Gambling Federation Malware

[falderal]

In all honesty, Caruso, I feel justice has not been served. First of all, multiple trust crimes go unpunished. The punishment thus far is a civil, internal reprimand from an organization.

Our systems were compromised - not uncommon for the internet. But the allegations of data theft have not been investigated with the teeth afforded by the severity of the crime. Remember, we know nothing of what was taken - including whether or not credit card info was taken. We also have no idea if the data was further sold or distributed.

Justice in this matter will not be meted out by an organization whose only power is to kick one out of the clubhouse, or levy pocket-change fines.

I demand to know where my data is, and who stole it.

[Macgyver]

I demand to know where my data is, and who stole it.

Actually, IMHO, a more appropriate statement is:

"I demand to know where my data is, who stole it, or even if it was stolen at all."

But if it was stolen, I wholeheartedly agree that whatever specific info was stolen should be disclosed.

[falderal]

Quite correct, Mcgyver, "if". Yet if the organizations have believed the bull from Fogli, that the data was stolen, is it not curious that an investigation by police authorities in Canada has not been launched, encouraged or even MENTIONED.

In other words, the IGC have believed Fogli - even shown understanding for him - as if the crime occurred, yet despite this, they've not treated this very serious crime as such by forwarding the information to Canadian authorities.

Despite the rhetoric of their membership policies, the IGC is not protecting the player's interests. But they do seem to be protecting former IGC director and admitted malware distributor Flaviano Fogli, who so far has escaped prosecution under Canadian law. Basically, it's like being fired from a bar for admittedly stealing from the patrons: not a punishment but a disassociation with the criminal element and nothing more.

In my opinion, the IGC is now an accessory after the fact.

[edited for grammer and grampa]

[caruso]

Small victories. Chip away. Don't expect everything you want or you'll go insane.

I consider this outcome a great victory. I expected no more - which isn't to say I wouldn't like more.

However, I'm still interested in the affiliate stance. If affiliates all maintain their Gfed links, little will have been achieved. I'd like to know if any affiliates actually HAVE dropped them, or know of other affiliates who have. That is many times more important than the most draconian stance taken by the industry.

[jetset]

Quite correct, Mcgyver, "if". Yet if the organizations have believed the bull from Fogli, that the data was stolen, is it not curious that an investigation by police authorities in Canada has not been launched, encouraged or even MENTIONED.

In other words, the IGC have believed Fogli - even shown understanding for him - as if the crime occurred, yet despite this, they've not treated this very serious crime as such by forwarding the information to Canadian authorities.

Despite the rhetoric of their membership policies, the IGC is not protecting the player's interests. But they do seem to be protecting former IGC director and admitted malware distributor Flaviano Fogli, who so far has escaped prosecution under Canadian law. Basically, it's like being fired from a bar for admittedly stealing from the patrons: not a punishment but a disassociation with the criminal element and nothing more.

In my opinion, the IGC is now an accessory after the fact.

[edited for grammer and grampa]

Falderal, let me start by saying that I understand your outrage, which is shared by most of us.

Asking these valid questions on a forum is a good idea to share your views with other posters, but I think an additional measure that may help you to feel you are doing something more concrete might be to write a formal letter to the IGC directorate and complain.

If enough people do that it may rattle their cage, although I suspect that the answer you will be given is that the imposition of punitive fines or like punishments is not permitted by their Constitution and the most severe sanction they can hand out is expulsion.

They could also point out that theirs was not the information that was *stolen* which could complicate acceptance by the police of IGC as a prejudiced complainant. But it would certainly be interesting to know if Fogli is sufficiently sure of his *excuse* to have lodged a complaint on behalf of GFED - civil or criminal.

You could additionally consider writing directly to Fogli himself and see if he is sufficiently responsible to answer a genuine quest for information of value to all of us by one who has possibly been prejudiced by his actions.

Like you, I would like to know whether he has firm evidence that the database was stolen, how much sensitive player information was contained therein, the identity of the person alleged to have stolen it and what actions GFED has taken to report the theft to the authorities or engage in civil litigation to retrieve it.

I have not been able to obtain a response from GFED on this, but given my involvement in exposing them it is perhaps not surprising that I am persona non grata over there!

[Casinomeister]

...However, I'm still interested in the affiliate stance. If affiliates all maintain their Gfed links, little will have been achieved. I'd like to know if any affiliates actually HAVE dropped them, or know of other affiliates who have. That is many times more important than the most draconian stance taken by the industry.

Well, both the GPWA and Cap have disassociated themselves with GFed, but I do not believe they dictate who or what their members promote. So it's strictly up to the affiliate. Carely still has her site here:
http://www.gambling-federation-casinos.com/ which to me is pretty disappointing.

Maybe she needs to add a "Malware Free" statement

But if you do a google search on "gambling federation casinos", it doesn't look too good for GFed.

[jetset]

QUOTE: Incorrect. In the Lake Palace incident eCOGRA reacted to a formal complaint submitted by poster Stanhope here direct to the CEO, who then immediately reviewed the case and overturned the ruling by the FGA, ruling in favour of the player. Since then, as an additional measure, all FGA rulings are reviewed by the CEO who has discretion to refer to the independent directors or external experts if he has any doubts. UNQUOTE

Stanford, my apologies - I inadvertently mangled your name in the above, and your laudable efforts in resolving the Lake Palace affair deserve better recognition for the record than that.

[caruso]

More sleaze from Gambling Federation:

http://mb.winneronline.com/showthread.html?t=19971

"they won`t pay claiming that once you open ten account in their different casinos it is like you open multiple accounts."

Since I can't post at WOL, I'll have to advise the player here to contact Cindy Carley at the GPWA, whose site he signed up from. I think she'll be able to "persuade" them to do the right thing on this one. Clearly, this is not account fraud; the casinos all masquerade as seperate entities, and there is no reason given anywhere to lead you to believe otherwise.

http://www.gpwa.net/forum/viewforum....e64c611edc390d