1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
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!

UKGC's power to snoop on your entire browsing history

Discussion in 'Slots Discussion' started by geordiecolin, Nov 27, 2016.

    Nov 27, 2016
  1. geordiecolin

    geordiecolin Senior Member CAG PABnononaccred mm4

    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    West Sussex
    The Investigatory Powers Bill or "Snooper’s Charter"is now as good as passed. It just needs Royal Assent before it becomes law. Even deleted data.

    The UK Gambling Commission is included in an extensive list of agencies that can now ask for any UK citizen's browsing history, as outlined in Schedule 4 of the bill. But what justification can there be for them to be able to snoop on what we do online?
    Should the fact that I have Cliff Richard records on loop on youtube be allowed effect their considerations in my dealings with them?
     
  2. Nov 27, 2016
  3. RichyJ75

    RichyJ75 Silly Member PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    Dogsbody and personal servant to my kids
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Big Brother is looking over us!

    Personally I think it shouldn't be allowed as everyone is entitled to a 'personal life'. Great if they want to track people looking to build bombs or act illegally, but am sure my gambling history and visiting artistic sites shouldn't pose a problem!!!

    However, I can see why certain authorities may need to see history of casinos etc as I suppose if someone was depositing large sums at casinos then declares themselves bankrupt, the insolvency service may want to track down funds, etc if the person wishes to withdraw it at a later date once safe to do so.

    I have a feeling this subject may cause public unrest when reported on in the news, etc.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Nov 27, 2016
  5. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    My thoughts exactly - governments appear to be intruding increasingly on almost every aspect of our lives, usually justifying each little removal of privacy or rights as essential for "security", "health" or "tax" reasons.

    Bit by bit these bureaucrats and politicians are eroding too many of our traditional rights as citizens and I don't like it.
     
  6. Nov 27, 2016
  7. Richas

    Richas Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Location:
    UK
    They are the charging authority for offences under the 2005 Gambling Act, essentially the job that the Crown Prosecution Services does for most laws, Most of those are offences aboutproviding gambling services without a licence etc and apply to firm but there is also Section 42 on cheating which is all to relevant to peer to peer gambling like poker.

    The who you are communicating with when is pretty important to collusion charges but as ever they would need reasonable suspicion to get access to that by applying for it within their own authority and would need a full judge issued warrant for content of the communications to be monitored/checked which requires probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion.
     
  8. Nov 28, 2016
  9. 09237653

    09237653 Senior Member

    Occupation:
    .
    Location:
    UK
    Governments and NCA, FBI etc have all been spying on us for years, all this bill does is legalizes it, but the list of departments that will have full access to this data is a bit worrying.
     
  10. Nov 28, 2016
  11. geordiecolin

    geordiecolin Senior Member CAG PABnononaccred mm4

    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    West Sussex
    So the UKGC themselves are limited by law as to who they are allowed to snoop on and need to justify it first via the judicial system :thumbsup:

    Lets hope that all of the other authorities granted the right to snoop have to go through the same process first. But I doubt it.
     
  12. Nov 28, 2016
  13. Richas

    Richas Senior Member

    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Location:
    UK
    Yes, at least to some extent. Personaly I'd like the top level information to require judicial review rather than review by their internal person in charge of requests which post event may be subject to judicial review bt the trouble with that is that it is so frequent that investigators want the "who communicated to" data. The police made over 600k requests for phone records last year.Now that is essentially whats in your phone bill and that might be for suspects or missing persons but it is mostly suspects and the reason is to track who they talk to (and with mobiles from where).

    The browser list stuff is the equivalent of that phone bill. The more people shift to online communication the more it matters to investigations, going deeper to what was said or monitoring requires a judge.

    The rest have the same process that I think is too weak at the outset but having a non judge assess if it meets the criteria internally and signing it off is a lot cheaper than that person also having to get a judge to agree before doing it.
     
  14. Nov 29, 2016
  15. geordiecolin

    geordiecolin Senior Member CAG PABnononaccred mm4

    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    West Sussex
    The trouble there is that the real sinister clued up criminals and the like dodge this snooping at will by using the dark web.
    Did you know that the likes of me only have access to something like 10% of the contents of the internet because the rest is to be found on the dark web?
     
  16. Nov 29, 2016
  17. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    From a professional perspective as someone who has to review claims of fraudulent activity, I can absolutely see the usefulness of such a power. Obviously ADRs aren't going to be the ones given this power, but I can see why - when we refer certain types of issues on - this power would make the UKGC's job markedly easier. Between money laundering activity and basic multi-accounting, there's a large amount of illegal activity going on in the online gambling industry on the player side and investigating this becomes a lot easier with this sort of information.

    From a personal perspective, I do have huge concerns about this bill in general and feel it provides the government far too much right to spy on the lives of ordinary citizens.

    On balance, for me, the cons outweigh the pros....

    TP
     
  18. Nov 29, 2016
  19. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    [my bolding] IMO the (possible) justification for the snoop powers in our field goes a bit further. The fraudster game is getting __much__ more complex and sophisticated these days and without something to re-level the playing field the work of people like you and me -- complaints resolution, which often turns into fraud investigation -- is going to become very much more difficult. I'm not saying we should have access to the information that the snoop powers are trying to turn up but I can certainly argue that someone should. A regulated, responsible government body isn't necessarily a bad choice and the reality, I think, is that in one form or another most governments are doing it anyway.

    I've spent my entire working life in one field of the computer business or another and I have to say that IMO the web is a whole new ballgame as far as access to information VS privacy goes. Don't get me wrong. I'm a BIG privacy advocate but I believe the reality is that the web provides a lot of new hidey-holes those who would "hack the system" for their personal gain. These are the bandits of our day and if we're not willing to chase them down their rabbit holes then those rabbit holes will become filled to bursting.

    In principal I agree but something needs to be done to counter the vast opportunities the web provides to cyber-savvy fraudsters and criminals. What's it gonna be?
     
  20. Nov 29, 2016
  21. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK

    I agree with absolutely everything you've just posted and I don't have a good answer to the above question.

    Having discussed some very serious issues with you recently, we're both aware of how much more difficult it's getting to catch those that flout the laws. If something doesn't change in the immediate future my honest estimation is that upfront deposit bonuses won't last another 5 years. They're becoming unsustainable for operators who are seeing massive surges of likely linked accounts, playing in unprofitable manners, but which are very difficult to actually prove are linked.

    However that aspect of fraud within the industry can be mitigated easily by a shift in the promotional systems being used. If operators were instead to offer post wager rewards, they could actually afford to offer players more by stripping out the potential for the promotions to be beaten in such a large scale fashion. I understand that on first glance these types of promotions look less attractive to players, but they can easily provide greater value and my opinion at the present time is that market pressures are going to force this shift.

    My personal preference would be to see fraudulent activity pressured by removing the incentive rather than providing the government greater powers to dig into our personal lives.

    TP
     
  22. Nov 29, 2016
  23. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Absolutely! Always a better way to go, and in the case of our industry and the bonus issue in particular I think such an approach is actually workable, if not overly attractive at first glance to the operators (thinking of your wager-based bonus idea).

    In the world at large though I'm less confident that the incentives for cyber-crime are so easily removed. As the population increasingly turns -- and is pushed -- toward life online I think the justification for seeking new powers of investigation are pretty much self-evident. On the other hand maybe I just watch too much science fiction. :D
     
  24. Nov 29, 2016
  25. ThePOGG

    ThePOGG Meister Member webmeister

    Occupation:
    Casino Affiliate
    Location:
    UK
    Couldn't agree more - my perspective is coloured by my focus. The reality is that every year the opportunities for organised crime and terrorist groups to misuse ICT grow. Our industry, while having its own problems, is far from a priority facet in this particular conversation. Essentially the world is being left with two bad options, allowing this problem to expand or taking actions that infringe on our personal liberties. Society has to decide which of those it can live with.
     
  26. Nov 29, 2016
  27. JackTenOff

    JackTenOff Webmaster webmeister

    Occupation:
    nananananana
    Location:
    uk
    It's pretty disgusting the way the UK is going. The government has also introduced a mandatory 'porn' filter to ban sites they see fit You must register/login in order to see the link. looks like they are taking steps to implement a chinese firewall style system to block sites which they deem 'unfit'. This can't end well.
     
  28. Nov 29, 2016
  29. geordiecolin

    geordiecolin Senior Member CAG PABnononaccred mm4

    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    West Sussex
    Says JackTenOff :eek:

    It is highly hypocritical of a government who are seeking to gag information that would compromise their integrity and qualifications for their positions. This new legislation suits them.
     

Share This Page