GPWA Times Magazine - Issue 9 - June 2009

64 Minnesotaorders blockofonline gambling sites ByVinNarayanan I n an effort to block online gambling sites fromMinne- sota residents, theMinneso- ta Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gaming Division (AGED) asked 11 national and regional telephone and Internet Service Providers to prohibit Minnesota-based computers from accessing nearly 200 on- linegaming sites. In an announcement made in lateApril, theAGEDsaidwritten notification of this request was served to AT&T Internet S e r v i c e s , Charter Communications, Comcast Cable, Direct TV, Dish Network, Embarq, Sprint/Nextel, Frontier Communications, Qwest, Verizon Wireless and Wildblue Communications. The AGED says theWire Act of 1961 gives Minnesota law en- forcement agencies the authori- ty tomake this request, and that ISPs will be given two to three weekstorespond.Anynon-com- pliancewillbereported to theFederal Commu- nications Commission. Only 44 of the 200 Web sites that Min- nesota’s Alcohol and Gambling Enforce- ment Division want to block from its resi- dents actually accept players from the state, accord- ing to an audit of the list that was completed by the GPWA. That means just 22 percent of the sites AGEDwants to block affectMinnesota residents. On the list are several sites that don’t allow American players, including PartyCasino, Ever- est Poker, Ladbrokes Casino, Intercasino, Virgin Games and William Hill Casino. Not on the list are several popular sites that do accept American players, including PokerStars, DoylesRoom, Rushmore Casi- no, UltimateBet and Absolute Poker. Full Tilt and Bodog are among themajor sites on the list thatdoaccept players from theU.S. AGED Director John Willems defended the Minnesota list when asked about it by the GPWA. “The list is a random sampling (of sites),”Willems said. “It’s a snapshot of a window of time on the Internet.” When informed that the list contained many sites that don’t accept Americanplayers, Willems responded by saying the action won’t hurt those sites then. “We’re using this process to control what’s available of an illegal activity,” Willems add- ed. “It’s about the availability or potential for unlawful activ- ity.” “The statute we’re citing is civ- il,” Willems said. “We’re not seeking to criminalize (online gambling). We’re not seeking to prevent Internet gambling sites from doing their business where it’s lawful -- we’re just seeking to prevent them from doing it inMinnesotawhere it’s unlawful. I’m only concerned about the state of Minnesota.” Williams also said that only sites where the actual betting took place would be blocked and that sites that simply advertise their serviceswouldnotbeaffected. WhenaskedwhyAGEDwas seeking toblockonlinegam- bling sites from Minneso- tans, Willems acknowledged that therewasnogreat public push for this move and said this was a natural evolution of Minnesota’sbelief that Internet gambling is illegal. “Internet gambling is unlawful inMinnesota,” he said. “Sohow do you deal with activitywithin the confines of our jurisdiction while understanding there’s a global aspect to this? “As the industry changed and phone companies became ISPs, and ISPsbecamephone compa- nies it reached a point in time wherewe realized that a reason- able reading of the statute ap- plied.Our goal isnot tohurt the operators in their lawful opera- tions. And the technology has grown to the point where it’s a fairly straight forwardprocess.” AGED’s actions could face some tough legal sledding because it