Excessive Zeal: A Response to John Kindt The Economic Impacts of Legalized Gambling Activities. This site uses cookies to improve performance. If your browser does not accept cookies, you cannot view this site. Setting Your Browser to Accept Cookies There are many reasons why a cookie could not be set correctly. Below are the most common reasons: You have cookies disabled in your browser. You need to reset your browser to accept cookies or to ask you if you want to accept cookies. Why Does this Site Require Cookies? This site uses cookies to improve performance by remembering that you are logged in when you go from page to page. What Gets Stored in a Cookie? This site stores nothing other than an automatically generated session ID in the cookie; no other information is captured.
In general, only the information that you provide, or the choices you make while visiting a web site, can be stored in a cookie. BusinessDay - Get SA’s gambling house in order. JUDGE NB Tuchten's judgment in the North Gauteng High Court last week, declaring online gaming illegal, is a major victory for SA's gaming authorities. For the past six years, online casino group Piggs Peak has maintained that because its online casino is operated outside SA, it is not breaking any laws. However, Judge Tuchten ruled that section 11 of the National Gambling Act prohibits gaming as a whole, and it does not matter that the casino is based outside the country. While Piggs Peak plans to appeal the judgment, the groundbreaking ruling has forced the group and its rival, Silversands, to suspend the online services they offer to South Africans until their appeal has been heard.
That is exactly what the Gauteng and national gambling boards have been fighting for all these years. However, it may prove to be a pyrrhic victory, as the enforcement of prohibition fails to grasp the very prickly nettle that is online gambling. Talking to the Police All the Time. I started writing this entry while thinking about the "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" fallacy. What do you say to someone who says that they have nothing to hide, or that some information about them is worthless anyway, so they don't care about some violation of their privacy? What do you say to a police officer who says that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear by answering questions?
It implies that if you refuse to answer then you're probably "not innocent". That "pleading the 5th" is now used as a joke to admit guilt in light banter, is a sign of how pervasive the fallacy has become. Those kind of statements expose naïveté or, if intended as a manipulative statement, perversity. You may buy some time by mentioning anecdotes such as the man falsely accused of arson because by coincidence, he bought certain things in a store at a certain time (betrayed by his grocery loyalty card) [1] . [6] Mark Nestmann (2009) Stupid Facebook Tricks. Twittersquatting. « Vendorprisey. I’m not a lawyer. This is just my musing, not any sort of formal legal advice. I was reviewing answers to my Software and Law survey last night when I saw a tweet where someone was wondering how to claim the company name back from a Twitter user. The user doesn’t work for the company and was apparently bad mouthing the company. This got me thinking about trademark dispute management in Twitter. or more correctly the lack thereof.
Several years ago I wrote an LLM paper on domain names. It was all about the dispute resolution issues to solve trademark disputes. I remember reading some excellent stuff from legal academics like Froomkin, Edwards, Mueller, and Geist. Well, what about cybersquatting in Twitter? Take this case: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. With domain names, there is a procedure. ICANN has a dispute resolution policy (UDRP), and there is also specific anti-cybersquatting legislation (ACPA) in the US, and there is case law and specific statute in other countries about domain name disputes. 1. Congress OKs Port Security Bill. WASHINGTON — Congress early this morning approved and sent to President Bush a bill aimed at shoring up anti-terrorism defenses at U.S. ports.
The port security measure, which would bring millions of federal dollars to the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex and other harbors, became a GOP priority after a political flap earlier this year over a Dubai company's ill-fated attempt to manage facilities at several U.S. ports. The measure, which Bush is expected to sign, authorizes $400 million a year in federal grants to ports for the next five years, requires minimum security standards for the nearly 11 million cargo containers that enter U.S. ports each year and establishes a pilot program at three foreign ports to scan all U.S.
-bound cargo. It also sets up security training for waterfront workers and mandates radiation detectors at major ports by the end of next year. And it establishes deadlines for special identification cards to be issued to port workers after background checks. Rep. Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.