominence of peer-to-peer network usage these days, the FTC has found that sensitive data such as financial records, SSNs, and driver’s license numbers are now becoming more available on various P2P networks. This happens when private and confidential files are mistakenly shared in “shared file” locations on an individual’s or company’s computer. WiredSafety has repeatedly conducted tests and found that income tax returns, credit applications and passwords and account information for online banking are inadvertently posted and shared through the P2P networks. Often these are shared inadvertently by preteens and teens who use these networks to download and share music, movies and online games on the family computer.
The FTC said that sensitive data about customers and employees have been shared from computer networks in over 100 firms and organizations to virtually anybody in the world connected to the Internet and P2P networks. However, this isn’t to suggest that rampant identity theft hacking is occurring, but merely that some cluelessness and carelessness among workers with access to this sort of data may be to blame.
In response to this, the FTC has released new educational materials to private and public entities explaining the risks of using P2P networks and suggestions on how to manage their use such as making sure that no unauthorized P2P programs can be downloaded and accessed and properly configuring and securing P2P programs that are authorized. WiredSafety has created its own educational programs on this and related issues, and posts an extensive library of resources on its WiredSafety.org and other websites.
Should All Sensitive Data Be Treated The Same?
Recent discussions have been conducted on whether all sensitive data should be treated the same. In particular, whether location information should be given the same privacy protections as medical data.
John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, at a recent Congressional hearing (The Collection and Use of Location Information for Commercial Purposes), express support that “location be treated as sensitive data, like medical data” given the meteoric rise in location based services and associated geolocation data. Morris goes on to testify that such location-based technology should be regulated by the FTC.
Many users have expressed concerns about their location being exposed in ways they don’t control and in effect, adversely impacting their safety and freedom. However, others believe that treating location data like medical data will only shroud it in complete privacy and present a detriment to the location service ecosystem. In addition, with GPS built-into most cell phones and many computers and games and other social networks using location to help pair users and locate on-the-ground stores, services and points of interest, how desirable is it to block access to and use of location data?
“Sensitive Data” categorically includes but is not limited to data related to an individual’s health or medical condition, sexual behavior or orientation, or detailed personal finances, information that appears to relate to children under 13, racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical opinions or beliefs and trade union membership.
Four common ways in which sensitive data is exposed
The first three listed are far less prevalent, combined, than the fourth.
1. Intrusion
• Intruders gain access to data through a weakness in the computer system or poor digital hygiene allowing access to computers, desktop and wireless devices
2. Phishing
• Involves a method of extracting sensitive data from unsuspecting individuals through fraudulent emails and communications from seemingly reputable companies and organizations
• Intruders obtain sensitive data by posing as representatives of a legitimate company or organization
3. Social Engineering
• Involves gathering public information that can be gleaned from social networks, online services and community sites, including games, and offline legal sources and combining it in such a way as to understand sensitive and otherwise personal information through de-anonymizing data.
4. Voluntary Sharing of PII
• Online community network users share a tremendous amount of PII all at once or in small portions with the public or with a broad user group
• Some is intentional, while others are shared through poor digital hygiene and failure to use privacy settings or the lack of privacy settings
• This information can be direct disclosure or available through profiling the user’s preferences, groups and surfing patterns, much of which is made publicly available by the user him or herself
• Children are often the source of public disclosures of sensitive data, not only about themselves, but about their friends and family. They may do this intentionally, to harass or torment the person whose information is being disclosed or they may do it without realizing the harm
• Some information is shared, unwittingly, by adults and businesses when disclosing communications, employee information and other sensitive data. In addition, adults, as well as children, share personal information about others either intentionally to harm them or without realizing the harm
Differing definitions of “sensitive data”
There has been a difference in what “sensitive data” means among marketers and privacy advocates in the current push to regulate online advertising. For the most part, the government has had a hands-off approach toward online marketing, giving companies relatively free rein in how they use tools that track what people do online and then use the data gathered to deliver tailored marketing messages.
On July 2, 2009, advertising/marketing industry groups proposed a set of guidelines for self-regulation (http://www.ana.net/news/content/1801) in which they proposed the following definition of “sensitive data”:
The Principle calls for entities not to collect financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions, or medical records about specific individuals for Online Behavioral Advertising purposes without Consent.
However, Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum argued that the definition was too broad and proposed this definition of “sensitive data”:
Advertisers should not collect, use, disclose, or otherwise process personally identifiable information about health, financial activities, sexual behavior or sexual orientation, social security numbers, insurance numbers, or any government-issued ID numbers for targeting or marketing.
The government has not yet shaped any regulation but should it do so, it will likely turn to the FTC to negotiate a compromise definition. The FTC is currently engaging in a series of roundtables focusing on privacy and behavioral advertising.
At the FTC's December 2009 privacy roundtable, panelists raised concerns that collection and third party use of browsing data invades private space by:
1. revealing a user's innermost thoughts, such as a search history that reflect a user's explorations of his sexual identity
2. taking away a user's control over her identity, such as by broadcasting compromising photos of a user at a Cancun Spring Break party to a potential employer
3. revealing sensitive identity or financial information that can be misused by third parties to perpetrate fraud
4. or intruding on a user's seclusion by serving targeted ads during a browsing session that reveal that outsiders are listening in.
These closely track the common law privacy rights available in several states. These include:
1. Intrusion on seclusion;
2. False light (true facts combined in such a way to lead other to a false conclusion);
3. Public disclosure of private facts; and
4. Right of publicity (or identity)
They were always recognized as the core privacy rights because of the likelihood of harm caused by their violation. They are a good place to start when considering sensitive data classifications and its treatment.
Parry Aftab, a privacy lawyer and Executive Director of the cybersafety charity, WiredSafety, identifies sensitive data in two different ways. She identifies sensitive data as “kids, cash and kidneys” meaning the three categories of data regulated within the US – children’s data, financial data and health data which data is most commonly abused commercially.
She also identifies sensitive data as relating to vulnerable groups whose data is most commonly abused by individuals in harassment, reputational attacks and in provocation of physical harm. These include gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and trans-sexuals, victims of crime, medical patients and those with special medical or addiction issues, mental health patients or those suffering from mental health issues, those with special needs and physically- or mentally-challenged and disabled, children, religious and ethnic groups, racial and nationality classifications, litigants and those within the criminal justice system and, in certain cases, senior citizens.
In the former case, regulations already exist to handle the increased risk of disclosure of this information. However, individuals often carelessly or intentionally disclose this information about themselves and others. Once shared, that information is often gathered and used in social engineering, targeted marketing and in building dossiers for multiple purposes. The law typically only protects against the first disclosure and allows consensual disclosure that removes the information form special legal protection.
Vulnerable groups often do not understand their vulnerability online. They often seek support and help online in public forums, or forums that can be easily accessed by third parties. They tend to be less security savvy online and far more trusting of individuals and networks. They either do not use privacy settings, or use them ineffectively. And their information can be gathered, combined with offline and other online data to create risk-profiles or used by stalkers, harassers and hate groups to provoke them online and offline. Physical assaults, crimes against their persons or property and reputational attacks are common.
Aftab’s Socially Safe Seal™, offered through her new risk-management consulting firm, WiredTrust, requires seal holders to create special processes and policies to handle both sensitive data and better protect the vulnerable groups. Her holistic approach includes education, user tutorials and help and specially trained moderators and customer service professionals, and involves the charity, the consulting firm and industry working together to create awareness and implement the best practice standards she has developed over the years.
Sensitive Data & P2P Networks
Also, with the prominence of peer-to-peer network usage these days, the FTC has found that sensitive data such as financial records, SSNs, and driver’s license numbers are now becoming more available on various P2P networks. This happens when private and confidential files are mistakenly shared in “shared file” locations on an individual’s or company’s computer. WiredSafety has repeatedly conducted tests and found that income tax returns, credit applications and passwords and account information for online banking are inadvertently posted and shared through the P2P networks. Often these are shared inadvertently by preteens and teens who use these networks to download and share music, movies and online games on the family computer.
The FTC said that sensitive data about customers and employees have been shared from computer networks in over 100 firms and organizations to virtually anybody in the world connected to the Internet and P2P networks. However, this isn’t to suggest that rampant identity theft hacking is occurring, but merely that some cluelessness and carelessness among workers with access to this sort of data may be to blame.
In response to this, the FTC has released new educational materials to private and public entities explaining the risks of using P2P networks and suggestions on how to manage their use such as making sure that no unauthorized P2P programs can be downloaded and accessed and properly configuring and securing P2P programs that are authorized. WiredSafety has created its own educational programs on this and related issues, and posts an extensive library of resources on its WiredSafety.org and other websites.
Should All Sensitive Data Be Treated The Same?
Recent discussions have been conducted on whether all sensitive data should be treated the same. In particular, whether location information should be given the same privacy protections as medical data.
John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, at a recent Congressional hearing (The Collection and Use of Location Information for Commercial Purposes), express support that “location be treated as sensitive data, like medical data” given the meteoric rise in location based services and associated geolocation data. Morris goes on to testify that such location-based technology should be regulated by the FTC.
Many users have expressed concerns about their location being exposed in ways they don’t control and in effect, adversely impacting their safety and freedom. However, others believe that treating location data like medical data will only shroud it in complete privacy and present a detriment to the location service ecosystem. In addition, with GPS built-into most cell phones and many computers and games and other social networks using location to help pair users and locate on-the-ground stores, services and points of interest, how desirable is it to block access to and use of location data?
Monday, March 15, 2010
SP0649, LD 1677, item 1, An Act To Protect Minors from Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices
SP0649, LD 1677, item 1, An Act To Protect Minors from Pharmaceutical Marketing PracticesWhen Maine adopted a law last year designed to prevent marketing to minors, it quickly came under attack from all sides. It was overly broad and didn't accomplish its intended purpose. After repeal, the law is back but defined to reach pharmaceutical marketing to minors only, and "minors" is defined to be at least 13, but under 17.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A Cat Mask Won't Save You: Chatroulette Map Exposes Your Location
A Cat Mask Won't Save You: Chatroulette Map Exposes Your LocationIt only gets worse. but note that, unless you are a school or large corporation with your own static IP address, this mapping will not be accurate. it will map to your ISPs node location, not yours. But it may be within a 20 mile range of where you are connecting. the largest risk is what you share on webcam. you can give out your telephone number, address or email, or pose in the nude, or torture kittens, but getting a rough sense of where you are in the world takes away some of the perceived anonymity.
think about it!
think about it!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Check out this great MSN Video: Rapist ‘friended’ victim on Facebook
Check out this great MSN Video: Rapist ‘friended’ victim on FacebookI know this case is devastating and it should be a reminder that Internet sexual predators are real and are looking for our kids. But this can be avoided. No offline meeting is completely safe, no matter how old we are. If you insist on meeting someone in real life that you only know online, go with lots of friends, adult and preferably sumo wrestlers. Report creeps you encounter online so help save the next person who may not know as much as you do. Use privacy settings and carefully select friends.
This tragic death could have been avoided.
Let's try and do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen again on our watch.
Parry
This tragic death could have been avoided.
Let's try and do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen again on our watch.
Parry
Internet companies under fire in cyber-bullying cases: Google execs convicted in Italy over video
Internet companies under fire in cyber-bullying cases: Google execs convicted in Italy over videoInternet companies are facing liavility internationally for what their users post online. While I expect and hope this conviction will be overturned, it reflects a growing concern that there is no one that can be held liable when things go wrong online.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Facebook fears after sex offender logged on to murder - Crime, UK - The Independent
Facebook fears after sex offender logged on to murder - Crime, UK - The IndependentPeople shouldn't be afraid, they should be informed and use common sense to stay safe.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Teacher’s death puzzles coroner - The National Newspaper
Teacher’s death puzzles coroner - The National Newspaperwe need ot recognize that this happens everywhere.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
FT.com / Technology - School used webcams to ‘spy’ on students at home
FT.com / Technology - School used webcams to ‘spy’ on students at homeI don't know how the school district can say they only used it to find lost computers when they accused a student of doing something unlawful from having spied on him using the software.
Someone will be losing their job and the school district faces serious liability, IMHO.
Someone will be losing their job and the school district faces serious liability, IMHO.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The 3 Facebook Settings Every User Should Check Now - NYTimes.com
The 3 Facebook Settings Every User Should Check Now - NYTimes.comtake time to check out your new settings and see if they are what you really want.
Google Alters Buzz Service Over Privacy Concerns - NYTimes.com
Google Alters Buzz Service Over Privacy Concerns - NYTimes.comthis issue has lots of misinformation and legitimate concerns.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Game Developers Conference San Francisco 2010
Game Developers Conference San Francisco 2010Serious games - where children learn how to become safer and protect themselves through games - Allan McCullough from Child Safety Research and Innovation Center shows his game that measures children's vulnterabilities to sexual predator ploys and helps them become more street smart and safer.
GDC, 3:30pm March 9th.
GDC, 3:30pm March 9th.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
'Sexting In America: When Privates Go Public' Tells One Teen's Horror Story - News Story | Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV News
'Sexting In America: When Privates Go Public' Tells One Teen's Horror Story - News Story | Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV NewsMTV special helps teens and parents alike understand this growing problem. visit athinline.org for online help.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Phoebe PrinceInvestigators trying to determine if apparent South Hadley suicide victim Phoebe Prince had been bullied | Breaking News - MassLive.com -
Investigators trying to determine if apparent South Hadley suicide victim Phoebe Prince had been bullied | Breaking News - MassLive.com -Another teen chooses suicide over ongoing cyberbullying at the hands of her classmates. to learn more about cyberbullying prevention, visit stopcyberbullying.org.
Friday, January 22, 2010
msnbc.com: Kids’ multitasking should concern parents
msnbc.com: Kids’ multitasking should concern parentsParry appears on the Today Show to discuss the Kaiser report on how often kids are connected to media and the internet.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
MTV's A Thin Line : Redraw the Line Challenge : www.athinline.org
MTV's A Thin Line : Redraw the Line Challenge : www.athinline.orgget your teens involved in this incredible campaign. their creative ideas might be turned into a documentary on digital abuse and ways to prevent it. Pass it on!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Howard Schmidt named cybersecurity czar for white house
Microsoft's security guru and later advisor to the whitehouse was just appinted by Pres Obama to the white house post as cybersecurity czar.
Have know Howard for years. He is passionate and great at pulling together expert teams to address all issues. He was chair of McAfee's cybercrime advisory board. I was a member of that board for its first year.
Last he and I were together we were addressing Mrs. Mubarack in Cairo on cybersecurity/safety issues.
Howard understands Washington and what it will take to tackle this important topic.
Looking forward to working with him again.
The timing of the Citibank and other large data breaches hitting the same day points out how important this role is. It's been empty too long.
Parry
Have know Howard for years. He is passionate and great at pulling together expert teams to address all issues. He was chair of McAfee's cybercrime advisory board. I was a member of that board for its first year.
Last he and I were together we were addressing Mrs. Mubarack in Cairo on cybersecurity/safety issues.
Howard understands Washington and what it will take to tackle this important topic.
Looking forward to working with him again.
The timing of the Citibank and other large data breaches hitting the same day points out how important this role is. It's been empty too long.
Parry
Monday, December 21, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Kids Web Sites Lead to Adult Content and Apps - ABC News
Kids Web Sites Lead to Adult Content and Apps - ABC NewsParry Aftab talks with Robin on GMA about safe sites and practices online.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment Among Adults
am working on a TV show to help adults who have been cyberstalked or harassed online. If you have been through this and are willing to share your story with me, please email me at parry@aftab.com.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Supreme Court Takes Texting Case - NYTimes.com
Supreme Court Takes Texting Case - NYTimes.comThere is texting and employers right to read the communications conveyed using their equipment and there is the constitutional 4th amendment that protects against illegal search and seizure. when is a law enforcement agency an employer and when is it a governmental emtity? The US Supreme Ct will be reviewing this case. They can reiterate the employers' right to monitor employees' communications on employer supplied devices no matter who they are, or create special rules for governmental employers. I suspect that one rule for employer actions across all entity types might work best. will be interesting...
Pew and MTV/AP studies explore sexting and teens
How many teens are taking a nude or sexual image, sending it, posting it or keeping a copy of it? 20%? 34%? more?
The answer is...too many!
I talk to an average of 10,000 students a month. This is an imortant issue to and about them. They want to know what to do if asked for a pic, if someone sends them one unolicited and how to handle sextbullying when it gets going.
In a remarkable resource (I was honored to be a part of) MTV and other experts designed athinline.org to give teens, their friends and family and other stakeholders answers to the questions they have. From how to indentify digital abuse to helping them stand up to their peers or getting help when they need it - it's all there.
The answer is...too many!
I talk to an average of 10,000 students a month. This is an imortant issue to and about them. They want to know what to do if asked for a pic, if someone sends them one unolicited and how to handle sextbullying when it gets going.
In a remarkable resource (I was honored to be a part of) MTV and other experts designed athinline.org to give teens, their friends and family and other stakeholders answers to the questions they have. From how to indentify digital abuse to helping them stand up to their peers or getting help when they need it - it's all there.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Technology News: Social Networking: New Facebook Advisory Board Targets Online Dangers
Technology News: Social Networking: New Facebook Advisory Board Targets Online DangersWiredSafety selected for the Facebook Safety Advisory Board.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Big Government » Blog Archive » On the Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition, Let’s Not Repeat History
Big Government » Blog Archive » On the Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition, Let’s Not Repeat HistoryThe prohibition argument can be catchy, but the key issue is protecting consumers. It is ironic that the best way to do that, according to the study authored by Prof. Malcolm Sparrow, JFK School of Government at Harvard, is by legalizing and regulating it - not outlawing it entirely and having those laws ignored.
Facebook Adds Parry's WiredSafety to its safety advisory board
FacebookWiredSafety was selected as one of the five international cybersafety expert groups to advise Facebook. WiredSafety first began advising Facebook in 2005 before it was open to users outside of universities. As Facebook has grown, so has its own expertise on safety, privacy and best practices. We are excited about the opportunity to do more and join the other stellar organizations in creating a collaborative resource for all Facebook users.
Kids Web Sites Lead to Adult Content and Apps - ABC News
Kids Web Sites Lead to Adult Content and Apps - ABC NewsIt's not always easy telling the good guys from the bad ones. Parents have to check and don't assume only kids are gaming online. Addicting Game is the most popular casual gaming site online, with a vast majority of their users being adults or older teens. Set rules and enforce them. And watch itunes apps that your kids can buy on their itunes account you fund. Adult content and inappropriate content abounds.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Technology News: Privacy: Facebook Hones Privacy Settings, Scraps Regional Networks
Technology News: Privacy: Facebook Hones Privacy Settings, Scraps Regional NetworksFacebook has a special approach to registered users - one account per user. On MySpace several years ago, users often had multiple profiles. When their outgrew a design or their parents had discovered their one profile, they would just build another using a new account they formed.
But Facebook did what other social networks hadn't been able to do. They became mainstream for professionals, businesses, charities and causes, groups, schools and teens. Grandparents, and high schoolers alike used the network to connect and share.
But what do you do when the different parts of your life collide on your social network> Weird Uncle Clyde shouldn't be seeing or sharing where you straight-laced boss can see. Your pastor, rabbi, mullah or priest shouldn't be seeing the outrageous party you hosted last weekend that kept you out of your house of worship nursing a hangover. Your new boss shouldn't be privy to what you shared about your old one and college recruiters have no business seeing you with six bottles of beer in your mouth at one time (neither, perhaps should your parents, the police or prospective mothers-in-law).
One profile? One account? It didn't really work. You could have a couple different levels of friends, but not different kinds of friends.
Now you can.
Friends from high school or college can be separated from the new friends you have made who wouldn't appreciate who or what you were 20 years ago, before you reinvented yourself. Your kids won't see how much fun you had at Club Med, and your mother won't know that you hosted a dinner and didn't invite her.
That's the main reason we needed this simpler format for choosing privacy profiles. One for every bucket of our lives.
But Facebook did what other social networks hadn't been able to do. They became mainstream for professionals, businesses, charities and causes, groups, schools and teens. Grandparents, and high schoolers alike used the network to connect and share.
But what do you do when the different parts of your life collide on your social network> Weird Uncle Clyde shouldn't be seeing or sharing where you straight-laced boss can see. Your pastor, rabbi, mullah or priest shouldn't be seeing the outrageous party you hosted last weekend that kept you out of your house of worship nursing a hangover. Your new boss shouldn't be privy to what you shared about your old one and college recruiters have no business seeing you with six bottles of beer in your mouth at one time (neither, perhaps should your parents, the police or prospective mothers-in-law).
One profile? One account? It didn't really work. You could have a couple different levels of friends, but not different kinds of friends.
Now you can.
Friends from high school or college can be separated from the new friends you have made who wouldn't appreciate who or what you were 20 years ago, before you reinvented yourself. Your kids won't see how much fun you had at Club Med, and your mother won't know that you hosted a dinner and didn't invite her.
That's the main reason we needed this simpler format for choosing privacy profiles. One for every bucket of our lives.
MTV Launches Multi-Year Initiative 'A THIN LINE' to Empower Youth to Stop
MTV Launches Multi-Year Initiative 'A THIN LINE' to Empower Youth to StopParry Aftab and one of WiredSafety's Teenangels, Casi, serve on the advisory board for this amazing campaign.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Thursday, December 03, 2009
HR2267 Financial Services Hearing - Parry Aftab - 12/3/09
my testimony today to recommend that we do something to address the consumer concerns related to online gambling.
MTV Launches Multi-Year Initiative 'A THIN LINE' to Empower Youth to Stop
MTV Launches Multi-Year Initiative 'A THIN LINE' to Empower Youth to StopParry Aftab and Casi Lumbra (one of WiredSafety's Teenangels) are serving on this powerful advisory board.
WiredSafety announces a new online gambling study
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Distribution
Regulation of Internet Gaming Best Way to Protect Kids
WiredSafety Study Released During House Financial Services Hearing
Washington, DC (December 3, 2009) –WiredSafety, 501(c)(3), the world's largest online safety and help group, today unveiled a study showing that U.S. regulation of Internet gaming is the most effective way to protect consumers, especially children and problem gamblers. The study, conducted by Harvard Professor Malcolm Sparrow, was released during testimony by WiredSafety Executive Director Dr. Parry Aftab before the House Financial Services Committee.
“After more than a decade analyzing the risks posed by unregulated internet gambling, it may be ironic, but I have reached the conclusion that the best way to protect families and consumers in connection with cyber gambling is by legalizing it, not outlawing it entirely. Current laws prohibit the use of any financial institution for placing illegal online bets. But this approach won’t work in isolation and can’t work in a digital environment,” said Dr. Aftab in her testimony.
The study evaluated and weighed the different types and levels of consumer risks associated with existing, mostly unregulated, Internet gambling against the risks associated with Internet gambling in a strictly-regulated environment. These risks included, among others, gambling by minors, problem gambling, money laundering and fraud.
Dr. Aftab does not advocate online gambling, but she and WiredSafety strongly support efforts that result in effective consumer protections in a world where online gambling is a reality.
“The unintended but inevitable result of the current U.S. legal approach to Internet gambling is to force millions of American consumers to offshore sites out of the reach of U.S. courts and regulators and exposing U.S. citizens to significant risks without legal recourse. Prohibition isn’t working here any better than it did during the days of Al Capone. People will find ways to place a bet online or try their hand at games of chance,” continued Dr. Aftab.
On the basis of the research team’s review of the existing literature, available technologies, and interviews with academics, regulators, industry participants, and public interest advocates, the study reaches three main conclusions:
Online gambling could be regulated effectively if it were legalized.
A well-structured regulatory regime should provide much better social and consumer protections than the status quo for all of the identified risks.
At a minimum, even an imperfect legalization and regulatory regime for online gambling would give Americans much more protection than they have now. The current prohibitionist policy is extremely weak: large numbers of U.S. residents already gamble online, but they do so using offshore sites, many of which are poorly regulated or unregulated.
“If we are going to protect consumers, we need to recognize that online gambling is a reality and growing daily. We owe it to Americans to address it intelligently. Our study and our experience supports the conclusion that the best way to address the risks associated with online gambling is developing a strong regulatory regime that protects consumers and empowers parents to protect their children from risky gambling web sites. And only Congress can do that,” Dr. Aftab concluded.
To read the full report, please visit http://parryaftab.blogspot.com/.
About WiredSafety
WiredSafety (www.wiredsafety.org) is a 501(c)(3) charity and is the world’s oldest and largest online safety, education, and self-help organization. WiredSafety works in four major areas: help for online victims of cybercrime and harassment; assisting law enforcement worldwide on preventing and investigating cybercrimes; education; and providing information on all aspects of online safety, privacy and security.
Contact: Dr. Parry Aftab
parry@aftab.com
201-463-8663
For Immediate Distribution
Regulation of Internet Gaming Best Way to Protect Kids
WiredSafety Study Released During House Financial Services Hearing
Washington, DC (December 3, 2009) –WiredSafety, 501(c)(3), the world's largest online safety and help group, today unveiled a study showing that U.S. regulation of Internet gaming is the most effective way to protect consumers, especially children and problem gamblers. The study, conducted by Harvard Professor Malcolm Sparrow, was released during testimony by WiredSafety Executive Director Dr. Parry Aftab before the House Financial Services Committee.
“After more than a decade analyzing the risks posed by unregulated internet gambling, it may be ironic, but I have reached the conclusion that the best way to protect families and consumers in connection with cyber gambling is by legalizing it, not outlawing it entirely. Current laws prohibit the use of any financial institution for placing illegal online bets. But this approach won’t work in isolation and can’t work in a digital environment,” said Dr. Aftab in her testimony.
The study evaluated and weighed the different types and levels of consumer risks associated with existing, mostly unregulated, Internet gambling against the risks associated with Internet gambling in a strictly-regulated environment. These risks included, among others, gambling by minors, problem gambling, money laundering and fraud.
Dr. Aftab does not advocate online gambling, but she and WiredSafety strongly support efforts that result in effective consumer protections in a world where online gambling is a reality.
“The unintended but inevitable result of the current U.S. legal approach to Internet gambling is to force millions of American consumers to offshore sites out of the reach of U.S. courts and regulators and exposing U.S. citizens to significant risks without legal recourse. Prohibition isn’t working here any better than it did during the days of Al Capone. People will find ways to place a bet online or try their hand at games of chance,” continued Dr. Aftab.
On the basis of the research team’s review of the existing literature, available technologies, and interviews with academics, regulators, industry participants, and public interest advocates, the study reaches three main conclusions:
Online gambling could be regulated effectively if it were legalized.
A well-structured regulatory regime should provide much better social and consumer protections than the status quo for all of the identified risks.
At a minimum, even an imperfect legalization and regulatory regime for online gambling would give Americans much more protection than they have now. The current prohibitionist policy is extremely weak: large numbers of U.S. residents already gamble online, but they do so using offshore sites, many of which are poorly regulated or unregulated.
“If we are going to protect consumers, we need to recognize that online gambling is a reality and growing daily. We owe it to Americans to address it intelligently. Our study and our experience supports the conclusion that the best way to address the risks associated with online gambling is developing a strong regulatory regime that protects consumers and empowers parents to protect their children from risky gambling web sites. And only Congress can do that,” Dr. Aftab concluded.
To read the full report, please visit http://parryaftab.blogspot.com/.
About WiredSafety
WiredSafety (www.wiredsafety.org) is a 501(c)(3) charity and is the world’s oldest and largest online safety, education, and self-help organization. WiredSafety works in four major areas: help for online victims of cybercrime and harassment; assisting law enforcement worldwide on preventing and investigating cybercrimes; education; and providing information on all aspects of online safety, privacy and security.
Contact: Dr. Parry Aftab
parry@aftab.com
201-463-8663
MTV, WiredSafety, Facebook, Liz Claiborne and others launch a huge campaign to address digital abuse among teens - sexting, cyberbullying and more
MTV LAUNCHES MULTI-YEAR INITIATIVE “A THIN LINE” TO EMPOWER YOUTH TO STOP SPREAD OF DIGITAL ABUSE
New AP/MTV Study Finds 50% of 14-24 Year Olds Have Experienced Digital Abuse,
3 in 10 Have Sent or Received Nude ‘Sext’ Messages
Network to Air MTV News ‘Sexting’ Special; $75,000 ‘Redraw the Line Challenge’ Calls on Audience to Imagine Digital Solutions
Best-in-Class Partners Include Facebook, MySpace, The Family Violence Prevention Fund, Anti-Defamation League, and More
New York, NY, December 3rd, 2009 -- MTV today unveiled “A THIN LINE,” a new multi-year initiative to empower America’s youth to identify, respond to and stop the spread of digital abuse. Digital abuse is an emerging issue that includes behaviors like “sexting,” cyberbullying and digital dating abuse. According to a new study released today by MTV and The Associated Press exploring the full scope of digital abuse, 50 percent of 14 – 24 year olds have been the target of some form of digital abuse, and 30 percent have sent or received nude photos of other young people on their cell phones or online. Full survey findings are available at research.ATHINLINE.org.
MTV’s “A THIN LINE” will address digital abuse issues through a series of on-air, online and real world initiatives including integration in MTV’s top-rated programming, an MTV News special focused on Sexting, True Life: I have Digital Drama, thought-provoking PSAs, innovative online and mobile tools and the “Redraw the Line Challenge” -- which calls on young people to submit innovative digital antidotes to digital abuse. Today, MTV also launched www.ATHINLINE.org where young people can access information, resources and support on issues related to digital abuse.
“Our audience lives online, and while every generation deals with their own set of abuse issues, the digital sphere exponentially increases opportunities for misuse,” said Stephen Friedman, General Manager of MTV. “There is a very thin line between private and public, this moment and forever, love and abuse, and words and wounds. ‘A THIN LINE,’ is built to empower our audience to draw their own line between digital use and digital abuse. “
MTV’s partners on “A THIN LINE” include a coalition of the foremost authorities on all facets of digital abuse, including Facebook, MySpace, The Family Violence Prevention Fund, WiredSafety, Anti-Defamation League, Blue Shield of California Foundation, loveisrespect.org, The National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline, National Network to End Domestic Violence, The Liz Claiborne Inc., DoSomething.org, Break the Cycle, Ruder Finn, Teenangels and PBS’ FRONTLINE. “A THIN LINE” kicked off today in tandem with Liz Claiborne Inc.’s It’s Time To Talk Day, an annual day dedicated to ensuring that Americans speak-up and raise national attention around domestic violence including teen dating violence and intimate partner abuse.
Elements of “A THIN LINE” include:
• Associated Press / MTV Digital Abuse Study: The study, released today, offers an in-depth look at the pervasiveness of digital abuse, how it’s affecting America’s youth, how they’re responding to it, their concerns and much more. Key findings from the report show that 3 in 10 young people have sent or received nude pictures of other young people on their cell or online, and 61 percent who have “sexted” report being pressured to do so at least once. Beyond significant others, 29 percent of respondents who have shared naked images of themselves did so with someone they only knew online and never met in person, and 24 percent shared the images with someone they were interested in dating or hooking up with.
Additionally, 12 percent of those who have “sexted” have contemplated suicide, four times more likely than those who haven’t (12% vs. 3%, respectively). Further, targets of digital abuse are almost three times as likely to contemplate suicide as those who haven’t encountered it (8% vs. 3%), and nearly three times more likely to have considered dropping out of school.
When it comes to online behavior, only half think their actions could come back to haunt them, and 1 in 4 believe that their digital actions could have legal consequences. To view the full study, please head to research.ATHINLINE.org.
• MTV News Special Report: Sexting: MTV News will take a deeper look at a developing trend affecting teens across the nation: sexting. By speaking directly to young people who have been personally impacted by digital abuse, the 30 minute special, set to premiere timed to Valentine’s Day 2010, will examine how this trend is impacting youth culture and relationships, the stakes involved – from legal to emotional to reputational – and how “sexting” is becoming a new frontier for teen dating abuse.
• “True Life: I Have Digital Drama”: MTV’s Emmy-Award winning, ground-breaking documentary series will take a close look at how digital platforms are creating trust, privacy and harassment issues for two young couples.
• Redraw the Line Challenge: Young people are disproportionally affected by digital abuse – and they are best equipped to truly address its viral spread. With support from Blue Shield of California Foundation, MTV is asking America’s youth to imagine high-potential digital antidotes -- such as new mobile or Web-based services, social games or viral content -- that help stop the spread of digital abuse. The winning individual or team will be rewarded with $10K, plus a chance to work with MTV – and a development budget of up to $75K – to see their idea actualized. For more details, head to challenge.ATHINLINE.org.
• PSAs: The backbone of the campaign is a suite of thought-provoking PSAs that address a wide range of digital behaviors including coerced sexting, textual harassment, digital prejudice, threatening messages, ganging up and much more. The first wave of campaign PSAs were directed by acclaimed director Joel Schumacher, and include spots like “Public Nudity” and “Tattoo.”
• Online and Mobile Tools: “A THIN LINE” gives young people one-click access to digital abuse information, resources and support systems online or on their cell phones at ATHINLINE.org. The online hub helps teens understand the hallmarks of healthy relationships, while providing suggested responses and help if they or their friends are encountering abuse, and will host a vibrant conversation on the issue. Users can also access the campaign’s resources by texting “line” to 66333.
• MTV’S “A THIN LINE” Advisory Board: MTV has built a coalition of the foremost authorities on digital abuse, including leading experts in cyber-crime, teen dating violence, adolescent psychology, and other teen issues. Advisory board members include Parry Aftab, Executive Director of Wired Safety and StopCyberbullying.org; Esta Soler, Founder and President, Family Violence Prevention Fund; Jane Randel, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Liz Claiborne Inc.; Virginia Witt, Director of Public Affairs and Policy at Blue Shield of California Foundation; Dr. Jill Murray, psychologist and internationally-recognized expert on teen dating abuse; Cindy Southworth, Founder and Director or the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence; and Casi Lumbra, a teen online security expert, who has addressed audiences at the United Nations and Harvard Law School.
• Liz Claiborne Inc.’s It’s Time To Talk Day: “A THIN LINE” kicked off today in tandem with Liz Claiborne Inc’s It’s Time To Talk Day, an annual day dedicated to ensuring that Americans speak-up and raise national attention around domestic violence including teen dating violence and intimate partner abuse. This year, the day will include a specific focus on digital abuse, as the company announces that it is updating its Love Is Not Abuse curriculum to include a lesson specifically on digital dating abuse for schools across America. As of August 2009, the curriculum, which aims to raise awareness of dating abuse and provide resources for help, has been distributed to approximately 6,000 schools and organizations across all 50 states. The Love Is Not Abuse curriculum is offered free of charge at www.loveisnotabuse.com.
• Educational Curriculums: MTV is working to make the campaign’s assets available as teaching tools, as part of existing curriculums on cyber bullying and dating abuse from Liz Claiborne, Hazelden, WiredSafety’s StopCyberbullying and the Anti-Defamation League – currently taught in thousands of high and middle schools nationwide.
For more information on MTV’s “A THIN LINE” campaign, or details on how to get involved, please visit AThinLine.org or head to the campaign’s Facebook, MySpace or Twitter pages.
Partner and Advisory Board Quotes:
“The safety of our users is paramount to us, and only by working together can we seek to educate young people about the dangers of digital abuse and cyberbullying,” said Tim Sparapani, Director of Public Policy at Facebook. “We applaud and support MTV for all of the work it has done to launch ‘A Thin Line,’ and are pleased to be a part of this important initiative which both empowers and educates.”
“With today’s teens living their lives online, we must all work together to empower teens with the know how they need to live their lives online and off—with courage, strength, and dignity,” said Hemanshu Nigam, Chief Security Officer of MySpace and News Corporation. “MySpace is proud to partner with MTV for the ‘A Thin Line campaign’ to give our youth the knowledge they can use now and tomorrow to be well-balanced and well-protected digital citizens.”
“We are very proud to collaborate with MTV on this important work to help stop digital abuse,” said Esta Soler, President of the Family Violence Prevention Fund. “By raising awareness of digital abuse in an innovative and relevant way, ‘A Thin Line’ will shine a spotlight on a problem that is affecting our young people in countless schools and communities across the country.”
“Digital abuse is so pervasive today that many young people consider standard online behavior,” said Parry Aftab, Executive Director of WiredSafety and StopCyberbullying.org. “‘A THIN LINE’ is a vehicle for change that should spark a national conversation and hopefully awaken young people to a better understanding of how to protect themselves digitally.”
"It's encouraging that MTV is taking a youth empowerment approach with this exciting new campaign,” said Virginia Witt, Director of Public Affairs and Policy at Blue Shield of California Foundation. “Youth should lead the way in dialing down their relationship drama."
"’A Thin Line’ is one of the most ambitious and well executed projects I've had the pleasure to be involved with,” said Dr. Jill Murray. “The fact that MTV is addressing it's audience in such an important and thoughtful manner will do so much to stem the tide of digital technology abuses."
“Teen dating violence and abuse is pervasive and made all the more dangerous by the very technology intended to help us stay more connected,” said Jane Randel, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Liz Claiborne Inc. “Parents and schools need to recognize that their kids are dealing with these issues regularly and learn how to address both dating abuse and the digital abuse that can go along with it. It is only through education – annually in middle and high schools and at home – that we can start to break the cycle of violence that is gripping our nation.”
“Dating abusers will misuse any technology device, from spoofing caller ID and text messages to terrorize a victim to remotely installing SpyWare to monitor the victims every computer move,” said Cindy Southworth, Founder and Director or the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence. “MTV's innovative digital abuse campaign will reach millions and help keep technology from being misused to harm and abuse. “
About MTV:
MTV is the dynamic, vibrant experiment at the intersection of music, creativity and youth culture. For over 28 years, MTV has evolved, challenged the norm, and detonated boundaries -- giving each new generation a creative outlet and voice that entertains, informs and unites on every platform and screen. On-air, MTV is the number one rated full-day ad-supported cable network for P12-24. Online, MTV.com averaged 8.5 million monthly unique visitors during the first quarter of 2009 -- up +6% from Q4/2008 and up +6% year-over-year. Total video streams for the first quarter of 2009 increased 21% over the same time period last year. And MTV’s successful sibling networks MTV2, mtvU and MTV Tr3s each deliver unprecedented customized content, super-serving music fans, college students and young American Latinos like no one else. MTV is part of MTV Networks, a unit of Viacom (NYSE: VIA, VIA.B), one of the world’s leading creators of programming and content across all media platforms. Wanna know more? Come on in… www.mtvpress.com
###
Contact:
MTV
Janice Gatti, +1-212-846-8852
janice.gatti@mtvstaff.com
New AP/MTV Study Finds 50% of 14-24 Year Olds Have Experienced Digital Abuse,
3 in 10 Have Sent or Received Nude ‘Sext’ Messages
Network to Air MTV News ‘Sexting’ Special; $75,000 ‘Redraw the Line Challenge’ Calls on Audience to Imagine Digital Solutions
Best-in-Class Partners Include Facebook, MySpace, The Family Violence Prevention Fund, Anti-Defamation League, and More
New York, NY, December 3rd, 2009 -- MTV today unveiled “A THIN LINE,” a new multi-year initiative to empower America’s youth to identify, respond to and stop the spread of digital abuse. Digital abuse is an emerging issue that includes behaviors like “sexting,” cyberbullying and digital dating abuse. According to a new study released today by MTV and The Associated Press exploring the full scope of digital abuse, 50 percent of 14 – 24 year olds have been the target of some form of digital abuse, and 30 percent have sent or received nude photos of other young people on their cell phones or online. Full survey findings are available at research.ATHINLINE.org.
MTV’s “A THIN LINE” will address digital abuse issues through a series of on-air, online and real world initiatives including integration in MTV’s top-rated programming, an MTV News special focused on Sexting, True Life: I have Digital Drama, thought-provoking PSAs, innovative online and mobile tools and the “Redraw the Line Challenge” -- which calls on young people to submit innovative digital antidotes to digital abuse. Today, MTV also launched www.ATHINLINE.org where young people can access information, resources and support on issues related to digital abuse.
“Our audience lives online, and while every generation deals with their own set of abuse issues, the digital sphere exponentially increases opportunities for misuse,” said Stephen Friedman, General Manager of MTV. “There is a very thin line between private and public, this moment and forever, love and abuse, and words and wounds. ‘A THIN LINE,’ is built to empower our audience to draw their own line between digital use and digital abuse. “
MTV’s partners on “A THIN LINE” include a coalition of the foremost authorities on all facets of digital abuse, including Facebook, MySpace, The Family Violence Prevention Fund, WiredSafety, Anti-Defamation League, Blue Shield of California Foundation, loveisrespect.org, The National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline, National Network to End Domestic Violence, The Liz Claiborne Inc., DoSomething.org, Break the Cycle, Ruder Finn, Teenangels and PBS’ FRONTLINE. “A THIN LINE” kicked off today in tandem with Liz Claiborne Inc.’s It’s Time To Talk Day, an annual day dedicated to ensuring that Americans speak-up and raise national attention around domestic violence including teen dating violence and intimate partner abuse.
Elements of “A THIN LINE” include:
• Associated Press / MTV Digital Abuse Study: The study, released today, offers an in-depth look at the pervasiveness of digital abuse, how it’s affecting America’s youth, how they’re responding to it, their concerns and much more. Key findings from the report show that 3 in 10 young people have sent or received nude pictures of other young people on their cell or online, and 61 percent who have “sexted” report being pressured to do so at least once. Beyond significant others, 29 percent of respondents who have shared naked images of themselves did so with someone they only knew online and never met in person, and 24 percent shared the images with someone they were interested in dating or hooking up with.
Additionally, 12 percent of those who have “sexted” have contemplated suicide, four times more likely than those who haven’t (12% vs. 3%, respectively). Further, targets of digital abuse are almost three times as likely to contemplate suicide as those who haven’t encountered it (8% vs. 3%), and nearly three times more likely to have considered dropping out of school.
When it comes to online behavior, only half think their actions could come back to haunt them, and 1 in 4 believe that their digital actions could have legal consequences. To view the full study, please head to research.ATHINLINE.org.
• MTV News Special Report: Sexting: MTV News will take a deeper look at a developing trend affecting teens across the nation: sexting. By speaking directly to young people who have been personally impacted by digital abuse, the 30 minute special, set to premiere timed to Valentine’s Day 2010, will examine how this trend is impacting youth culture and relationships, the stakes involved – from legal to emotional to reputational – and how “sexting” is becoming a new frontier for teen dating abuse.
• “True Life: I Have Digital Drama”: MTV’s Emmy-Award winning, ground-breaking documentary series will take a close look at how digital platforms are creating trust, privacy and harassment issues for two young couples.
• Redraw the Line Challenge: Young people are disproportionally affected by digital abuse – and they are best equipped to truly address its viral spread. With support from Blue Shield of California Foundation, MTV is asking America’s youth to imagine high-potential digital antidotes -- such as new mobile or Web-based services, social games or viral content -- that help stop the spread of digital abuse. The winning individual or team will be rewarded with $10K, plus a chance to work with MTV – and a development budget of up to $75K – to see their idea actualized. For more details, head to challenge.ATHINLINE.org.
• PSAs: The backbone of the campaign is a suite of thought-provoking PSAs that address a wide range of digital behaviors including coerced sexting, textual harassment, digital prejudice, threatening messages, ganging up and much more. The first wave of campaign PSAs were directed by acclaimed director Joel Schumacher, and include spots like “Public Nudity” and “Tattoo.”
• Online and Mobile Tools: “A THIN LINE” gives young people one-click access to digital abuse information, resources and support systems online or on their cell phones at ATHINLINE.org. The online hub helps teens understand the hallmarks of healthy relationships, while providing suggested responses and help if they or their friends are encountering abuse, and will host a vibrant conversation on the issue. Users can also access the campaign’s resources by texting “line” to 66333.
• MTV’S “A THIN LINE” Advisory Board: MTV has built a coalition of the foremost authorities on digital abuse, including leading experts in cyber-crime, teen dating violence, adolescent psychology, and other teen issues. Advisory board members include Parry Aftab, Executive Director of Wired Safety and StopCyberbullying.org; Esta Soler, Founder and President, Family Violence Prevention Fund; Jane Randel, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Liz Claiborne Inc.; Virginia Witt, Director of Public Affairs and Policy at Blue Shield of California Foundation; Dr. Jill Murray, psychologist and internationally-recognized expert on teen dating abuse; Cindy Southworth, Founder and Director or the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence; and Casi Lumbra, a teen online security expert, who has addressed audiences at the United Nations and Harvard Law School.
• Liz Claiborne Inc.’s It’s Time To Talk Day: “A THIN LINE” kicked off today in tandem with Liz Claiborne Inc’s It’s Time To Talk Day, an annual day dedicated to ensuring that Americans speak-up and raise national attention around domestic violence including teen dating violence and intimate partner abuse. This year, the day will include a specific focus on digital abuse, as the company announces that it is updating its Love Is Not Abuse curriculum to include a lesson specifically on digital dating abuse for schools across America. As of August 2009, the curriculum, which aims to raise awareness of dating abuse and provide resources for help, has been distributed to approximately 6,000 schools and organizations across all 50 states. The Love Is Not Abuse curriculum is offered free of charge at www.loveisnotabuse.com.
• Educational Curriculums: MTV is working to make the campaign’s assets available as teaching tools, as part of existing curriculums on cyber bullying and dating abuse from Liz Claiborne, Hazelden, WiredSafety’s StopCyberbullying and the Anti-Defamation League – currently taught in thousands of high and middle schools nationwide.
For more information on MTV’s “A THIN LINE” campaign, or details on how to get involved, please visit AThinLine.org or head to the campaign’s Facebook, MySpace or Twitter pages.
Partner and Advisory Board Quotes:
“The safety of our users is paramount to us, and only by working together can we seek to educate young people about the dangers of digital abuse and cyberbullying,” said Tim Sparapani, Director of Public Policy at Facebook. “We applaud and support MTV for all of the work it has done to launch ‘A Thin Line,’ and are pleased to be a part of this important initiative which both empowers and educates.”
“With today’s teens living their lives online, we must all work together to empower teens with the know how they need to live their lives online and off—with courage, strength, and dignity,” said Hemanshu Nigam, Chief Security Officer of MySpace and News Corporation. “MySpace is proud to partner with MTV for the ‘A Thin Line campaign’ to give our youth the knowledge they can use now and tomorrow to be well-balanced and well-protected digital citizens.”
“We are very proud to collaborate with MTV on this important work to help stop digital abuse,” said Esta Soler, President of the Family Violence Prevention Fund. “By raising awareness of digital abuse in an innovative and relevant way, ‘A Thin Line’ will shine a spotlight on a problem that is affecting our young people in countless schools and communities across the country.”
“Digital abuse is so pervasive today that many young people consider standard online behavior,” said Parry Aftab, Executive Director of WiredSafety and StopCyberbullying.org. “‘A THIN LINE’ is a vehicle for change that should spark a national conversation and hopefully awaken young people to a better understanding of how to protect themselves digitally.”
"It's encouraging that MTV is taking a youth empowerment approach with this exciting new campaign,” said Virginia Witt, Director of Public Affairs and Policy at Blue Shield of California Foundation. “Youth should lead the way in dialing down their relationship drama."
"’A Thin Line’ is one of the most ambitious and well executed projects I've had the pleasure to be involved with,” said Dr. Jill Murray. “The fact that MTV is addressing it's audience in such an important and thoughtful manner will do so much to stem the tide of digital technology abuses."
“Teen dating violence and abuse is pervasive and made all the more dangerous by the very technology intended to help us stay more connected,” said Jane Randel, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Liz Claiborne Inc. “Parents and schools need to recognize that their kids are dealing with these issues regularly and learn how to address both dating abuse and the digital abuse that can go along with it. It is only through education – annually in middle and high schools and at home – that we can start to break the cycle of violence that is gripping our nation.”
“Dating abusers will misuse any technology device, from spoofing caller ID and text messages to terrorize a victim to remotely installing SpyWare to monitor the victims every computer move,” said Cindy Southworth, Founder and Director or the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence. “MTV's innovative digital abuse campaign will reach millions and help keep technology from being misused to harm and abuse. “
About MTV:
MTV is the dynamic, vibrant experiment at the intersection of music, creativity and youth culture. For over 28 years, MTV has evolved, challenged the norm, and detonated boundaries -- giving each new generation a creative outlet and voice that entertains, informs and unites on every platform and screen. On-air, MTV is the number one rated full-day ad-supported cable network for P12-24. Online, MTV.com averaged 8.5 million monthly unique visitors during the first quarter of 2009 -- up +6% from Q4/2008 and up +6% year-over-year. Total video streams for the first quarter of 2009 increased 21% over the same time period last year. And MTV’s successful sibling networks MTV2, mtvU and MTV Tr3s each deliver unprecedented customized content, super-serving music fans, college students and young American Latinos like no one else. MTV is part of MTV Networks, a unit of Viacom (NYSE: VIA, VIA.B), one of the world’s leading creators of programming and content across all media platforms. Wanna know more? Come on in… www.mtvpress.com
###
Contact:
MTV
Janice Gatti, +1-212-846-8852
janice.gatti@mtvstaff.com
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
WiredSafety commissioned study on online gambling and regulatory schemes that will address consumer risks
Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated?
Managing the Risks
Authored by
Malcolm K. Sparrow
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
With Contributions by
Coleman Bazelon, PhD
Charles Jackson, PhD
December 2, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW OF APPROACH AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS 1
A. Our Approach 2
1. Gambling by Minors 3
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior 3
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues 3
4. Problem Gambling 4
B. The Status Quo Offers No Effective Protection 4
C. Legalization and Regulation Would Afford Significantly Better Protection than the Status Quo 6
D. Regulatory Methods and Technologies for Controlling Each Type of Risk Already Exist 7
1. Gambling by Minors 9
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior 9
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues 11
4. Problem Gambling 12
E. Conclusions 15
II. REGULATORY METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR CONTROLLING EACH RISK 16
A. Gambling by Minors 16
1. The Issue of Gambling by Minors 16
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 17
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 20
4. Conclusion 23
B. Defrauding of Consumers by Site Operators 24
1. The Issue of Fraud by Site Operators 24
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 26
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 28
4. Conclusion 29
C. Cheating or Defrauding of Players by Other Players 29
1. The Issue of Players Being Defrauded by Other Players 29
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 31
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 32
4. Conclusion 33
D. Involvement of Organized Crime in Gambling Operations 33
1. The Issue of Involvement of Organized Crime in Online Gambling 33
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 34
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 36
4. Conclusion 36
E. Money Laundering by Players 37
1. The Issue of Money Laundering by Players 37
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 39
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 40
4. Conclusion 42
F. Money Laundering by Site Operators 43
1. The Issue of Money Laundering by Site Operators 43
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 44
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 44
4. Conclusion 45
G. Violation of Jurisdictional Restrictions or Prohibitions 45
1. The Issue of Violation of Jurisdictional Restrictions 45
2. Regulatory Strategy 46
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 47
4. Conclusion 49
H. Breaches of Data Confidentiality 50
1. The Issue of Data Confidentiality 50
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 51
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 52
4. Conclusion 53
I. Communications and Computer Security Failures 53
1. The Issue of Communications and Computer Security Failures 53
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 55
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 56
4. Conclusion 58
J. Problem Gambling 59
1. Problem Gambling 59
III. SPECIAL ATTENTION TO PROBLEM GAMBLING 60
A. Introduction 60
B. What is Problem Gambling? 60
1. Terminology 60
2. Prevalence Rates and Trends 61
C. Potential Effects of Legalization of Online Gambling on Problem Gambling 62
1. Potential Adverse Effects of Legalization 63
2. Potential Benefits of Legalization 69
D. Concluding Remarks 72
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dorothy Robyn, PhD, who contributed to this project while at The Brattle Group. The authors would also like to thank Pallavi Seth, PhD, and Michael Sutcliffe of The Brattle Group for their assistance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was commissioned by Wired Safety, an Internet Safety and Educational charity. It examines a range of harms potentially associated with online gambling, and alternative methods for mitigating or minimizing them. Recognizing that the current U.S. prohibitionist regime with respect to online gambling is largely ineffective in achieving its aims, and provides no platform or opportunity for the implementation of most of the relevant harm-reduction strategies, we find that an alternative regime of legalization and regulation of online gambling would likely improve consumer welfare and protections. The body of this report evaluates a range of strategies, both regulatory and technological, that could be used to mitigate potential harms associated with online gambling more effectively.
Notwithstanding the current prohibitionist legal and regulatory approach, millions of U.S. residents gamble online through offshore gambling sites. As a result, the United States finds itself in the unfortunate position of incurring all the social costs of online gambling while having no control over the gaming sites that serve U.S. residents. The United States cannot disqualify industry participants from competing effectively for U.S.-based customers or offer its residents any consumer protections. Nearly all states permit some form of commercial gambling, and the industry is large and well-established. Clearly, policymakers have extensive precedent from which to draw strategies to mitigate the potential social harms of gambling.
Although some controls used in bricks-and-mortar casinos may not translate well to online gambling, several of the risks we examined become more amenable to control online. New technologies can be effective, even for those risks that are more difficult to address online. For example, geolocation and age verification technologies can help turn potentially significant risks into manageable ones.
In this study, we analyze 10 specific risks that others have suggested are potentially associated with online gambling: gambling by minors, fraud by operators, fraud by players, organized crime, money laundering by players, money laundering by operators, violation of jurisdictional prohibitions, breaches of data confidentiality, lack of site security, and problem gambling. It is important that regulators treat each of these potential risks differently. For some risks (such as players cheating other players), the public interest and the interests of the gaming industry align, making a cooperative regulatory relationship natural. For others (such as those involving potentially criminal conduct by operators), a strict enforcement regime would be more appropriate. Still other potential risks (such as underage and problem gambling) call for a more nuanced regulatory approach involving a mixture of strict enforcement, effective nonprofit support, community education, and cooperation, in keeping with the more complex motivations and incentives facing site operators.
For each of the 10 risks, we examined a set of regulatory methods and technologies that would provide a reasonable degree of risk management in a regulated environment. Most of these methods have already been implemented in some form in other jurisdictions. The United Kingdom, Alderney, Gibraltar, and others have successfully implemented regulation, and nearly all of the well-regulated jurisdictions we studied address the 10 risks to some degree.
The establishment of a well-regulated industry under U.S. jurisdiction would offer far better protection against online gambling’s potential social harms than outright prohibition. Combining a thoughtful regulatory scheme with education, technology tools, and support appears to be the most effective means of handling the realities and risks of online gambling in the United States. Therefore, we recommend that plans for regulating online gambling include the design and use of different risk-management strategies tailored to the different classes of risk that are associated with Internet gambling. In the end, consumers in the United States would be better protected than they are now.
I. OVERVIEW OF APPROACH AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Congress is debating legislation that would remove the existing prohibition on the use of the Internet for most types of gambling. The proposed legalization of online gambling would be conditioned on the imposition of regulation designed to limit or prevent potential harms such as underage gambling, money laundering, and problem gambling.
A key issue in the debate over legalization of online gambling is whether regulation and technology could effectively control such potential harms. Some of the opposition to legalization reflects a perception that online gambling—in contrast to gambling in bricks-and-mortar casinos—would be difficult, if not impossible, to regulate effectively.
This study reviews the research literature and international approaches to online gambling. WiredSafety (the Internet safety and educational charity) has commissioned this study to help inform the legalization debate and to help educate the public on the risks associated with online gambling and the best ways to address those risks.
We note that our expertise is in regulatory policy and its relationship to risk analysis, rather than in any extensive prior knowledge of the gaming industry and gambling behavior per se. We have critically reviewed the existing literature, evaluated relevant technologies, and interviewed a range of scholars and practitioner experts, both here and abroad. We have not, however, conducted any new epidemiological studies or field research. Our distinctive contribution is the frame for risk management and regulatory analysis, rather than any new scientific inquiry.
Our analysis does not directly address whether online gambling should be legalized. In focusing on managing risks, we did not weigh moral or religious objections to gambling, nor did we examine broadly libertarian arguments in favor of allowing adults to engage in pastimes they may enjoy. We did not conduct any analysis to quantify the benefits of potential tax revenues attributable to regulated online gambling. Further, we have not focused on any issues of federalism or on exactly where regulations and laws should fit into the U.S. multijurisdictional governance structure. Instead, we concentrated more narrowly on the obligations of government to protect citizens in general, and vulnerable groups of citizens in particular, from unnecessary exposure to harm.
We sought (1) to identify the specific risks that are associated with, or perceived to be associated with, Internet gambling; (2) to determine suitable regulatory strategies for controlling or managing those risks; and (3) to assess how effective those strategies are likely to be. We identified 10 distinct risks that fall into four broad categories. Those categories are as follows:
• Gambling by minors
• Criminal and fraudulent behavior
• Network access, data privacy and security
• Problem gambling
On the basis of our review of the existing literature and interviews with academics, regulators, industry participants, and public interest advocates, we came to the following conclusions:
• Online gambling could be regulated effectively if it were legalized.
• A well-structured regulatory regime should provide much better social and consumer protections than the status quo for the risks we identified.
• At a minimum, even an imperfect legalization and regulatory regime for online gambling would give Americans much more protection than they have now. The current prohibitionist policy is extremely weak: large numbers of U.S. residents already gamble online, but they do so using offshore sites, many of which are poorly regulated or unregulated.
For each of the 10 risks we examined, a set of regulatory methods and technologies exist that would provide a reasonable degree of control, and most of them have been implemented effectively in other jurisdictions or in other online settings.
Although some controls used in the bricks-and-mortar environment may not translate to online gambling environments, several of the risks we examined become more amenable to control online. Comprehensive electronic records and the ability to track financial transactions and betting patterns provide more opportunities for analysis and audit, and hence improve the chances of discovering fraud or criminal activity. They also allow gambling websites to provide tools to mitigate problem gambling in a timely manner.
A. Our Approach
Our approach has been to identify the specific risks that are perceived to be associated with Internet gambling and then to determine how best to control or manage them. Those risks are described below.
1. Gambling by Minors
a. Gambling by minors: There is concern that minors might find it easier to access and use online gambling services in a legalized environment.
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior
a. Defrauding of consumers by site operators: There is the possibility that online site operators may be more likely than their bricks-and-mortar counterparts to rig games, refuse to pay out winnings, or simply vanish, taking with them players’ account balances.
b. Cheating or defrauding of players by other players: There is a concern that players could collude to defraud others, particularly in online poker. Online gambling may offer opportunities for collusion that are not available in a physical environment with visual surveillance.
c. Involvement of organized crime in gambling operations: Organized crime has a history of involvement with the bricks-and-mortar casinos and is now involved in some online commerce. There is some concern that involvement in the online gambling industry may be a natural next step.
d. Money laundering by players: There is concern that players or groups of players acting in concert could use legitimate gambling operations for money laundering.
e. Money laundering by site operators: The possibility has been raised that site operators could use online gambling operations, with its significant financial flows, as a cover for money laundering on a large scale.
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues
a. Violation of jurisdictional restrictions or prohibitions: Government at the state, local, and tribal levels has traditionally exercised control over gambling within a given jurisdiction. The advent of the Internet has opened the question as to whether controls mandated by any proposed laws can be enforced within particular jurisdictions.
b. Breaches of data confidentiality: To register for play, players surrender personal or financial data to site operators. Consumers might be harmed by deliberate or accidental breaches of the confidentiality of those data.
c. Communications and computer security failures: Some are concerned that site operators might not use appropriate security practices, procedures, and technologies to ensure the integrity of their sites, the gaming on those sites, and player interactions. Absent proper security measures, malicious code could be transmitted to players, game operations could be infiltrated, and intrusions into the systems could compromise the game play and security of users.
4. Problem Gambling
a. Problem gambling behaviors: Some argue that increased opportunity to gamble at any time, from anywhere, and at a faster pace might exacerbate pathological, addictive, or problem gambling behaviors.
With respect to each of these four categories of risks, we sought to answer three broad questions:
(1) In the existing prohibitionist legal and regulatory regime, what level of protection are U.S. consumers afforded?
(2) With legalization, could these risks be addressed more effectively than they are now, and assuming legalization, what regulatory strategy is best suited for addressing these risks?
(3) What are the potentially relevant technologies and methods available for effective risk mitigation, and how might other parties contribute toward effective control?
Our answer to the threshold question of whether online gambling can be effectively regulated came out of our analysis of these more specific questions.
B. The Status Quo Offers No Effective Protection
Many U.S. residents already use online gambling services despite statutory restrictions. Recent estimates indicate that U.S. gamblers constitute roughly one-fourth to one-third of the global market for online gambling services. The size of the U.S. share of that global market was estimated to be $5.9 billion in 2008.
The mainstay of the current prohibitionist regulatory structure is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Instead of criminalizing gambling itself, the UIGEA was intended to prevent U.S. residents from gambling by placing restrictions on the role of financial institutions in transmitting payments to and from gaming operators. However, because workarounds such as e-wallets (essentially a payment processor situated between banks and gambling sites), phone-based deposits, and prepaid credit cards have proliferated, very few U.S.-based gamblers are presently much inconvenienced. Most gamblers are either unaware of or confused by the patchwork of federal and state restrictions, and many are readily guided by unregulated online gambling sites toward financial mechanisms that they can use to make deposits and withdrawals.
The net effect is that the U.S. attempt to prohibit online gambling has instead pushed it offshore. Sites are readily available to U.S. residents through the essentially borderless medium of the Internet. Some sites are well-regulated, such as those based in the United Kingdom, Alderney, and Gibraltar, and others are less-well-regulated or unregulated, such as those in Antigua, Grenada, or the Kahnawake Mohawk territory. (Of course, it is the less-well-regulated international sites that provide easier access to U.S. consumers.) As a result of the global gaming industry’s adaptations to the U.S. strategy, the United States finds itself in the unfortunate position of
• incurring all the social costs related to U.S. residents’ online gambling;
• exercising no jurisdiction or control over the gaming sites that serve U.S. residents;
• being unable to offer U.S. residents who choose to gamble on overseas sites any consumer protections or to implement any other harm-reducing strategies; and
• being unable to qualify industry participants or even exclude criminal groups from competing for U.S.-based customers.
In an effort to address this reality and enforce current restrictions more aggressively, federal officials recently instructed four banks to freeze accounts belonging to online payment processors. The frozen accounts apparently contained funds owed to some 27,000 people who used offshore poker websites. Such financially based efforts seem to have had only a temporary chilling effect. Over the long run, it is probably not feasible for the federal government to prevent U.S. residents from accessing foreign sites via the Internet. Unlike China or Iran, for example, the United States has displayed no appetite for centralized control of the Internet to block citizens’ access to undesirable sites.
Nor would criminalization of the gambling itself be an effective strategy. First, it would likely generate a massive pool of lawbreakers, almost none of whom would make attractive targets for criminal prosecution—because it would likely be a waste of law enforcement resources to pursue individual online gamblers. Second, it would exacerbate the dangers of consumer fraud at online gambling sites by making aggrieved consumers more reluctant to report their experiences.
C. Legalization and Regulation Would Afford Significantly Better Protection than the Status Quo
At a minimum, legalization and regulation of online gambling would give Americans much more protection than does the current prohibitionist regulatory framework. Although the kind of regulation that would accompany legalization would not be failsafe, it would be a significant improvement over the current regulatory and enforcement structure. We believe that safeguards could be implemented that would, on balance, substantially improve protections against the identified risks. These safeguards would also provide protection equal to or greater than that provided within the U.S.-based bricks-and-mortar gambling industry. We recognize that no set of technical or regulatory controls could ever eliminate these risks entirely. But even if the new fence had a few holes, it would be an improvement over having no fence at all.
The view that online gambling, in contrast to its bricks-and-mortar casino counterpart, is impossible to regulate reflects an old-fashioned perception of cyber jurisdictional authority. Many offshore commercial entities that operate online are subject to U.S. legal jurisdiction under existing long-arm statutes and authority. When coupled with governmental licensing authority, the ability to police online activities is even more powerful. Legalization with regulation would provide U.S. authorities with the power to grant or deny licenses and to impose significant sanctions on noncompliant licensees. Those licenses would be highly valuable to site operators. Compliance with any regulatory requirements and strict licensing conditions that Congress chooses to impose in return for the privilege of the license would therefore become a cost of doing business.
Just as with bricks-and-mortar casinos, the requirement for site operators to maintain a license gives the government the ability to exclude bad actors as well as impose a broad array of conditions for, and oversight of, licensees. In contrast, the current prohibitionist policy is extremely ineffective: large numbers of U.S. residents already gamble online, but they do so using offshore sites, many of which are poorly regulated. With legalization, we would expect that most online gamblers would prefer licensed U.S.-based sites because of their integrity and security, rather than accept the risks posed by unregulated or poorly regulated sites. A well-structured regulatory regime would provide better protections against all of the risks we identified.
This conclusion is supported by the experience of other jurisdictions in regulating online gambling. Some of these, such as the United Kingdom and Alderney, have adopted regulatory regimes that appear to provide protection against the identified risks. That may be the most compelling evidence that online gambling can be effectively regulated.
D. Regulatory Methods and Technologies for Controlling Each Type of Risk Already Exist
For each of the 10 risks we examined, a set of regulatory methods and technologies already exists that would provide a reasonable degree of risk management. Moreover, most of them have been implemented in other countries. One general insight from regulatory policy, and a review of other country’s experiences, is that no one size fits all: regulators should treat different risks differently. The incentives and motivations of different parties vary across risk categories, as does the locus for detection and control interventions. Understanding the natural incentives of the gaming industry with respect to each class of risk reveals whether a cooperative regulatory strategy would likely be more effective than a traditional enforcement-centric one.
For example, for at least one of the risks we identified (protecting the integrity of poker games by preventing players from colluding or conspiring to cheat other players), the interests of the public and of the gaming industry align reasonably closely. Both groups are interested in ensuring the integrity of the games. That makes a more cooperative and less adversarial regulatory relationship quite natural.
For other risks (such as defrauding of consumers by site operators, involvement of organized crime, and money laundering by site operators), a strict enforcement regime focused on identification and rapid exclusion of bad actors is more obviously appropriate. Oversight in these areas would focus heavily on up-front qualification or “suitability” to exclude those with criminal histories or connections and persons otherwise lacking in “good character, honesty, and integrity” as is the case in the bricks-and-mortar space. Enforcement activity would focus on bad actors, with the goal of exclusion and sanction. The intense and strict monitoring regime for reputable sites would include provisions designed to prevent or reveal any infiltration over time by undesirable groups or influences. Such regulations would mirror those now in place for bricks-and-mortar casinos.
Reputable sites, whose competitive advantage lies substantially with their reputation for integrity, would not be much troubled by the type of oversight designed to keep the “good character, honesty, and integrity” bar for admission high and the bad players out. In fact, they should appreciate such oversight as a positive contribution to the overall public perception of their industry, and the regulatory certainty provided by a licensing model would help with the industry’s overall long-term planning.
Some risks (gambling by minors, money laundering by players, problem gambling, breaches of data confidentiality, and lack of site and technology security) present more complex challenges in terms of regulatory design. If site operators were driven solely by their short-run economic incentives, they would more likely take bets from minors, problem gamblers, and money launderers (because the sites gain financially, at least in the short run, from all such bets), and they might limit their investments in data privacy and security. Site operators might also gain, in the short run, from abusing or selling personal and financial data provided to them by gamblers.
In the longer term, of course, site operators value their brand names and reputations matter, and these five risks all figure as reputational risks from the industry’s perspective just as they do in the bricks-and-mortar gambling industry. By setting the admission bar for licensees suitably high, U.S. regulators would intend to admit only reputable operators, whose behaviors would be guided by the value they place on establishing and maintaining a trusted brand. This is the approach taken by regulators in other jurisdictions—license only reputable firms. Probity investigations are conducted into the companies and their associates before a license is issued. Hence, for these five risks, close supervision would be required if an operator were regarded as a rational but short-sighted actor. At the same time, a more cooperative and symbiotic regulatory relationship ought to emerge when reputable operators take a longer-term, strategic view. To better align site operators’ short- and long-term interests, regulation also would provide for sanctions, from monetary fines up to and including loss of license for those site operators that choose to disregard mandated operational and consumer protections.
One strategy to provide longer-term, reputation-based incentives for good behavior is to create costs to entry—through the regulatory process, licensing fees, or other means—that reduce incentives to make a quick profit and leave the industry. For all risks created by operator shortsightedness, regulators need to establish and retain sufficient audit and monitoring systems so they can see when organizations that are otherwise reputable tilt too heavily toward short-term gain at the expense of public protection. Regulators should not accept the industry’s protestations that they can be entirely trusted to take care of such risks without oversight simply because it is in their interest to do so. It is indeed in the industry’s long-term interests to do so, but short-term considerations sometimes prevail, even in major corporations and multibillion dollar industries.
The following sections of this study describe a variety of control technologies and regulatory tactics relevant to each risk, and identify the most promising approaches in each case. Table 1, in Appendix A, lists the 10 risks and for each outlines
• the level of protection afforded under the current regime (column 2);
• the overall structure and style of regulatory oversight most natural for each risk (column 3), and
• some key points regarding relevant technologies and control strategies (column 4).
Below we summarize key points in relation to each risk.
1. Gambling by Minors
There is a general concern that underage gamblers may access or attempt to access online gambling sites.
• Gambling by minors: A number of technologies routinely used in other industries can be used to exclude minors from online gambling, including a variety of data-matching techniques, electronic or other submission of documentary evidence of age, and possibly application of biometric identification systems. The strongest form of control would require positive matching of a player at the time of registration against existing databases of known adults, thus excluding minors, as well as identity-verification prior to initiating any session of play. U.S.-licensed operators would be expected to use filters and procedures that are as discriminating as reasonably possible. With respect to U.S. residents, we would expect available data needed for age-verification to be of high quality and reliability. Site operators could also be required to provide child-protective software to parents to help prevent minors from accessing gambling sites. Alternatively, a separate governmental or nonprofit entity could provide such software.
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior
Criminal activity can stem from site operators or the players themselves. The following risks are related to criminal activity by site operators:
• Defrauding of consumers by site operators,
• Involvement of organized crime in gambling operations, and
• Money laundering by site operators.
These risks would be effectively limited by a regulatory strategy designed to keep the bar for admission high and to keep criminals out. Such controls have worked well in bricks-and-mortar casinos and would operate similarly with U.S.-licensed online site operators. Relevant tactics include rigorous vetting procedures for new applicants and monitoring of licensed site operator behavior to prevent or detect regulatory noncompliance, criminal conduct, fraudulent and deceptive practices, and disregard for consumers’ rights.
Regulatory strategy with respect to these risks would be enforcement-centric with a focus on excluding operators with criminal histories or connections. Reputable site operators with brands to protect could not afford to risk damage to their reputations, loss of their licenses, or regulatory sanctions. Thus, we would expect the industry at large to support the type of demanding admission standards, regulatory monitoring, and sanctions designed to keep bad actors out of the business. Players, best positioned to detect improper conduct or consumer fraud by site operators, would be enabled and encouraged to report site operators’ improper conduct directly to regulators and others in law enforcement. Players would also have access to U.S. courts for dispute resolution.
Player criminal behavior falls into two major categories—cheating or defrauding of players by other players and money laundering by players.
• Cheating or defrauding of players by other players: Most of the cases of improper player collusion or cheating that have come to light have been detected by other players. With a regulator in place for U.S.-licensed sites, players would have stronger recourse against the sites, or against other players, by lodging complaints with the regulator or relevant law enforcement agencies. More important, licensed operators could be required to maintain comprehensive databases of all betting transactions and these databases could be examined and analyzed by regulators in the event of an inquiry or the triggering of red flags. Site operators, who themselves have a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of their games, could be expected or even required to implement pattern recognition software to scan routinely for anomalous betting patterns.
• Money laundering by players: Online gambling operators, like operators of bricks-and-mortar casinos, would be subject to current anti-money-laundering regulations. These regulations would require site operators to expend some level of effort in detecting money laundering. The online environment provides better opportunities for detecting money laundering by players or player groups than the bricks-and-mortar casino environment. Site operators could be required to retain comprehensive data on all deposits, withdrawals, and betting transactions and to make these data available to regulators for examination and analysis. Given complete data, most patterns related to money laundering (such as light betting or matched bets placed by collaborators) would be easier to detect than they are in a physical environment (where complete transaction histories are available only in the form of video recordings). Software that detects anomalies and suspicious behaviors could be operated easily and routinely on digital databases by the site operators, by regulators, or by both. The site operators’ obligations with respect to their own detection of money laundering would form a part of their ordinary compliance obligations under the licensing regime.
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues
Any U.S. legalization and regulatory regime would likely address the risk of access to online gambling sites from jurisdictions that prohibit such activity.
• Violation of jurisdictional restrictions or prohibitions: State, local, and tribal governments may continue to prohibit or restrict (1) the operation of gambling sites from within their jurisdictions and (2) online gambling by individuals resident or physically present within their jurisdiction. Licensed U.S. sites could be required to take all reasonable steps not to permit registration or participation by individuals in such states. A range of geolocation technologies are now available, mostly tied to identification of the user location by reference to their IP addresses. Such technologies, while not entirely foolproof, have the capability of reducing risks as much as is required by regulators. IP geolocation, together with address verification at registration and other controls, can be expected to deter the bulk of casual attempts to gamble from within restricted states. Determined users, of course, already have access to foreign sites and would probably continue to use those rather than go to the trouble of devising sophisticated technological means for defeating U.S.-based geolocation controls. Regulatory oversight methods could include audits of U.S.-based operators’ software controls and routine “mystery shopping” at U.S. sites conducted from locations within states that had chosen to exercise their rights to restrict online gambling.
Data privacy and security risks include: sites not using commercially appropriate security systems and practices; intentional or accidental breach of the gambling site’s and user’s data security; and the introduction of spyware, adware, or malicious code into gambling websites’ software or transmission of such malware to users’ computers.
• Breaches of data confidentiality: Under legalization and regulation, U.S.-licensed operators would be subject to all applicable federal and state requirements regarding data confidentiality and security. Site operators would be subject to regulatory and potentially criminal sanctions and civil liability for any breaches or abuses of personal or financial data. Their data-protection controls would be subject to regulatory audit. There is no reason to believe that licensed online gambling operators would be any less able or willing to fulfill these obligations than other online merchants with similar data custody obligations.
• Communications and computer security failures: Under the current regime, U.S. authorities have no oversight over security for online gambling sites. With legalization and regulation U.S. licensed sites would be subject to existing data protection laws. Furthermore, U.S. regulators would have an opportunity to require state-of-the-art cybersecurity controls to protect against the introduction of malicious code or the unauthorized manipulation of games.
4. Problem Gambling
It is relatively easy to demonstrate for the other risk categories that a well-structured regulatory regime coupled with relevant technologies should provide better protection than the status quo. For problem gambling, however, the potential effect of legalization is less obvious a priori. Many might assume that pathological or addictive gambling behaviors would be exacerbated by the increased opportunity to gamble at any time and from anywhere online. But research on this topic does not support this conclusion. In particular, the link between the availability of online gambling and increases in the prevalence of problem gambling has not been established. Nevertheless, some online gamblers would be problem gamblers.
In a well-regulated online environment, gamblers could have opportunities and technologies made available to them to help curb addictive or problematic gambling behaviors. Such mechanisms would permit them to limit their gambling volume, deposit rates, loss rates, and the size of each wager. Users could also access online clinical and self-help resources from links provided at the gambling site.
The relationship between legalization and potential effects on problem gambling rates must certainly be examined carefully. Opponents of legalization fear an increase in problem gambling rates. However, gambling experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have reported that the prevalence rates for pathological gambling have remained static and low (roughly 0.7% of the adult population, in both countries) for many years. A large-scale study of gambling prevalence in the U.K. found the 0.7% rate remaining stable from 1999 through 2007 despite substantial increases in gambling opportunities during this period.
Because this issue is likely to receive considerable attention as the United States considers legalization, we have attempted to analyze the various arguments given as to why the act of legalization might drive the level of problem gambling up or down. We have identified five popularly discussed mechanisms through which legalization could drive problem gambling up, and describe them here along with some observations that help mitigate the anticipated effects:
• Mechanism: Inhibitions to gamble that are based on would-be gamblers’ knowledge of current legal restrictions would be removed.
Observation: Gamblers in the United States are generally ignorant of or completely confused about existing legal restrictions, and (until very recently) there has been no enforcement against the gamblers themselves. Hence, the lifting of the prohibition itself is unlikely to have any significant impact on would-be gamblers’ willingness to gamble online.
• Mechanism: Gamblers may be more comfortable gambling online because licensed operators are reputed to be trustworthy.
Observation: The gamblers most likely to be influenced by the availability of trusted brand-name sites are those who gamble already, perhaps in the casino environment, and hence know the brands. Knowledgeable gamblers may indeed shift their business, but this represents displacement, not overall growth. And the displacement would be from bricks-and-mortar to online gambling, which can offer many more options and protections for problem gamblers than can land-based casinos.
• Mechanism: Gambling opportunities would be ubiquitous and available 24/7.
Observation: U.S. residents already have online gambling options available to them all day, everyday, and from anywhere. So the addition of U.S.-licensed sites would not alter that particular reality.
• Mechanism: Lifting the UIGEA’s restrictions on financial transactions might make it easier for consumers to place bets online.
Observation: Lifting the restrictions of the UIGEA would not make it significantly easier for U.S. residents to make deposits to online sites. Enough workarounds have been designed, and are energetically promoted to consumers by the offshore sites, to render the existing restrictions largely ineffective.
• Mechanism: Advertising by licensed online gambling sites might lead to increased problem gambling.
Observation: Although advertising is one avenue for the expected increase in online gambling that would follow legalization, little evidence exists to show whether and to what extent advertising-induced growth in, or redistribution of, gambling volume might produce increases in problem gambling rates. Furthermore, this mechanism (allowing advertising for online gambling sites) is controllable to the extent deemed necessary or desirable, through regulatory restriction.
We also looked at two mechanisms through which legalization and regulation could drive problem gambling down:
• Mechanism: Tax and license-fee revenue distributions may provide an opportunity to extend and enhance counseling, treatment, and support programs for problem gamblers.
Observation: Significant tax revenues might be anticipated from U.S. operators, and revenue distributions from taxes and license fees could substantially boost publicly funded prevention, counseling, and treatment programs, as well as research on gambling addiction. Existing budgets for counseling and treatment services for problem gamblers have been limited, and most health insurance programs do not currently cover these services.
• Mechanism: Regulators could require licensed domestic sites to lead the world in offering a full suite of advice and protections for problem gamblers to an even greater extent than is the case in bricks-and-mortar casinos.
Observation: U.S.-licensed sites could be required to display offers of help prominently on their websites, including (1) registration pages that offer self-diagnostic tests designed to help would-be gamblers understand their own attitudes and vulnerabilities; (2) web pages that display prominent links to support and counseling services; and (3) availability of speed-of-play, compulsory time-outs, or player-loss-rate caps. All players should be offered the opportunity up front and at subsequent intervals to voluntarily exclude themselves or to limit their own deposit rates, loss rates, betting rates, or periods of play.
We believe that the opportunities to mitigate problem gambling provide significant benefits not available under the status quo. These benefits provide a significant counterweight to any potential increases in problem gambling that result from legalization. Furthermore, the potential benefits of mitigation would become available to most existing online problem gamblers.\
E. Conclusions
We have examined 10 distinct risks in four categories that may be associated with the growth and availability of online gambling. In each case, the current legislative framework is failing to provide any effective risk control or consumer protection. The establishment of a well-regulated industry under U.S. jurisdiction would offer the opportunity for much better protection. We recommend that plans for regulating online gambling include the design and use of different risk-control strategies for different risks that may be associated with Internet gambling, as well as education and consumer support.
If the United States decides to legalize and regulate online gambling sites, we would expect most U.S.-resident gamblers to be diverted from overseas sites toward reputable and trusted domestic operators. In the long run, reputable gambling operations under U.S. control should come to dominate online gambling opportunities chosen by U.S. consumers. All four categories of risk would be better controlled in such circumstances than they are at present. In the end, U.S. consumers would be better protected than they are now.
Managing the Risks
Authored by
Malcolm K. Sparrow
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
With Contributions by
Coleman Bazelon, PhD
Charles Jackson, PhD
December 2, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW OF APPROACH AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS 1
A. Our Approach 2
1. Gambling by Minors 3
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior 3
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues 3
4. Problem Gambling 4
B. The Status Quo Offers No Effective Protection 4
C. Legalization and Regulation Would Afford Significantly Better Protection than the Status Quo 6
D. Regulatory Methods and Technologies for Controlling Each Type of Risk Already Exist 7
1. Gambling by Minors 9
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior 9
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues 11
4. Problem Gambling 12
E. Conclusions 15
II. REGULATORY METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR CONTROLLING EACH RISK 16
A. Gambling by Minors 16
1. The Issue of Gambling by Minors 16
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 17
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 20
4. Conclusion 23
B. Defrauding of Consumers by Site Operators 24
1. The Issue of Fraud by Site Operators 24
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 26
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 28
4. Conclusion 29
C. Cheating or Defrauding of Players by Other Players 29
1. The Issue of Players Being Defrauded by Other Players 29
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 31
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 32
4. Conclusion 33
D. Involvement of Organized Crime in Gambling Operations 33
1. The Issue of Involvement of Organized Crime in Online Gambling 33
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 34
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 36
4. Conclusion 36
E. Money Laundering by Players 37
1. The Issue of Money Laundering by Players 37
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 39
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 40
4. Conclusion 42
F. Money Laundering by Site Operators 43
1. The Issue of Money Laundering by Site Operators 43
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 44
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 44
4. Conclusion 45
G. Violation of Jurisdictional Restrictions or Prohibitions 45
1. The Issue of Violation of Jurisdictional Restrictions 45
2. Regulatory Strategy 46
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 47
4. Conclusion 49
H. Breaches of Data Confidentiality 50
1. The Issue of Data Confidentiality 50
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 51
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 52
4. Conclusion 53
I. Communications and Computer Security Failures 53
1. The Issue of Communications and Computer Security Failures 53
2. Existing Controls in Other Jurisdictions 55
3. Relevant Technologies for Risk Mitigation 56
4. Conclusion 58
J. Problem Gambling 59
1. Problem Gambling 59
III. SPECIAL ATTENTION TO PROBLEM GAMBLING 60
A. Introduction 60
B. What is Problem Gambling? 60
1. Terminology 60
2. Prevalence Rates and Trends 61
C. Potential Effects of Legalization of Online Gambling on Problem Gambling 62
1. Potential Adverse Effects of Legalization 63
2. Potential Benefits of Legalization 69
D. Concluding Remarks 72
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dorothy Robyn, PhD, who contributed to this project while at The Brattle Group. The authors would also like to thank Pallavi Seth, PhD, and Michael Sutcliffe of The Brattle Group for their assistance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was commissioned by Wired Safety, an Internet Safety and Educational charity. It examines a range of harms potentially associated with online gambling, and alternative methods for mitigating or minimizing them. Recognizing that the current U.S. prohibitionist regime with respect to online gambling is largely ineffective in achieving its aims, and provides no platform or opportunity for the implementation of most of the relevant harm-reduction strategies, we find that an alternative regime of legalization and regulation of online gambling would likely improve consumer welfare and protections. The body of this report evaluates a range of strategies, both regulatory and technological, that could be used to mitigate potential harms associated with online gambling more effectively.
Notwithstanding the current prohibitionist legal and regulatory approach, millions of U.S. residents gamble online through offshore gambling sites. As a result, the United States finds itself in the unfortunate position of incurring all the social costs of online gambling while having no control over the gaming sites that serve U.S. residents. The United States cannot disqualify industry participants from competing effectively for U.S.-based customers or offer its residents any consumer protections. Nearly all states permit some form of commercial gambling, and the industry is large and well-established. Clearly, policymakers have extensive precedent from which to draw strategies to mitigate the potential social harms of gambling.
Although some controls used in bricks-and-mortar casinos may not translate well to online gambling, several of the risks we examined become more amenable to control online. New technologies can be effective, even for those risks that are more difficult to address online. For example, geolocation and age verification technologies can help turn potentially significant risks into manageable ones.
In this study, we analyze 10 specific risks that others have suggested are potentially associated with online gambling: gambling by minors, fraud by operators, fraud by players, organized crime, money laundering by players, money laundering by operators, violation of jurisdictional prohibitions, breaches of data confidentiality, lack of site security, and problem gambling. It is important that regulators treat each of these potential risks differently. For some risks (such as players cheating other players), the public interest and the interests of the gaming industry align, making a cooperative regulatory relationship natural. For others (such as those involving potentially criminal conduct by operators), a strict enforcement regime would be more appropriate. Still other potential risks (such as underage and problem gambling) call for a more nuanced regulatory approach involving a mixture of strict enforcement, effective nonprofit support, community education, and cooperation, in keeping with the more complex motivations and incentives facing site operators.
For each of the 10 risks, we examined a set of regulatory methods and technologies that would provide a reasonable degree of risk management in a regulated environment. Most of these methods have already been implemented in some form in other jurisdictions. The United Kingdom, Alderney, Gibraltar, and others have successfully implemented regulation, and nearly all of the well-regulated jurisdictions we studied address the 10 risks to some degree.
The establishment of a well-regulated industry under U.S. jurisdiction would offer far better protection against online gambling’s potential social harms than outright prohibition. Combining a thoughtful regulatory scheme with education, technology tools, and support appears to be the most effective means of handling the realities and risks of online gambling in the United States. Therefore, we recommend that plans for regulating online gambling include the design and use of different risk-management strategies tailored to the different classes of risk that are associated with Internet gambling. In the end, consumers in the United States would be better protected than they are now.
I. OVERVIEW OF APPROACH AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Congress is debating legislation that would remove the existing prohibition on the use of the Internet for most types of gambling. The proposed legalization of online gambling would be conditioned on the imposition of regulation designed to limit or prevent potential harms such as underage gambling, money laundering, and problem gambling.
A key issue in the debate over legalization of online gambling is whether regulation and technology could effectively control such potential harms. Some of the opposition to legalization reflects a perception that online gambling—in contrast to gambling in bricks-and-mortar casinos—would be difficult, if not impossible, to regulate effectively.
This study reviews the research literature and international approaches to online gambling. WiredSafety (the Internet safety and educational charity) has commissioned this study to help inform the legalization debate and to help educate the public on the risks associated with online gambling and the best ways to address those risks.
We note that our expertise is in regulatory policy and its relationship to risk analysis, rather than in any extensive prior knowledge of the gaming industry and gambling behavior per se. We have critically reviewed the existing literature, evaluated relevant technologies, and interviewed a range of scholars and practitioner experts, both here and abroad. We have not, however, conducted any new epidemiological studies or field research. Our distinctive contribution is the frame for risk management and regulatory analysis, rather than any new scientific inquiry.
Our analysis does not directly address whether online gambling should be legalized. In focusing on managing risks, we did not weigh moral or religious objections to gambling, nor did we examine broadly libertarian arguments in favor of allowing adults to engage in pastimes they may enjoy. We did not conduct any analysis to quantify the benefits of potential tax revenues attributable to regulated online gambling. Further, we have not focused on any issues of federalism or on exactly where regulations and laws should fit into the U.S. multijurisdictional governance structure. Instead, we concentrated more narrowly on the obligations of government to protect citizens in general, and vulnerable groups of citizens in particular, from unnecessary exposure to harm.
We sought (1) to identify the specific risks that are associated with, or perceived to be associated with, Internet gambling; (2) to determine suitable regulatory strategies for controlling or managing those risks; and (3) to assess how effective those strategies are likely to be. We identified 10 distinct risks that fall into four broad categories. Those categories are as follows:
• Gambling by minors
• Criminal and fraudulent behavior
• Network access, data privacy and security
• Problem gambling
On the basis of our review of the existing literature and interviews with academics, regulators, industry participants, and public interest advocates, we came to the following conclusions:
• Online gambling could be regulated effectively if it were legalized.
• A well-structured regulatory regime should provide much better social and consumer protections than the status quo for the risks we identified.
• At a minimum, even an imperfect legalization and regulatory regime for online gambling would give Americans much more protection than they have now. The current prohibitionist policy is extremely weak: large numbers of U.S. residents already gamble online, but they do so using offshore sites, many of which are poorly regulated or unregulated.
For each of the 10 risks we examined, a set of regulatory methods and technologies exist that would provide a reasonable degree of control, and most of them have been implemented effectively in other jurisdictions or in other online settings.
Although some controls used in the bricks-and-mortar environment may not translate to online gambling environments, several of the risks we examined become more amenable to control online. Comprehensive electronic records and the ability to track financial transactions and betting patterns provide more opportunities for analysis and audit, and hence improve the chances of discovering fraud or criminal activity. They also allow gambling websites to provide tools to mitigate problem gambling in a timely manner.
A. Our Approach
Our approach has been to identify the specific risks that are perceived to be associated with Internet gambling and then to determine how best to control or manage them. Those risks are described below.
1. Gambling by Minors
a. Gambling by minors: There is concern that minors might find it easier to access and use online gambling services in a legalized environment.
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior
a. Defrauding of consumers by site operators: There is the possibility that online site operators may be more likely than their bricks-and-mortar counterparts to rig games, refuse to pay out winnings, or simply vanish, taking with them players’ account balances.
b. Cheating or defrauding of players by other players: There is a concern that players could collude to defraud others, particularly in online poker. Online gambling may offer opportunities for collusion that are not available in a physical environment with visual surveillance.
c. Involvement of organized crime in gambling operations: Organized crime has a history of involvement with the bricks-and-mortar casinos and is now involved in some online commerce. There is some concern that involvement in the online gambling industry may be a natural next step.
d. Money laundering by players: There is concern that players or groups of players acting in concert could use legitimate gambling operations for money laundering.
e. Money laundering by site operators: The possibility has been raised that site operators could use online gambling operations, with its significant financial flows, as a cover for money laundering on a large scale.
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues
a. Violation of jurisdictional restrictions or prohibitions: Government at the state, local, and tribal levels has traditionally exercised control over gambling within a given jurisdiction. The advent of the Internet has opened the question as to whether controls mandated by any proposed laws can be enforced within particular jurisdictions.
b. Breaches of data confidentiality: To register for play, players surrender personal or financial data to site operators. Consumers might be harmed by deliberate or accidental breaches of the confidentiality of those data.
c. Communications and computer security failures: Some are concerned that site operators might not use appropriate security practices, procedures, and technologies to ensure the integrity of their sites, the gaming on those sites, and player interactions. Absent proper security measures, malicious code could be transmitted to players, game operations could be infiltrated, and intrusions into the systems could compromise the game play and security of users.
4. Problem Gambling
a. Problem gambling behaviors: Some argue that increased opportunity to gamble at any time, from anywhere, and at a faster pace might exacerbate pathological, addictive, or problem gambling behaviors.
With respect to each of these four categories of risks, we sought to answer three broad questions:
(1) In the existing prohibitionist legal and regulatory regime, what level of protection are U.S. consumers afforded?
(2) With legalization, could these risks be addressed more effectively than they are now, and assuming legalization, what regulatory strategy is best suited for addressing these risks?
(3) What are the potentially relevant technologies and methods available for effective risk mitigation, and how might other parties contribute toward effective control?
Our answer to the threshold question of whether online gambling can be effectively regulated came out of our analysis of these more specific questions.
B. The Status Quo Offers No Effective Protection
Many U.S. residents already use online gambling services despite statutory restrictions. Recent estimates indicate that U.S. gamblers constitute roughly one-fourth to one-third of the global market for online gambling services. The size of the U.S. share of that global market was estimated to be $5.9 billion in 2008.
The mainstay of the current prohibitionist regulatory structure is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Instead of criminalizing gambling itself, the UIGEA was intended to prevent U.S. residents from gambling by placing restrictions on the role of financial institutions in transmitting payments to and from gaming operators. However, because workarounds such as e-wallets (essentially a payment processor situated between banks and gambling sites), phone-based deposits, and prepaid credit cards have proliferated, very few U.S.-based gamblers are presently much inconvenienced. Most gamblers are either unaware of or confused by the patchwork of federal and state restrictions, and many are readily guided by unregulated online gambling sites toward financial mechanisms that they can use to make deposits and withdrawals.
The net effect is that the U.S. attempt to prohibit online gambling has instead pushed it offshore. Sites are readily available to U.S. residents through the essentially borderless medium of the Internet. Some sites are well-regulated, such as those based in the United Kingdom, Alderney, and Gibraltar, and others are less-well-regulated or unregulated, such as those in Antigua, Grenada, or the Kahnawake Mohawk territory. (Of course, it is the less-well-regulated international sites that provide easier access to U.S. consumers.) As a result of the global gaming industry’s adaptations to the U.S. strategy, the United States finds itself in the unfortunate position of
• incurring all the social costs related to U.S. residents’ online gambling;
• exercising no jurisdiction or control over the gaming sites that serve U.S. residents;
• being unable to offer U.S. residents who choose to gamble on overseas sites any consumer protections or to implement any other harm-reducing strategies; and
• being unable to qualify industry participants or even exclude criminal groups from competing for U.S.-based customers.
In an effort to address this reality and enforce current restrictions more aggressively, federal officials recently instructed four banks to freeze accounts belonging to online payment processors. The frozen accounts apparently contained funds owed to some 27,000 people who used offshore poker websites. Such financially based efforts seem to have had only a temporary chilling effect. Over the long run, it is probably not feasible for the federal government to prevent U.S. residents from accessing foreign sites via the Internet. Unlike China or Iran, for example, the United States has displayed no appetite for centralized control of the Internet to block citizens’ access to undesirable sites.
Nor would criminalization of the gambling itself be an effective strategy. First, it would likely generate a massive pool of lawbreakers, almost none of whom would make attractive targets for criminal prosecution—because it would likely be a waste of law enforcement resources to pursue individual online gamblers. Second, it would exacerbate the dangers of consumer fraud at online gambling sites by making aggrieved consumers more reluctant to report their experiences.
C. Legalization and Regulation Would Afford Significantly Better Protection than the Status Quo
At a minimum, legalization and regulation of online gambling would give Americans much more protection than does the current prohibitionist regulatory framework. Although the kind of regulation that would accompany legalization would not be failsafe, it would be a significant improvement over the current regulatory and enforcement structure. We believe that safeguards could be implemented that would, on balance, substantially improve protections against the identified risks. These safeguards would also provide protection equal to or greater than that provided within the U.S.-based bricks-and-mortar gambling industry. We recognize that no set of technical or regulatory controls could ever eliminate these risks entirely. But even if the new fence had a few holes, it would be an improvement over having no fence at all.
The view that online gambling, in contrast to its bricks-and-mortar casino counterpart, is impossible to regulate reflects an old-fashioned perception of cyber jurisdictional authority. Many offshore commercial entities that operate online are subject to U.S. legal jurisdiction under existing long-arm statutes and authority. When coupled with governmental licensing authority, the ability to police online activities is even more powerful. Legalization with regulation would provide U.S. authorities with the power to grant or deny licenses and to impose significant sanctions on noncompliant licensees. Those licenses would be highly valuable to site operators. Compliance with any regulatory requirements and strict licensing conditions that Congress chooses to impose in return for the privilege of the license would therefore become a cost of doing business.
Just as with bricks-and-mortar casinos, the requirement for site operators to maintain a license gives the government the ability to exclude bad actors as well as impose a broad array of conditions for, and oversight of, licensees. In contrast, the current prohibitionist policy is extremely ineffective: large numbers of U.S. residents already gamble online, but they do so using offshore sites, many of which are poorly regulated. With legalization, we would expect that most online gamblers would prefer licensed U.S.-based sites because of their integrity and security, rather than accept the risks posed by unregulated or poorly regulated sites. A well-structured regulatory regime would provide better protections against all of the risks we identified.
This conclusion is supported by the experience of other jurisdictions in regulating online gambling. Some of these, such as the United Kingdom and Alderney, have adopted regulatory regimes that appear to provide protection against the identified risks. That may be the most compelling evidence that online gambling can be effectively regulated.
D. Regulatory Methods and Technologies for Controlling Each Type of Risk Already Exist
For each of the 10 risks we examined, a set of regulatory methods and technologies already exists that would provide a reasonable degree of risk management. Moreover, most of them have been implemented in other countries. One general insight from regulatory policy, and a review of other country’s experiences, is that no one size fits all: regulators should treat different risks differently. The incentives and motivations of different parties vary across risk categories, as does the locus for detection and control interventions. Understanding the natural incentives of the gaming industry with respect to each class of risk reveals whether a cooperative regulatory strategy would likely be more effective than a traditional enforcement-centric one.
For example, for at least one of the risks we identified (protecting the integrity of poker games by preventing players from colluding or conspiring to cheat other players), the interests of the public and of the gaming industry align reasonably closely. Both groups are interested in ensuring the integrity of the games. That makes a more cooperative and less adversarial regulatory relationship quite natural.
For other risks (such as defrauding of consumers by site operators, involvement of organized crime, and money laundering by site operators), a strict enforcement regime focused on identification and rapid exclusion of bad actors is more obviously appropriate. Oversight in these areas would focus heavily on up-front qualification or “suitability” to exclude those with criminal histories or connections and persons otherwise lacking in “good character, honesty, and integrity” as is the case in the bricks-and-mortar space. Enforcement activity would focus on bad actors, with the goal of exclusion and sanction. The intense and strict monitoring regime for reputable sites would include provisions designed to prevent or reveal any infiltration over time by undesirable groups or influences. Such regulations would mirror those now in place for bricks-and-mortar casinos.
Reputable sites, whose competitive advantage lies substantially with their reputation for integrity, would not be much troubled by the type of oversight designed to keep the “good character, honesty, and integrity” bar for admission high and the bad players out. In fact, they should appreciate such oversight as a positive contribution to the overall public perception of their industry, and the regulatory certainty provided by a licensing model would help with the industry’s overall long-term planning.
Some risks (gambling by minors, money laundering by players, problem gambling, breaches of data confidentiality, and lack of site and technology security) present more complex challenges in terms of regulatory design. If site operators were driven solely by their short-run economic incentives, they would more likely take bets from minors, problem gamblers, and money launderers (because the sites gain financially, at least in the short run, from all such bets), and they might limit their investments in data privacy and security. Site operators might also gain, in the short run, from abusing or selling personal and financial data provided to them by gamblers.
In the longer term, of course, site operators value their brand names and reputations matter, and these five risks all figure as reputational risks from the industry’s perspective just as they do in the bricks-and-mortar gambling industry. By setting the admission bar for licensees suitably high, U.S. regulators would intend to admit only reputable operators, whose behaviors would be guided by the value they place on establishing and maintaining a trusted brand. This is the approach taken by regulators in other jurisdictions—license only reputable firms. Probity investigations are conducted into the companies and their associates before a license is issued. Hence, for these five risks, close supervision would be required if an operator were regarded as a rational but short-sighted actor. At the same time, a more cooperative and symbiotic regulatory relationship ought to emerge when reputable operators take a longer-term, strategic view. To better align site operators’ short- and long-term interests, regulation also would provide for sanctions, from monetary fines up to and including loss of license for those site operators that choose to disregard mandated operational and consumer protections.
One strategy to provide longer-term, reputation-based incentives for good behavior is to create costs to entry—through the regulatory process, licensing fees, or other means—that reduce incentives to make a quick profit and leave the industry. For all risks created by operator shortsightedness, regulators need to establish and retain sufficient audit and monitoring systems so they can see when organizations that are otherwise reputable tilt too heavily toward short-term gain at the expense of public protection. Regulators should not accept the industry’s protestations that they can be entirely trusted to take care of such risks without oversight simply because it is in their interest to do so. It is indeed in the industry’s long-term interests to do so, but short-term considerations sometimes prevail, even in major corporations and multibillion dollar industries.
The following sections of this study describe a variety of control technologies and regulatory tactics relevant to each risk, and identify the most promising approaches in each case. Table 1, in Appendix A, lists the 10 risks and for each outlines
• the level of protection afforded under the current regime (column 2);
• the overall structure and style of regulatory oversight most natural for each risk (column 3), and
• some key points regarding relevant technologies and control strategies (column 4).
Below we summarize key points in relation to each risk.
1. Gambling by Minors
There is a general concern that underage gamblers may access or attempt to access online gambling sites.
• Gambling by minors: A number of technologies routinely used in other industries can be used to exclude minors from online gambling, including a variety of data-matching techniques, electronic or other submission of documentary evidence of age, and possibly application of biometric identification systems. The strongest form of control would require positive matching of a player at the time of registration against existing databases of known adults, thus excluding minors, as well as identity-verification prior to initiating any session of play. U.S.-licensed operators would be expected to use filters and procedures that are as discriminating as reasonably possible. With respect to U.S. residents, we would expect available data needed for age-verification to be of high quality and reliability. Site operators could also be required to provide child-protective software to parents to help prevent minors from accessing gambling sites. Alternatively, a separate governmental or nonprofit entity could provide such software.
2. Criminal and Fraudulent Behavior
Criminal activity can stem from site operators or the players themselves. The following risks are related to criminal activity by site operators:
• Defrauding of consumers by site operators,
• Involvement of organized crime in gambling operations, and
• Money laundering by site operators.
These risks would be effectively limited by a regulatory strategy designed to keep the bar for admission high and to keep criminals out. Such controls have worked well in bricks-and-mortar casinos and would operate similarly with U.S.-licensed online site operators. Relevant tactics include rigorous vetting procedures for new applicants and monitoring of licensed site operator behavior to prevent or detect regulatory noncompliance, criminal conduct, fraudulent and deceptive practices, and disregard for consumers’ rights.
Regulatory strategy with respect to these risks would be enforcement-centric with a focus on excluding operators with criminal histories or connections. Reputable site operators with brands to protect could not afford to risk damage to their reputations, loss of their licenses, or regulatory sanctions. Thus, we would expect the industry at large to support the type of demanding admission standards, regulatory monitoring, and sanctions designed to keep bad actors out of the business. Players, best positioned to detect improper conduct or consumer fraud by site operators, would be enabled and encouraged to report site operators’ improper conduct directly to regulators and others in law enforcement. Players would also have access to U.S. courts for dispute resolution.
Player criminal behavior falls into two major categories—cheating or defrauding of players by other players and money laundering by players.
• Cheating or defrauding of players by other players: Most of the cases of improper player collusion or cheating that have come to light have been detected by other players. With a regulator in place for U.S.-licensed sites, players would have stronger recourse against the sites, or against other players, by lodging complaints with the regulator or relevant law enforcement agencies. More important, licensed operators could be required to maintain comprehensive databases of all betting transactions and these databases could be examined and analyzed by regulators in the event of an inquiry or the triggering of red flags. Site operators, who themselves have a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of their games, could be expected or even required to implement pattern recognition software to scan routinely for anomalous betting patterns.
• Money laundering by players: Online gambling operators, like operators of bricks-and-mortar casinos, would be subject to current anti-money-laundering regulations. These regulations would require site operators to expend some level of effort in detecting money laundering. The online environment provides better opportunities for detecting money laundering by players or player groups than the bricks-and-mortar casino environment. Site operators could be required to retain comprehensive data on all deposits, withdrawals, and betting transactions and to make these data available to regulators for examination and analysis. Given complete data, most patterns related to money laundering (such as light betting or matched bets placed by collaborators) would be easier to detect than they are in a physical environment (where complete transaction histories are available only in the form of video recordings). Software that detects anomalies and suspicious behaviors could be operated easily and routinely on digital databases by the site operators, by regulators, or by both. The site operators’ obligations with respect to their own detection of money laundering would form a part of their ordinary compliance obligations under the licensing regime.
3. Network Access, Data Privacy and Security Issues
Any U.S. legalization and regulatory regime would likely address the risk of access to online gambling sites from jurisdictions that prohibit such activity.
• Violation of jurisdictional restrictions or prohibitions: State, local, and tribal governments may continue to prohibit or restrict (1) the operation of gambling sites from within their jurisdictions and (2) online gambling by individuals resident or physically present within their jurisdiction. Licensed U.S. sites could be required to take all reasonable steps not to permit registration or participation by individuals in such states. A range of geolocation technologies are now available, mostly tied to identification of the user location by reference to their IP addresses. Such technologies, while not entirely foolproof, have the capability of reducing risks as much as is required by regulators. IP geolocation, together with address verification at registration and other controls, can be expected to deter the bulk of casual attempts to gamble from within restricted states. Determined users, of course, already have access to foreign sites and would probably continue to use those rather than go to the trouble of devising sophisticated technological means for defeating U.S.-based geolocation controls. Regulatory oversight methods could include audits of U.S.-based operators’ software controls and routine “mystery shopping” at U.S. sites conducted from locations within states that had chosen to exercise their rights to restrict online gambling.
Data privacy and security risks include: sites not using commercially appropriate security systems and practices; intentional or accidental breach of the gambling site’s and user’s data security; and the introduction of spyware, adware, or malicious code into gambling websites’ software or transmission of such malware to users’ computers.
• Breaches of data confidentiality: Under legalization and regulation, U.S.-licensed operators would be subject to all applicable federal and state requirements regarding data confidentiality and security. Site operators would be subject to regulatory and potentially criminal sanctions and civil liability for any breaches or abuses of personal or financial data. Their data-protection controls would be subject to regulatory audit. There is no reason to believe that licensed online gambling operators would be any less able or willing to fulfill these obligations than other online merchants with similar data custody obligations.
• Communications and computer security failures: Under the current regime, U.S. authorities have no oversight over security for online gambling sites. With legalization and regulation U.S. licensed sites would be subject to existing data protection laws. Furthermore, U.S. regulators would have an opportunity to require state-of-the-art cybersecurity controls to protect against the introduction of malicious code or the unauthorized manipulation of games.
4. Problem Gambling
It is relatively easy to demonstrate for the other risk categories that a well-structured regulatory regime coupled with relevant technologies should provide better protection than the status quo. For problem gambling, however, the potential effect of legalization is less obvious a priori. Many might assume that pathological or addictive gambling behaviors would be exacerbated by the increased opportunity to gamble at any time and from anywhere online. But research on this topic does not support this conclusion. In particular, the link between the availability of online gambling and increases in the prevalence of problem gambling has not been established. Nevertheless, some online gamblers would be problem gamblers.
In a well-regulated online environment, gamblers could have opportunities and technologies made available to them to help curb addictive or problematic gambling behaviors. Such mechanisms would permit them to limit their gambling volume, deposit rates, loss rates, and the size of each wager. Users could also access online clinical and self-help resources from links provided at the gambling site.
The relationship between legalization and potential effects on problem gambling rates must certainly be examined carefully. Opponents of legalization fear an increase in problem gambling rates. However, gambling experts in the United States and the United Kingdom have reported that the prevalence rates for pathological gambling have remained static and low (roughly 0.7% of the adult population, in both countries) for many years. A large-scale study of gambling prevalence in the U.K. found the 0.7% rate remaining stable from 1999 through 2007 despite substantial increases in gambling opportunities during this period.
Because this issue is likely to receive considerable attention as the United States considers legalization, we have attempted to analyze the various arguments given as to why the act of legalization might drive the level of problem gambling up or down. We have identified five popularly discussed mechanisms through which legalization could drive problem gambling up, and describe them here along with some observations that help mitigate the anticipated effects:
• Mechanism: Inhibitions to gamble that are based on would-be gamblers’ knowledge of current legal restrictions would be removed.
Observation: Gamblers in the United States are generally ignorant of or completely confused about existing legal restrictions, and (until very recently) there has been no enforcement against the gamblers themselves. Hence, the lifting of the prohibition itself is unlikely to have any significant impact on would-be gamblers’ willingness to gamble online.
• Mechanism: Gamblers may be more comfortable gambling online because licensed operators are reputed to be trustworthy.
Observation: The gamblers most likely to be influenced by the availability of trusted brand-name sites are those who gamble already, perhaps in the casino environment, and hence know the brands. Knowledgeable gamblers may indeed shift their business, but this represents displacement, not overall growth. And the displacement would be from bricks-and-mortar to online gambling, which can offer many more options and protections for problem gamblers than can land-based casinos.
• Mechanism: Gambling opportunities would be ubiquitous and available 24/7.
Observation: U.S. residents already have online gambling options available to them all day, everyday, and from anywhere. So the addition of U.S.-licensed sites would not alter that particular reality.
• Mechanism: Lifting the UIGEA’s restrictions on financial transactions might make it easier for consumers to place bets online.
Observation: Lifting the restrictions of the UIGEA would not make it significantly easier for U.S. residents to make deposits to online sites. Enough workarounds have been designed, and are energetically promoted to consumers by the offshore sites, to render the existing restrictions largely ineffective.
• Mechanism: Advertising by licensed online gambling sites might lead to increased problem gambling.
Observation: Although advertising is one avenue for the expected increase in online gambling that would follow legalization, little evidence exists to show whether and to what extent advertising-induced growth in, or redistribution of, gambling volume might produce increases in problem gambling rates. Furthermore, this mechanism (allowing advertising for online gambling sites) is controllable to the extent deemed necessary or desirable, through regulatory restriction.
We also looked at two mechanisms through which legalization and regulation could drive problem gambling down:
• Mechanism: Tax and license-fee revenue distributions may provide an opportunity to extend and enhance counseling, treatment, and support programs for problem gamblers.
Observation: Significant tax revenues might be anticipated from U.S. operators, and revenue distributions from taxes and license fees could substantially boost publicly funded prevention, counseling, and treatment programs, as well as research on gambling addiction. Existing budgets for counseling and treatment services for problem gamblers have been limited, and most health insurance programs do not currently cover these services.
• Mechanism: Regulators could require licensed domestic sites to lead the world in offering a full suite of advice and protections for problem gamblers to an even greater extent than is the case in bricks-and-mortar casinos.
Observation: U.S.-licensed sites could be required to display offers of help prominently on their websites, including (1) registration pages that offer self-diagnostic tests designed to help would-be gamblers understand their own attitudes and vulnerabilities; (2) web pages that display prominent links to support and counseling services; and (3) availability of speed-of-play, compulsory time-outs, or player-loss-rate caps. All players should be offered the opportunity up front and at subsequent intervals to voluntarily exclude themselves or to limit their own deposit rates, loss rates, betting rates, or periods of play.
We believe that the opportunities to mitigate problem gambling provide significant benefits not available under the status quo. These benefits provide a significant counterweight to any potential increases in problem gambling that result from legalization. Furthermore, the potential benefits of mitigation would become available to most existing online problem gamblers.\
E. Conclusions
We have examined 10 distinct risks in four categories that may be associated with the growth and availability of online gambling. In each case, the current legislative framework is failing to provide any effective risk control or consumer protection. The establishment of a well-regulated industry under U.S. jurisdiction would offer the opportunity for much better protection. We recommend that plans for regulating online gambling include the design and use of different risk-control strategies for different risks that may be associated with Internet gambling, as well as education and consumer support.
If the United States decides to legalize and regulate online gambling sites, we would expect most U.S.-resident gamblers to be diverted from overseas sites toward reputable and trusted domestic operators. In the long run, reputable gambling operations under U.S. control should come to dominate online gambling opportunities chosen by U.S. consumers. All four categories of risk would be better controlled in such circumstances than they are at present. In the end, U.S. consumers would be better protected than they are now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)