Casinos
Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
Games
All Games
Bonuses
Popular Bonus Filters
Forums
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Complaints
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Gambling News
Popular News Sections
Gambling Federation Malware
- Thread starter jmildstone
- Start date
spearmaster
RIP Ted
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Location
- Heaven
There are a total of three entries in the hosts file that were made by G-Fed software. Two of them, not including Royal Dutch, were done more than a year ago - and G-Fed has said zero about this.
To claim that this is action taken to protect players against spammers was:
1. False
2. Beyond the realm of possibility since modifying a hosts file will not block emails
To claim that this action was in response to an alleged theft of the database was:
1. False, since they have obviously done this to two other casinos at least one year ago.
2. Stupid, because anyone who hadn't installed a G-Fed casino for a year could probably have proven this.
All this goes to show that the CEO knew exactly what he was doing. Knew that he was doing this BEFORE he joined IGC and IGGBA. Knowingly signed agreements that bound him to serve in the best interests of the industry.
In short, the truth was not told in any of these instances.
To claim that this is action taken to protect players against spammers was:
1. False
2. Beyond the realm of possibility since modifying a hosts file will not block emails
To claim that this action was in response to an alleged theft of the database was:
1. False, since they have obviously done this to two other casinos at least one year ago.
2. Stupid, because anyone who hadn't installed a G-Fed casino for a year could probably have proven this.
All this goes to show that the CEO knew exactly what he was doing. Knew that he was doing this BEFORE he joined IGC and IGGBA. Knowingly signed agreements that bound him to serve in the best interests of the industry.
In short, the truth was not told in any of these instances.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Location
- Home Office
Spear you are exactly right, he knew what was happening the entire time, hell he maybe came up with the idea!
On top of all of this has it stopped thier practice of sending spam emails? Nope, I just deleted 3 from them today! I would think if they were truly remorseful they would do as Greedygirl said.....
Email all players and explain they have compromised the player
send a detailed discription of the malware and how to remove it from the computer
and last I say close all of the casinos(we know that will not happen)
I bet they are busy working on the next "marketing ploy" and trying to ensure ways to NOT GET CAUGHT!
On top of all of this has it stopped thier practice of sending spam emails? Nope, I just deleted 3 from them today! I would think if they were truly remorseful they would do as Greedygirl said.....
Email all players and explain they have compromised the player
send a detailed discription of the malware and how to remove it from the computer
and last I say close all of the casinos(we know that will not happen)
I bet they are busy working on the next "marketing ploy" and trying to ensure ways to NOT GET CAUGHT!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
The iGGBA has just announced their revocation of Gambling Federation's membership:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/search
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/search
Evidence?
I've read through the entire tome of this thread and I am left with great concerns.
The organizations that reviewed this case gave no indication of evidence backing the following G-Fed claims:
1) There was, indeed, a theft of customer info.
2) There were ANY complaints about spam.
3) The spam occurred prior to the malware.
4) The malware was indeed specifically written for the stated purpose.
1) Since names are not named, and authorities apparently not contacted for a SERIOUS crime involving UNSPECIFIED victims, there is only the word of an admitted malware distributor, and we all know we can trust them.
2) Again, the organizations appear to be taking his word for this. At this point - over a month of prominent threads about this - not a single angry victim of the alleged spam has come forward. On this Easter Sunday, I ask: Where is the passion of which G-Fed has been playing on?
3) Since we lack the thief, the spam and the spam victim, we lack the timing of the alleged theft and subsequent spam, and its correlation to the malware.
4) PLEASE!! A malware author sophisticated enough to write the code to control systems settings would most certainly know that the malware would be entirely useless at preventing spam. They would, however, know that it would cut off traffic to these COMPETING sites.
And so I offer that Fogli was wrongfully taken for his word that G-Fed was a victim, which led to the acknowledgement:
This is strikingly compassionate - that is, until one realizes that the IGC's board of directors reads like a who's-who of casino interests and their lawyers. Such groups act as buffer zones from government and legal intervention, under the guise of being "self disciplinary" or "self regulatory". The proof of this claim is simple: the organizations knew of SEVERAL TRUST CRIMES commited in Canada, and, from any material presented by them, did not report these to the authorities.
The IGC is situated in Canada, and is therefore also bound by Canadian law.
Who will police the police? Dismissals??!! $5,000 fines for imprisonable offenses??!! Hardly suitable punishment. It is obvious to me that these organizations need representation from us, the players, without whose grievous losses and nearly blind trust there would be no gaming industry.
After reading this thread, I would like to nominate CasinoMeister for position of Player Advocate.
I've read through the entire tome of this thread and I am left with great concerns.
The organizations that reviewed this case gave no indication of evidence backing the following G-Fed claims:
1) There was, indeed, a theft of customer info.
2) There were ANY complaints about spam.
3) The spam occurred prior to the malware.
4) The malware was indeed specifically written for the stated purpose.
1) Since names are not named, and authorities apparently not contacted for a SERIOUS crime involving UNSPECIFIED victims, there is only the word of an admitted malware distributor, and we all know we can trust them.
2) Again, the organizations appear to be taking his word for this. At this point - over a month of prominent threads about this - not a single angry victim of the alleged spam has come forward. On this Easter Sunday, I ask: Where is the passion of which G-Fed has been playing on?
3) Since we lack the thief, the spam and the spam victim, we lack the timing of the alleged theft and subsequent spam, and its correlation to the malware.
4) PLEASE!! A malware author sophisticated enough to write the code to control systems settings would most certainly know that the malware would be entirely useless at preventing spam. They would, however, know that it would cut off traffic to these COMPETING sites.
And so I offer that Fogli was wrongfully taken for his word that G-Fed was a victim, which led to the acknowledgement:
This is strikingly compassionate - that is, until one realizes that the IGC's board of directors reads like a who's-who of casino interests and their lawyers. Such groups act as buffer zones from government and legal intervention, under the guise of being "self disciplinary" or "self regulatory". The proof of this claim is simple: the organizations knew of SEVERAL TRUST CRIMES commited in Canada, and, from any material presented by them, did not report these to the authorities.
The IGC is situated in Canada, and is therefore also bound by Canadian law.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Who will police the police? Dismissals??!! $5,000 fines for imprisonable offenses??!! Hardly suitable punishment. It is obvious to me that these organizations need representation from us, the players, without whose grievous losses and nearly blind trust there would be no gaming industry.
After reading this thread, I would like to nominate CasinoMeister for position of Player Advocate.
Since the organizations in question ended up taking as hard a line as possible by ousting Gambling Federation, the "acceptance" of the obviously spurious claim of property theft has been relatively glossed over. Anything less, and if the spurious claim had been used as justification for NOT ousting them, then you can be sure the matter would have been discussed to the point that it would have been clear and unquestionable that the "theft" claim was complete hearsay at best, bullshit at worst, and IGC and iGGBA would have been hard-pushed to not acknowledge the fact.
However, your point of the principle of the thing, that the "regulators" look out for the industry first and the players second, is very valid. The reason that this "regulation" we have here, in the form of the high-profile forums populated by players, casinos and portals alike, is so good is that we're here to represent ourselves, and as such we get fast, fair justice. It's lean and it's mean - and it works. The moment Bryan and people like him hand over to the "regulators" we are done for, because we'll be fighting TWO enemies. Bryan takes flack as being "casino-friendly", and I have some disagreements myself with him in some regards, but he is undoubtedly a friend to the players. So are many of the other lower-profile affiliates. The "regulators", financed by back-handers or up-front payment from the casinos, will not be our friends because we won't be able to police them and as such they'll have no reason to be. There'll be no channels. There'll be none of the "mutual policing" of each other - players, portals and casinos - that there is now that is so beneficial to everyone.
Personally, I'm optimistic: although we are doomed to suffer "regulation" at some point (it's already started to rear its nasty head in recent years), I doubt Bryan and his like will ever hand over the reins. In fact, as long as this "lean and mean" setup of ours remains in force, I think it'll actually "regulate" the regulators - as it has already done in the past, remember the Lake Palace incident? - and those relatively few of us who know the scene will not lose our extraordinarily efficient tool of justice.
However, your point of the principle of the thing, that the "regulators" look out for the industry first and the players second, is very valid. The reason that this "regulation" we have here, in the form of the high-profile forums populated by players, casinos and portals alike, is so good is that we're here to represent ourselves, and as such we get fast, fair justice. It's lean and it's mean - and it works. The moment Bryan and people like him hand over to the "regulators" we are done for, because we'll be fighting TWO enemies. Bryan takes flack as being "casino-friendly", and I have some disagreements myself with him in some regards, but he is undoubtedly a friend to the players. So are many of the other lower-profile affiliates. The "regulators", financed by back-handers or up-front payment from the casinos, will not be our friends because we won't be able to police them and as such they'll have no reason to be. There'll be no channels. There'll be none of the "mutual policing" of each other - players, portals and casinos - that there is now that is so beneficial to everyone.
Personally, I'm optimistic: although we are doomed to suffer "regulation" at some point (it's already started to rear its nasty head in recent years), I doubt Bryan and his like will ever hand over the reins. In fact, as long as this "lean and mean" setup of ours remains in force, I think it'll actually "regulate" the regulators - as it has already done in the past, remember the Lake Palace incident? - and those relatively few of us who know the scene will not lose our extraordinarily efficient tool of justice.
QUOTE I think it'll actually "regulate" the regulators - as it has already done in the past, remember the Lake Palace incident? - and those relatively few of us who know the scene will not lose our extraordinarily efficient tool of justice.UNQUOTE
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.
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.
Exactly. That's what happened internally. I'm referring to the EXternal events that caused it to happen.
Bryan caused it to happen; the poster (who wasn't any "Stanhope", who I've never heard of??) caused it to happen; myself and all the rest of us who commented on the crime caused it to happen; you caused it to happen; ALL of us caused it to happen.
As long as we continue to collectively regulate the "regulators", they can regulate as much as they want as far as I'm concerned. When we stop regulating them, or are caused to stop, I'll start worrying.
Bryan caused it to happen; the poster (who wasn't any "Stanhope", who I've never heard of??) caused it to happen; myself and all the rest of us who commented on the crime caused it to happen; you caused it to happen; ALL of us caused it to happen.
As long as we continue to collectively regulate the "regulators", they can regulate as much as they want as far as I'm concerned. When we stop regulating them, or are caused to stop, I'll start worrying.
Justice
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.
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.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Location
- North Carolina
falderal said:
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.
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]
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]
Last edited:
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.
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.
falderal said:
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!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
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:caruso said:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
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.
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.
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.
More sleaze from Gambling Federation:
"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.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
"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.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
-
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!
At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!