Check on Online Gambling regime Scoop News

online gambling in new zealand public discussion document

online gambling in new zealand public discussion document - win

Anonymity by State/Country: Comprehensive Guide.

Ever since i started playing regularly, i've researched anonymity in places. Here is what i have for each state plus a bunch of other countries. If anything is outdated or incorrect, please comment.
Go here for the most up to date version of the list: https://www.reddit.com/LotteryLaws/comments/dikqrq/anonymity_by_statecountry_conprehensive_global/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Edits to this list may occur, but not as frequently as the one linked.
United States
Alabama: No current lottery. Source: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/05/22/alabama-lottery-bill-dead-session-says-chairman/3772049002/
Alaska: No current lottery. Source: https://statelaws.findlaw.com/alaska-law/alaska-state-lotteries-laws.html
Arizona: 100% Anonymous for all wins of $100,000 and over. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-becomes-latest-state-shield-lottery-winners-names-n995696
Arkansas: Not Anonymous/other entities unclear. "Winner information is subject to disclosure under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A winner who receives a prize or prize payment from the ASL grants the ASL, its agents, officers, employees, and representatives the right to use, publish (in print or by means of the Internet) and reproduce the winner’s name, physical likeness, photograph, portraits, and statements made by the winner, and use audio sound clips and video or film footage of the winner for the purpose of press releases, advertising, and promoting the ASL". Source: https://www.myarkansaslottery.com/claim-your-prize
California: Not anonymous/only individuals can claim. “ The name and location of the retailer who sold you the winning ticket, the date you won and the amount of your winnings are also matters of public record and are subject to disclosure. You can form a trust prior to claiming your prize, but our regulations do not allow a trust to claim a prize. Understand that your name is still public and reportable”. Source: https://static.www.calottery.com/~/media/Publications/Popular_Downloads/winners-handbook-October%202018-%20English.pdf
Colorado: Not anonymous/anonymous via trust. “As part of the Open Records Act, we are required to release to the public your name, hometown, amount you won and the game you played. This information will be posted on coloradolottery.com and will be furnished to media upon request.” Source: https://www.coloradolottery.com/en/games/lotto/claim-winnings/ Source: https://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/01/15/in-colorado-and-other-states-lottery-winners-can-keep-names-secret/
Connecticut: Not Anonymous/Anonymous via a trust or LLC, "Certain information about our winners is public information: Winner's name and place of residence, date of claim, game played, prize amount won, and the selling retailer's name and location. While most winners claim prizes using their individual names, some winners come forward using other legal entities (i.e., trusts, business partnership) to claim their prizes. In those instances, the Lottery will promote the win using that legal entity's name. For more information about such instances, please consult your personal accountant or legal advisor.” Source: https://www.ctlottery.org/Content/winner_publicity.aspx
Delaware: 100% anonymous if requested by winner. "Many winners have chosen to remain anonymous, as allowed by state law, but their excitement is yours to share!" Source: https://www.delottery.com/Winners and https://www.delottery.com/FAQs
DC: Not anonymous/Anonymous possible via a trust or LLC. Anonymous question is not directly answered on lottery website. "In the District of Columbia, specific lottery winner information is public record." However, a Powerball Jackpot win was claimed via a LLC in 2009. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050402008.html
Florida: Not anonymous. "Florida Lottery winners cannot remain anonymous. Florida law mandates that the Florida Lottery provide the winner's name, city of residence, game won, date won and amount won to any third party who requests the information; however Florida Lottery winners' home addresses and telephone numbers are confidential." The Florida Lottery allows trusts to claim it, however winner information is still released in compliance with the law. Source: http://www.flalottery.com/faq Source: https://www.fox13news.com/amp/consumehit-the-lottery-remain-anonymous-not-in-florida
Georgia: 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. Lottery winners with prizes over $250,000 can keep their identity secret upon request. Source: https://www.stl.news/georgia-governor-signs-bill-allowing-lottery-winners-remain-anonymous/121962/
Guam: Anonymity appears to be an option. Source: https://www.kuam.com/story/11218413/guamanian-wins-big-in-sportsbingo-but-has-yet-to-claim-2m-prize
Hawaii: No current lottery. Source: https://www.kitv.com/story/40182224/powerball-or-mega-millions-lottery-in-hawaii
Idaho: Not anonymous. Claimants or anonymity is not discussed on lottery website. But in 2005, the Idaho Lottery Commission denied Brad Dukes request to remain anonymous: "Idaho Lottery Commission officials had denied his request to remain anonymous, arguing that state law and the integrity of the lottery required that his name be made public to show he had no ties to lottery employees or vendors." Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8242862/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/million-not-enough-lottery-winne
Illinois. 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. Source: https://www.thetelegraph.com/news/article/Hidden-riches-Big-lottery-winner-in-Beardstown-13626173.php
Indiana: Appears to be anonymous via a LLC. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website. But the "Powerball winner from February 22nd has chosen to remain anonymous after coming forward to claim their jackpot of $435.3 million. Indiana is one of the few states which allows players to remain private after a big win, and the lucky ticket holder has set up a limited liability corporation to receive their money." Source: https://www.lottery.net/news/indiana-powerball-winner-claims-jackpot-anonymously
Iowa: Not Anonymous. "When you win an Iowa Lottery prize of $600 or more, you have to fill out a winner claim form that includes your name, address and Social Security number before you can claim your winnings. Iowa law makes the information on that claim form public, meaning that anyone can request a copy of the form to see who has won the prize. We redact sensitive information, such as your Social Security number, from the form before we release it, but all other details are considered public information under Iowa law (Iowa Code Section 99G.34(5)." Source: https://www.ialotteryblog.com/2008/11/can-prize-winne.html. For group play, "Prizes can be paid to players who play as a group. A check can be written to an entity such as a trust or to a single individual." Source: https://ialottery.com/pages/Games/ClaimingPrizes.aspx
Kansas: 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. Can choose to remain anonymous. "Kansas is one of a handful of states that does not have this requirement. If you win a prize in Kansas, you may request that your identity not be released publicly." Source: https://www.kslottery.com/faqs#faq-8
Kentucky: Anonymity appears to be an option. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website. But multiple instances of winners claiming anonymously have been reported in the news. "Kentucky Lottery spokesman Chip Polson said the $1 million Powerball winner claimed the prize on May 15 and the Mega Million winner claimed the prize on May 12. He confirmed that both players wanted their identity to remain a secret." Source: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/05/19/two-1-million-lottery-winners-who-bought-tickets-louisville-want-privacy/101870414/
Louisiana: Not anonymous/other entities unclear. "Under the Lottery's statute, all prize payment records are open records, meaning that the public has a right to request the information. Depending upon the amount won and public or media interest in the win, winners may NOT be able to remain anonymous. The statute also allows the Lottery to use winners' names and city of residence for publicity purposes such as news releases. The Lottery's regular practice is not to use winner information in paid advertising or product promotion without the winner's willingness to participate. Source: https://louisianalottery.com/faq/easy-5#35
Maine: Unclear. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website. But lottery winner in 2012 was given a 5 day anonymous period. Source: https://www.pressherald.com/2012/09/28/lottery-winner-comes-forward-to-claim-prize_2012-09-29/
Maryland: 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. “Can a winner remain anonymous. "Yes, you can. When we meet with winners who claim prizes at our Baltimore office, we encourage them to embrace the moment and celebrate by posing for a photo that we can publish. However, anyone who wins a prize on a Maryland Lottery draw game ticket or scratch-off ticket has the right to remain anonymous. We do not release any such winner's name or photo unless the winner has specifically given us written consent to do so. Source: https://www.mdlottery.com/about-us/faqs/
Massachusetts: Not anonymous/anonymous via trust "Lottery regulations state that a claimant's name, city or town, image, amount of prize, claim date and game are public record. Therefore, photographs may be taken and used to publicize winnings." Source: https://www.masslive.com/news/2018/05/lottery_sees_increase_in_winne.html
Michigan: Anonymous claiming for state games only, Not Anonymous for Powerball and Mega Millions. "Winner Anonymity. Michigan law requires written consent before disclosing the identity of the winner of $10,000 or more from the State lottery games Lotto47 and Fantasy 5. You further understand and agree that your identity may be disclosed, and that disclosure may be required, as the winner of any prize from the multi-state games Powerball and Mega Millions." Source: https://www.michiganlottery.com/games/mega-millions
Minnesota: Not anonymous. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website but lottery blog states "In Minnesota, lottery winners cannot remain anonymous. A winner's name, city, prize amount won and the place that the winning ticket was sold is public data and will be released to media and posted on our website." Source: https://www.mnlottery.com/blog/you-won-now-what
Mississippi: UncleaPending lottery. Bill approved to create a lottery in 2018. The new lottery corporation has drafted policies on release of records, but has not addressed winner anonymity. Source: https://www.wapt.com/article/mississippi-lottery-when-will-we-be-able-to-play/26449292 Source: http://m.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/ap16/mississippi-lottery-board-adopts-rules-ethics-and-/
Missouri: Not anonymous. "At the Lottery Headquarters, a member of the Lottery's communications staff will ask you questions about your win, such as how many tickets you bought, when you found out that you won and what you plan to do with your prize money. This information will be used for a news release. You will also be asked, but are not required, to participate in a news conference, most likely at the store where you purchased your winning ticket." Source: http://www.molottery.com/whenyouwin/jackpotwin.shtm
Montana: Not anonymous/anonymous via trust. A trust appears to protect anonymity. "In Montana, by law, certain information about lottery winners is considered public. That information includes: the winner's name, the amount won and the winner's community of residence. Winners may choose to claim as an individual or they may choose to form a trust and claim their prize as a trust. If a trust claims a lottery prize, the name of the trust is considered public information. A trust must have a federal tax identification number in order to claim a Montana Lottery prize." Source: https://www.montanalottery.com/en/view/about-faqs
Nebraska: Not anonymous/anonymous via LLC. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website but a winner created a legal entity to claim anonymously in 2014. "Nebraska Lottery spokesman Neil Watson said with the help of a Kearney lawyer, the winner or winners have created a legal entity called Carpe Diem LLC." Source: https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/m-nebraska-powerball-winner-to-remain-anonymous/article_a044d0f0-99a7-5302-bcb9-2ce799b3a798.html
Nevada: No current lottery. Source: https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/heres-why-you-cant-play-powerball-in-nevada/
New Hampshire: Not anonymous/anonymous via a trust. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website but a winner successfully sued the lottery and won the right to remain anonymous in 2018. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/12/winner-of-a-560-million-powerball-jackpot-can-keep-the-money-and-her-secret-judge-rules/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bec2db2f7d2c
New Jersey: Not anonymous/other entities unclear. Source: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2018/10/11/nj-lottery-can-claim-jackpot-anonymously-mega-millions-powerball/1566044002/ Source: https://www.state.nj.us/lottery/about/faq/faq-disclosure.htm
New Mexico: Not anonymous. “Winners of $10,000 or more will have name, city, game played, and prize amount and photo on website.” May seek anonymity if they have specific security concerns (rarely granted). Source: https://www.nmlottery.com/uploads/FileLinks/82400d81a0ce468daab29ebe6db3ec27/Winner_Publicity_Policy_6_1_07.pdf
New York: Not anonymous/anonymous via a LLC. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website but per Gov. Cuomo: "For the past 40 years, individuals wishing to keep their name and information out of the public view have created LLCs to collect their winnings for them." Gov. Coumo vetoed lottery anonymity bill. Source: https://nypost.com/2018/12/09/cuomo-vetoes-bill-allowing-lotto-winners-to-remain-anonymous/
North Carolina: Not Anonymous. "North Carolina law allows lottery winners' identity to remain confidential only if they have an active protective order against someone or participate in the state's "Address Confidentiality Program" for victims of domestic violence, sexual offense, stalking or human trafficking." Source: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article54548645.html
North Dakota: 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. Winners have the option to release their information or to remain anonymous. Source: https://www.lottery.nd.gov/public/winners/
Northern Mariana Islands: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: https://www.nmsalottery.com/game-rules/
Ohio: Not anonymous/trust option for anonymity. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website but appears to have an anonymous option. "The procedure from there was a little cumbersome. I needed to create two separate trusts. One trust was to appoint me, as the trustee on behalf of the winner, to contact the Lottery Commission and accept the Lottery winnings. The secondary trust was set up for me as trustee of the first trust, to transfer the proceeds to the second trust with the winner as the beneficiary. This enabled me to present the ticket, accept the proceeds, and transfer it to the winner with no public record or disclosure." Source: https://www.altickcorwin.com/Articles/How-To-Claim-Lottery-Winnings-Anonymously.shtml
Oklahoma: Not Anonymous/Anonymous via trust. In accordance with the Oklahoma Open Records Act and the Oklahoma Education Lottery Act, the name of any individual, corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and their city of residence will be made public. Source: https://www.lottery.ok.gov/playersclub/faq.asp Source: https://oklahoman.com/article/5596678/lottery-winners-deserve-some-anonymity
Oregon: Not anonymous. "No. Certain information about Lottery prizes is public record, including the name of the winner, amount of the prize, date of the drawing, name of the game played and city in which the winning ticket was purchased. Oregon citizens have a right to know that Lottery prizes are indeed being awarded to real persons. " Source: https://oregonlottery.org/about/public-interaction/commission-directofrequently-asked-questions May seek anonymity if they have specific security concerns (rarely granted) Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3353432/Man-living-Iraq-wins-6-4-million-Oregon-jackpot.html
Pennsylvania: Not anonymous/anonymous by trust. Source: https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/trust-that-won-powerball-no-relation-to-manheim-township-emerald/article_29834922-4ca2-11e8-baac-1b15a17f3e9c.html
Puerto Rico: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-powerball-winner-claims-prize-chooses-stay-anonymous-n309121
Rhode Island: Not anonymous/Anonymous if requested but all info is subject to FOIA. "While the Lottery will do everything possible to keep a winner's information private if requested by the winner, in Rhode Island and most other states, this information falls under the Freedom of Information Act, and a winner's name and city or town of residency must be released upon request." Source: https://www.rilot.com/en-us/player-zone/faqs.html
South Carolina: 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. Anonymity or who can claim is not addressed on lottery website but appears to have an anonymous option based on prior winners. Source: https://myfox8.com/2019/03/15/the-anonymous-south-carolina-winner-of-the-largest-lottery-jackpot-is-donating-part-of-it-to-alabama-tornado-victims/
South Dakota: Not Anonymous for online games. "You can remain anonymous on any amount won from a scratch ticket game. Jackpots for online games are required to be public knowledge. Play It Again winners are also public knowledge." Source: https://lottery.sd.gov/FAQ2018/gamefaq.aspx.
Tennessee: Not anonymous/Can use a trust but info subject to open records act. Anonymity is explicitly noted as not being allowed on the official lottery website. Source: https://www.tnlottery.com/faq/i-won
However if it claimed via a trust then the lottery will not give out your information unless requested to do so. "The TN lottery says: "When claiming a Lottery prize through a Trust, the TN Lottery would need identity documentation for the grantor and all ultimate beneficiaries. Once we are in possession of these documents and information, records are generated. If a formal request is made by a citizen of Tennessee, the Trust beneficiary's name, city and state must be made available under the Tennessee Open Records Act." Source: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/in-tennessee--can-a-lottery-jackpot-be-claimed-whi-2327592.html
Texas: Anonymous for $1 million or more. The 85th regular legislative session enacted HB 59 authorizing certain prize winners who win lottery prizes in the amount of $1 million or more to choose to remain anonymous. Source: https://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/lottery/Documents/retailers/FAQ_Winner_Anonymity_12112017_final.pdf
Utah: No current lottery. Source: https://www.lotterycritic.com/lottery-results/utah/
Vermont: Not anonymous/anonymity via trust. “The name, town and prize amount on your Claim Form is public information. If you put your name on the Claim Form, your name becomes public information. If you claim your prize in a trust, the name of the trust is placed on the Claim Form, and the name of the trust is public information.” Source: https://vtlottery.com/about/faq
Virginia: Anonymous for over $10 million. "A new law passed by the Virginia General Assembly and signed by the Governor prohibits the Virginia Lottery from disclosing information about big jackpot winners." Governor Ralph Northam signed the bill into law on February 27. "When the bill goes into effect this summer, the Virginia Lottery will not be allowed to release certain information about winners whose prize exceeds $10 million, unless the winner wants to be known." Source: https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/virginia/new-virginia-law-allows-certain-lottery-winners-to-keep-identity-private/291-c33ea642-e8fa-45fd-b3a4-dc693cf5b372
US Virgin Islands: Anonymity appears to be an option. A $2 Million Powerball winner was allowed to remain anonymous. Source: https://viconsortium.com/virgin-islands-2/st-croix-resident-wins-2-million-in-latest-power-ball-drawing/.
Washington: Not Anonymous. "As a public agency, all documents held by Washington's Lottery are subject to the Public Records Act. Lottery prizes may be claimed in the name of a legally formed entity, such as a trust. However, in the event of a public records request, the documents forming the artificial entity may be released, thereby revealing the individual names of winners." https://www.walottery.com/ClaimYourPrize/
West Virginia: Anonymous for prizes over $1 million and 5% of winnings remittance. "Effective January 1, 2019, House Bill 2982 allows winners of State Lottery draw games to remain anonymous in regards to his or her name, personal contact information, and likeness; providing that the prize exceeds one million dollars and the individual who elects to remain anonymous remits five percent of his or her winnings to the State Lottery Fund." Source: https://wvlottery.com/customer-service/customer-resources/
Wisconsin: Not anonymous/cannot be claimed by other entities. "The original winning ticket must be signed by a single human being. For-profit and non-profit entities, trusts, and other non-human beings are not eligible to play or claim a prize." Source: https://wilottery.com/claimprize.aspx
Two Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow lottery winners in Wisconsin to remain anonymous. Source: https://fox6now.com/2019/04/23/gop-bill-would-allow-wisconsin-lottery-winners-to-remain-anonymous/
Wyoming: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. "We will honor requests for anonymity from winners. However, we certainly hope winners will allow us to share their names and good news with other players." Source: https://wyolotto.com/lottery/faq/
Other countries
Australia: 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. "The great thing about playing lotto in Australia is that winners can choose to remain anonymous and keep their privacy, unlike in the United States where winners don't have such a choice, and are often thrown into a media circus." Source: https://www.ozlotteries.com/blog/how-to-remain-anonymous-when-you-win-lotto/
Bahamas: No current lottery. Source: https://thenassauguardian.com/2013/01/29/strong-no-vote-trend-so-far-in-gaming-referendum/
Barbados: Not Anonymous. "No. Barbados Lottery winners cannot remain anonymous. The Barbados Lottery mandates the winner’s name, address, game won, date won and amount won be provided; however Barbados Lottery winners' home addresses and telephone numbers are confidential." Source: https://www.mybarbadoslottery.com/faqs
Brazil: Anonymity appears to be an option. Source: https://brazilian.report/society/2018/01/08/brazil-lottery-statistical-aberration/
Canada: Not Anonymous. Every provincial lottery corporation in Canada requires winners to participate in a publicity photo shoot showing their face, their name and their municipality. May seek anonymity if they have specific security concerns (rarely granted). Source: https://consumers.findlaw.ca/article/can-lottery-winners-remain-anonymous/
Carribbean Lottery Countries (Antigua/Barbuda, Anguilla, St. Kitts/Nevis, St. Maarten/Saba/St. Eustatius, and Turks & Caicos): Not Anonymous. Source: https://www.thecaribbeanlottery.com/faqs
Caymen Islands: No current lottery. Source: https://calvinayre.com/2018/11/02/business/cayman-islands-move-illegal-gambling-doesnt-address-real-issue/
China: 100% Anonymity if requested by the winner. Must appear in a press conference and photo but allowed to wear disguise. Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/22/china-lottery-winners-mask/22108515/
EuroMillions Countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and UK): 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. All EuroMillions prize winners have the option to officially remain anonymous when claiming their prize. Source: http://www.euromillions.co/faqs
EuroJackpot Countries (Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden): 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: https://www.euro-jackpot.net/en/publicity
Fiji: Anonymity appears to be an option. Source:https://fijisun.com.fj/2012/11/08/3m-lotto-win-here/
Israel: Not Anonymous by law/Anonymous in practice. Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-the-israeli-lottery-gives-winners-masks/
Jamaica: Not anonymous. First initial and last name of winner was released but winner was allowed to wear a mask for photo. Source: https://news.e-servicis.com/news/trending/lottery-winner-takes-prize-in-scream-mask.1S/
Japan: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source:https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/09/08/business/japans-lottery-rakes-declining-revenues-younger-generation-gives-jackpot-chances-pass/#.XRYwVVMpCdM
Malaysia: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: https://says.com/my/news/a-24-year-old-malaysian-woman-just-won-more-than-rm4-million-from-4d-lottery
New Zealand: 100% Anonymous if requested by winner. Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10383080
North Korea: Not Anonymous. Source: https://www.nknews.org/2018/11/north-korean-sports-ministry-launches-online-lottery/
Philippines: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: https://www.rappler.com/nation/214995-ultra-lotto-winners-claim-winnings-pcso-october-2018
Samoa: Not Anonymous. Source: https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/191796/samoa%27s-lotto-winner-still-a-mystery
Singapore: Anonymity appears to be an option. Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/did-you-win-here-are-results-of-136m-toto-hongbao-draw
South Africa: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/powerball-results/powerball-winner-r232-million-found-lottery-details/
South Korea: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: https://elaw.klri.re.keng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=38378&type=sogan&key=5
Taiwan: 100% Anonymous if requested by the winner. Source: http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201806250011.aspx
Trinidad and Tobago: Anonymity appears to be an option. Source: https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/student-wins-the-million-lotto/article_3f3c8550-570d-11e9-9cc3-b7550f9b4ad4.html
Vatican City: Anonymity appears to be an option. Source: https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/12/04/popes-white-lamborghini-up-for-raffle-winner-gets-trip-to-rome/
Vietnam: Anonymity appears to be an option. Source: https://ampe.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnamese-farmer-identified-as-winner-of-4-million-lottery-jackpot-3484751.html
submitted by Kingofearth23 to ifiwonthelottery [link] [comments]

Austan Goolsbee: Public Policy in an AI Economy (Goolsbee describes the impacts of AI on the economy and how we should respond)

Everyone's favourite IGM respondent, Austan Goolsbee, has just published an NBER working paper about how public policy should react to AI: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24653. The paper is quite short and very accessible - it's only 8 pages, and there's no maths in it at all - but since you still probably won't bother clicking through to the PDF, I've copied the full text of the article below. Read it and get educated.
INTRODUCTION
This conference has brought together a mix of technology and economics scholars to think broadly about the role of Artificial Intelligence in the economy and this short paper will present a few thoughts about the role of policy in a world where AI becomes ubiquitous.
Most of the public discussion about an AI dominated economy has focused on robots and the future of work. Ruminations by public figures like Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have stoked fears that robots will destroy our jobs (and, possibly, the world). Some of these same figures have called for various heterodox policy ideas, too, from moving to colonies in space to taxing the robots to providing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) untethered to work.
As the research and comments in this volume suggest, economists have generally been less pessimistic when thinking about the role of AI on jobs. They often highlight the historical record of job creation despite job displacement, documented the way technological advances have eliminated jobs in some sectors but expanded jobs and increased wages in the economy overall and highlighted the advantages that the new technologies will likely have in the future (some recent discussions include Autor, 2015; Autor and Salomons, 2018; Brynjolfsson and Mcafee, 2014; Mokyr, 2014).
The pessimistic case has come more from technology/business sector. Perhaps seeing the advances in technology up close, they worry that the machines may soon be so good that they could replace almost anyone. One major study across many industries by McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey, 2017) argues that 73 million jobs may be destroyed by automation by 2030 because of the rise of the new technologies.
In many ways, it is unfortunate that labor market policy has dominated our thinking about the AI economy. The main economic impact of AI is not about jobs or, at least, is about much more than just jobs. The main economic impact of these technologies will be how good they are. If the recent advances continue, AI has the potential to improve the quality of our products and our standard of living. If AI helps us diagnose medical problems better, improves our highway safety, gives us back hours of our day that were spent driving in traffic, or even just improves the quality of our selfies, these are direct consumer benefits. These raise our real incomes and the economic studies valuing the improvements from quality and from new products tend to show their value is often extremely high (see the discussions in the volume of Bresnahan and Gordon, 1997 or the discussions over valuing “free” goods like Goolsbee and Klenow, 2006 and Varian, 2013).
That’s a different way of saying that if AI succeeds, it will raise our productivity and higher productivity makes us rich. It is not a negative. Indeed, if AI succeeded in the way some fear, it would mean the exact reversal of the main problem facing growth in the last decade or more that productivity growth has been too slow. Indeed, it would decisively refute one of the central tenets of secular stagnationist thinkers like Gordon (2017) who argue that low productivity growth is a semi-permanent condition for the advanced economies because of the scarcity of path breaking ideas. Would that AI could change that equation.
This paper will consider a few disparate thoughts about policy in an AI- intensive economy (interpreting AI broadly to include a cluster of information technology based productivity improvements beyond just conventional Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning). It will consider the speed of adoption of the technology—the impact on the job market and the implications for inequality across people and across places, discuss the challenges of enacting a Universal Basic Income as a response to widespread AI adoption, discuss pricing, privacy and competition policy and conclude with the question of whether AI will improve policy making itself.
THE SPEED OF ADOPTION—IMPLICATIONS FOR THE JOB MARKET AND FOR INEQUALITY
Taking the issue of job displacement first, the basic conclusion of the economists is that for the last hundred years, there have been massive amounts of job displacement yet the structural unemployment rate has not seemed to rise, much less trend toward 100%. Over time, people adjust. They move. They get skills. The long-run impact of labor saving technologies have overwhelming been positive for market economies. If the fear is that AI will replace low-skill jobs, it is a fact that tens or even hundreds of millions of low skill jobs were displaced by technology in previous years in a process very similar to the one we describe today. If the fear is that AI is different this time around because it will begin to replace types of jobs that have never been automated before like higher-skill or white-collar jobs the historical data indicate that those groups have been able to adjust to shocks and move to new sectors and new geographic areas easier than lower skill workers have.
A critical issue is, of course, how fast the adjustment takes place/the speed of adoption of AI technology. The economy has proven quite capable of inventing new things for people to do over the long-run. Obviously, if change happens all at once, the adjustment problem is worst. Spread out over time, however, the adjustment can be manageable. Take the much discussed case of autonomous cars. There were about 3.5 million truck, bus, and taxi drivers in 2015 and suppose that every one of them were lost due to advances in self-driving car technology. If this loss takes place over 15 years, this would average a little over 19,000 per month and compare that to the fact that in 2017 the JOLTS data show that the economy generated about 5.3 million jobs per month (with 5.1 million separations per month). The complete elimination of every job in the sector would increase the increase the separation rate by less than four tenths of a percent. It would force drivers into new sectors and be disruptive to their livelihoods. But as a macroeconomic phenomenon, the impact would be small. If that loss happened in two years, the impact would be quite significant.
So it’s worth considering what influences the speed of adoption and, certainly, a key determinant will be how good the AI actually is compared to people. But, many analysts seem to view that as the only thing that will determine adoption rates. It’s worth considering at least two other factors: prices and adjustment costs.
First, many of these AI innovations involve significant capital outlays up front and that alone may slow their adoption for some time. Ride-share drivers, for example, by some measures can barely cover the cost of operating their cars (including depreciation, fuel, maintenance and insurance) at the price of cars now. AI enabled autonomous vehicles are likely to cost substantially more per car than conventional cars when they become available to the public. Will companies be willing to incur large up front to bypass paying drivers? It really depends on prices that we do not yet know.
Second, ‘better’ doesn’t always mean faster adoption. Economists have shown automated stock picking through index funds superior to active management for decades yet people still hold trillions in inefficient, high-fee funds. Millions of people have mortgages with higher than market interest rates that they don’t refinance, cell phone data plans that do not match their usage, and so on. There are tens of millions of people that do not use the Internet. Inertia is a powerful force slowing the adoption of technology products and is certainly worth remembering if we want to predict something like how fast people will give up common behaviors like driving for themselves.
Third, in an important sense, we know that AI can only be as good as its training sample and there are some very different types of customers in the country that may make the AI quality improvements much more fitting for certain types of customers than others. Microsoft created an AI program to learn from Twitter and see if it could create content that people would think was written by a human. They started it in the U.S. and had to shut it down almost immediately because it became so abusive and offensive. It mirrored what it saw online. Running the same program in China, where Twitter is heavily censored, it has performed well and not turned abusive. The attributes of the product and the ‘quality’ of the product depend on how relevant the training sample is to that customer.
This is likely to influence the adoption rate of the AI technologies in different places. Again, think of the autonomous cars. Will we gather loads of information about driving in urban areas and on highways or in Silicon valley from the early adopters, tailor the product to their needs but then find that it doesn’t work as well for dirt roads or rural places or places without Bay area weather?
Heterogeneous demand is the hobgoblin of the AI mind. Groups that differ most from the training sample will likely be the slowest to adopt the technology in part because it will be the least helpful to them. That may lead to another manifestation of the digital divide. In this sense, the rise of AI technologies is likely to make the problem of income and of geographic inequality even worse. To the extent that new AI technologies are expensive and tailored toward the training sample of adopters, it will be like having lower inflation and greater consumer surplus going to those groups (for discussions about differences in prices and innovation across income groups or for online buyers versus offline buyers, see Jaravel, 2017 or Goolsbee and Klenow, 2018).
Government policy will face the potential of divisions along red state/blue state or high-education/low-education locations or high-income/low-income neighborhoods even more than it does today.
CHALLENGES FOR UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME AS A RESPONSE TO JOB MARKET DISPLACEMENT
Now suppose that the arguments above prove wrong. Nothing slows the speed of AI adoption and there is mass job displacement in a short time. There has been a rising call among the believers in that scenario for Universal Basic Income policy. Closely tied to the old Milton Friedman notion of a negative income tax, the UBI would grant some minimal level of income to people regardless of employment status as a new form of safety net and anyone could then work beyond that UBI level to earn more. In the purest libertarian concept, this UBI would replace the existing collection of safety net programs. The advantage of the UBI would be that people could survive in a world with few human jobs and alleviate poverty in a relatively efficient manner and without destroying all incentives in the private economy. It seeks to separate the notion of ‘making-a-living’ from having a job. There are some small scale experiments with the UBI in a few countries like Finland and New Zealand or funded by private individuals in the US.
There are a number of challenges associated with negative income taxes and UBIs as a policy solution to widespread AI adoption.
First, if you accept the economists’ basic labor supply model (that people value leisure and so generally need to be paid to work) then there are likely to be some sizable number of people who are working only because they absolutely have to. In a world where AI induced unemployment is already high, separating work and income might be an advantage. In a world like the one we are in now, though, offering a basic income will likely cause a sizable drop in labor market participation by low wage earners. To the extent that non-participation in exactly that segment of the labor force is already viewed as a problem, the UBI would likely make things worse and risk angering the broader public.
Second, for a given amount of money to be used on redistribution, a UBI likely shifts money away from the very poor. To oversimplify, if you have $50B to alleviate poverty, the targeting approach followed in most countries today might use the $50B to help the poorest/sickest 25m people and give them the equivalent of $25,000 of benefits each. With a broad-based UBI, the same $50B would be spread out. It might involve, say, 100m people getting $5000 each. Perhaps a UBI could change the total taste for redistribution in a society—leaving the most disadvantaged people with the same amount and upping the total amount spent— but for the UBI to not end up more regressive than the current system necessarily entails greater amounts of public funds.
Third, the conception of the UBI as a replacement for a myriad of other in- kind transfers and safety net programs forgets the historical origins of that safety net. Fundamentally, the in-kind safety net exists today because rich societies are not comfortable with grievously injured people coming into a hospital but being turned away if they don’t have money or letting kids go hungry because their parents cannot afford to feed them, and so on. Converting to a UBI and abolishing the in-kind safety net will lead to a situation where some people will blow their UBI money in unsympathetic ways—gambling, drugs, junk food, Ponzi schemes, whatever. Those people will then come to emergency rooms or their kids will be hungry and by the rules, they will be out of luck. That’s what their UBI income was supposed to cover. But the fact that advanced economies evolved an in-kind safety net in order to avoid this situation makes me think that enforcing “UBI- discipline” and replacing the safety net with a straight transfer would require a rather extraordinary changes in the psyche of people in the advanced economies.
POLICY RESPONSES TO AI BEYOND JOBS: PRICING, DATA PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ANTITRUST
Just as the impact of AI goes far beyond just the impact on employment, the policy response to AI raises all sorts of other considerations, as well. One is the perennial back-and-forth over the power of buyers versus the power of sellers in pricing. The same issue arose with the initial rise of ecommerce- -the new online data on customers allowed new forms of price discrimination and market power but the ease of comparison shopping reduced search costs and promoted competition. So far, the power of the AI technology seems overwhelmingly to have been used by sellers. If they can individualize market and price discriminate with it, margins will likely rise. But consumers will likely push back. They may find technological solutions to use AI to thwart merchants. But a more straightforward response might be to follow past practice and start making various behaviors and practices illegal. This could include restrictions on consumer privacy and the ways that companies can use customer information. It might manifest as an argument over property rights in the sense of who owns the consumers’ data and what level of consent it requires to use it, or might involve rules against various types of price discrimination. Regardless of the form, these issues of pricing and data seem like they will be a central area of policy in an AI- centric world.
The second thing about an AI economy is that the fixed-cost/economies of scale seem pretty significant and in many cases, there are also often network externalities and switching costs on the demand side of these industries. All of these seem to portend the possibility of many industries having a winner-take-all market structure or the continued rise of ‘platform’ competition rather than conventional competition. If so, the rise of AI is likely to usher in a renewed emphasis on anti-trust policy in much the same way the original gilded age consolidation of industry did before.
CONCLUSION: WILL ROBOTS TAKE OVER POLICY, TOO?
The organizers of the volume also asked us to consider whether AI will enhance or even replace the jobs of policy makers—whether improvements in machine learning and AI could be used on the policy making process itself. Personally, I do not think so because the most important policy matters are at their heart not issues of prediction. The technology may improve our ability to predict responses but it does not help us balance interests or engage in politics. We already know, for example, a great deal about the fiscal implications for social security of the aging population. Artificial intelligence might improve our ability to predict revenue outcomes of various policy options, say. That hasn’t been the problem with addressing social security. It has always been about choosing between options and making value judgments. The kinds of problems that AI helps with are those where large amounts of past data to inform the decision. Conditions with small samples or where the conditions are very different than in the past will be much less machine learnable. For small bore issues, AI may improve policy accuracy—what conditions should cause regulators raise their estimated probability that a bank’s loans will start to default, for example. For bigger issues, though, like whether the Federal Reserve should raise interest rates or whether we should cut high-income people’s taxes—I have my doubts about what AI can contribute.
It is also sure to increase the attention paid to business practices of large AI platforms—their pricing, their use of personal data on customers, their behavior toward competitors and the continuing consolidation of market power. Each of these is likely to become a major policy battleground of the future. For the time being, though, the job of policymakers themselves seem relatively safe…for now.
submitted by usrname42 to neoliberal [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA: IAm Sheila Norman-Culp, leader of the AP “Dirty Game” investigation into match-fixing in soccer. AMA

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2013-02-20
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Link to my post
Questions Answers
Did you see that ludicrous display last night? I assume u are talking re Arsenal. yes, yes yes. Not as gut-slamming bad as Saturday's disaster against Blackburn, but no fun for sure.
What was the most surprising facet of the story that you discovered? I was shocked at the Amazonian river of money that sports betting generates... the Interpol chief Ron Noble says several billion euros a year, an ex-FIFA official has said up to $500 billion a year. BILLION...! if you are a criminal mastermind, all you have to do is use some fixed games to deliver a tiny sliver of that and you will be wealthier than you ever imagined. That's about the yearly GNP of Switzerland, no slouch economy.
This is the crazy thing to me, how many people are betting on what are ultimately not high level events. I would like to think that high levels of betting on one side of a small matchup could be observed and regulated. Until lately, no one thought to look for match-fixing in the soccer wilderness. but extremely low level games in Finland, Norway and Canada that were fixed proved that theory wrong. for fixers, best thing is virgin territory not already claimed by other fixers...
Which mobs were most involved? Turkish? Russian? Romanian? Prolly the shorter list would be what mobs DON'T want to get involved with match-fixing... AP talked to Turkish commentators who said fixing allegations have cropped up every year for at least 40 years, and even Turkish prosecutors in court documents noted that mobs had infiltrated Turkish soccer since at least 1980... As for Russia, one illegal Asian betting den that an AP reporter visited wouldn't even touch bets for Russia's 2nd division (or Greece's for that matter). Even illegal sites know when to run! Italy's match-fixing has produced over $2.6 billion for the Camorra and the Mafia. And since the vast majority of sports betting money originates in Asia, Asian crime gangs are said to be intimately involved in fixing games.
Where in Asia is the money coming from? It's coming both from billions of small bettors (betting is a way of life i many Asian countries) and from Asian crime gangs who are recycling dirty money to launder it.
How is the research going on the dinamo zagreb - olimpique game, where olimpique scored just enough goals to kick Ajax out of the champions league? Ah yes, where a zagreb player winked on a YouTube clip. plenty of suspicions, Ajax started howling immediately, no good evidence ever emerged. was about the same time in which Croatian first league (where dinamo played) was riddled with match-fixing (see our story about Croatia Seveste player Mario Cizmek) but dinamo never implicated in those trials.
To borrow from Grantland's Brian Phillips, "How #*%!ed is the beautiful game?" It's more &&#$ than top officials want to publicly admit. There are large areas of the world where football has been not only infiltrated by criminals but is being run by criminals. Last year in China, two ex-chiefs of its FA (football association for American fans) got 10 1/2 years in prison for corruption. In 2011, the national TV channel in China REFUSED to broadcast matches from the Chinese League due to widespread match-fixing. I can't imagine the reax here in London if Sky or the BBC refused to broadcast Premier League games...
What is the highest level that you believe some form of match fixing has taken place? European competition? WC qualifying? Where is match fixing most prevalent? Well, our FIFA correspondent Graham Dunbar says that depends if you include the 1982 World Cup West Germany-Austria game, which appeared to be a deal with the teams. FIFA changed its rules after that so games at the end of rounds start simultaneously. More recently you have the 2010 WC qualifier between Liechtenstein and Finland ... and Latam types will always debate whether the WC 1978 Argentina 6, peru 0 was fixed, sent host Argentina into final...
So...Juventus. As a fan, I just have to know. How involved are they in match fixing? They're always surrounding by rumors of it. Hmmm. where to start? well, going way back, juventus reputedly bough the ref in the 193 European Cup semifinal, according to one of our top football guys... and they were pretty front and center in Italy's 2006 match-fixing scandal, where they were regulated to Serie B (2nd division), got 9 points deducted, got hit by a massive fine, got stripped of their 2006-07 league titles, got tossed out of the Champions League for a year. Their club president at the time was fined and banned from the sport for five years. Their current coach, Antonio Conte, just got back in December from a 4-month FIFA ban for a separate match-fixing allegation. As Premier Mario Monti said, maybe Italian football should just shut down for a few years to get rid of that corruption thing...
I have to ask. Have you or anyone in your agency been approached or threatened as a result of your investigations? Gotta give kudos here to Chris Brummett, our Vietnam bureau chief, who visited a Wild West betting boomtown on the border of Cambodia. Going around illegal Asian betting dens, talking with bettors about fixed matches, looking for hints of Asian triad involvement. Not a place that you could take TV cameras or where bettors would let u take a picture, that's for sure. And when I was filming a TV segment at a Zagreb stadium with a player convicted of match-fixing, all of a sudden we saw that a photog with a long lens was zooming in on us. The guy came over to see what we were doing, I made sure not to speak a word of English and our photographer Darko talked to him. After that, Darko said "it's time to go." When a photog who just got back from Syria says its time to go, u go.
Do you think that this type of match fixing also extends into American sports such as Major League Baseball or the National Football League? I think of a game like the Super Bowl with all the money bet on it and I can't help but wonder if games are often fixed or the outcome affected artificially. Super Bowl betting is big in the US but is tiny in relation to global soccer betting. And the Super Bowl has one big thing that keeps it from being fixed -- very high player salaries. Players in countries like Croatia are match-fixing sometimes for as little as 2500 euros ($3300). Major league baseball salaries and NFL salaries are too high -- and you need to involve too many players to ensure a rock-solid fix. In soccer, the goalie alone has enough influence to fix a game by himself.
Where do the criminal gangs get the action on? Betfair? For a blow-by-blow account of how it all goes down, check out these links: Player who rues getting involved in match-fixing: Link to apne.ws Unwritten rules of match-fixing: Link to apne.ws
How exactly does it work? The players just play terribly when instructed? The criminals have money on the over? In terms of the betting, there's about five-six levels of betting in Asia, which leads from local illegal betting shops that deal in cash to next level, regional betting houses, still in cash, to next level, super betting sites, to online betting sites that take credit cards and are openly operating. Asian betting sites don't know their customers, so its easier to disguise large wagers as many small ones. European betting sites know their customers via credit cards, but criminals can use fake credit cards. anyone who knows about a fixed game can bet on whichever betting site offers the odds
Where are most of these criminal organizations based? What country? Are international matches ever fixed(England vs San Marino or something) or just club matches? Actually 'friendlies' between two nations are a prime target for fixers, because football associations can hire agencies (some of which later turn out to be fronts for fixers) to arrange the games and give a cut of the proceeds (or even bribes) to corrupt FA officials Just imagine, in a friendly you can get world-class talent for free and they can generate gobs of TV revenues. some suspect friendlies in recent times: Nigeria-Argentina 2011, one or more South Africa friendlies right before the World Cup, Bolivia-Latvia 2011, Bulgaria-Estonia 2011, several Latam games involving Venezuela and Bolivia. These are all men's games, so far no whiff of suspicion among women's friendlies.
Is there any suspicion of fixing in women's soccer in the past Olympics? It has bothered a lot of people the way the gold medal game finished. It didn't make any sense at all. Edit: I did mean semi final. My bad. No, so far no reports of match-fixing in any women's games. in fact, some of the bettors AP interviewed in the illegal Cambodian den were at the time betting on live women's U-20 game between New Zealand and Japan just because they felt it was not fixed.
Has there been any instances when you had suspicion BEFORE a match? What do you think about the recent EUROPOL expose about the 380 european matches? What does only 1 english match (liverpool v debrecen)(albeit english team not involved) say about how things are done in uk v thing elsewhere.what is it that they are doing right/others doing wrong? Me and another AP reporter have visited a betting monitoring site that runs 31,000 games thru computer models to see if they may be fixed. Companies like that can often see if games are suspicious up to two days before a match _ ie they know if XXX amount bet on a Italian league game is normal or way off. They also keep tabs on 110,000 players, teams, refs and officials and give them match-fixing credit scores... they have seen where a suspicious player changes teams and infects a previously untouched team with his knowlege of fixing... Only one match in England reflects high premier league salaries that protect the players and the game. But bet monitors do have one person on their top 20 'to watch' match-fixing suspicions list that lives in the UK.
What is the best part about your job? The sheer variety. I mean there are some things we can plan for _ we know when the 2012 London Olympics will start _ but you never know each day what will happen. Will an Icelandic volcano erupt and blow the travel plans of 10 million people to bits? Or maybe a meteor will hit Russia? i am constantly amazed.
How has the series been received by soccefootball officials? It seems to expose some dirty laundry and gotten news and TV pickups across the globe. Yes, we were very happy with the wide range of media that picked up the stories _ everything from papers in Thailand to ESPN and Sports Illustrated to non-sports outlets like Huffpost and Salon.com.
Which team do you support and who is your favorite player? Well, i live and work now in north London, so i would be crucified if I didnt keep up with Arsenal (condolences will be accepted here today). Favorite player, hmm. got two. Fernando Torres because i was living in Zurich during Euro 2008 (he was electric then) and he looks just like my hubby did years ago with his freckles; Robin van Persie now because the man just dances on the field, a joy to watch.
Fernando Torres is my favorite too, and believe me he will be electric again! and another question, what is the most memorable match you have ever watched live at a stadium? At a family level, I brought my ten-year-old daughter and her soccer team to see the American women play at Giants stadium in NJ when the US hosted the Women's World Cup in 1999... Mia Hamm and her buddies really inspired a generation.
Do you see any problem/conflict with betting companies (such as Bwin) being significant sponsors of the game? Betting companies are always going to advertise next to matches, its the smart operating model for their business. but it is interesting how they can be in severe denial about match-fixing. I went to a London betting conference in Nov, and a top representative from Ladbrokes insisted to me that 'maybe 5-6' games were fixed a year. he claimed that some betting monitoring companies have an incentive to say there are hundreds of possibly fixed games a year just so they would get contracts from FIFA, UEFA, national leagues. On the other hand, his own industry has a HUGE interest in not talking about fixed games -- who is going to bet if they think things are fixed? he did me a big favor though - AP reporters could not get into the monitoring sites until we reported his ludicrous comment to them.
How does it start? Does someone from the criminal organization approach a player in a shady alley? Do players that fix games do so repeatedly? Do multiple players on a team need to be bought to pull off the fix? And finally, how do the criminal organizations actually make money off fixed games? Presumably by placing the bets they've arranged, but don't the people taking their bets get suspicious? What i'm going to do is give u some link to our stories that explain all this. ironically, match-fixers often groom players just like pedophiles groom targets, according to a major 2012 study on sports corruption. Players can be seduced into fixing by other coaches or players or agents. Or they can be ordered to fix by their corrupt soccer club bosses. Or they can have no idea a game is fixed because the refs were bought off instead. so many ways to match-fix...!
How in the world would FIFA (or possibly another organization) go about fixing this or at least starting to fix it? Is the problem already too deep that anything other than a complete scrub of all teams and parties involved would fail? And could the sport even survive something like that or would it be best for the game if everyone just operated like business as usual? FIFA's latest anti-match-fixing project is to educate players and refs about the problem. A noble idea, for sure, one that no one can find fault with. but it's kinda like warning your kids not to play with matches when your kitchen is already on fire and that may burn down your whole house. Time to get out the big firehose. Let's not forget how doping has driven sponsors and TV revenues away from cycling or even track. And soccer authorities also have another problem -- their own officials may be the ones driving the fixing. A major sports corruption report last year even gave that a label "chairman-to-chairman" fixing. in turkey last year, 93 people went on trial for match-fixing, and only 14 were players. I think the best model to emulate is germany's, its FA has a omsbudman where players, refs, anyone can call to report fixing worries anonymously.
Is it anyway connected to the fixed cricket games and why is this not getting as much coverage considering soccer is a much larger sport? And do you think the Ireland v France world cup 2010 qualifier was fixed, where Thiery Henry blatantly hand-balled to knock Ireland out of the competition? That was one darn obvious handball but absolutely no suggestion of fixing in that. as we say in our Dirty Game series, referees and players can perform poorly for all sorts of legitimate reasons. Gotta say, American fans could never stomach bad ref calls like that, that's why they love NFL instant replay. the concept that such a bad call could knock a team out... it's why the NFL had to end its referee lockout...
It's amazing how deep seeded the corruption is in the sport. Do you know how much money was made globally from the match fixing (an estimate)?? FIFA has estimated between $5 billion and $15 billion a year. not chump change.
I think it's more spot-fixing than match-fixing, right? Or at least the higher up the leagues go, the more it deviates towards spot rather than match. If you got any knowlege of this, let FIFA/UEFA/the national leagues know. AP took a deep dive into fixing in Croatia's first division, (let me tell u google translator is a mess with croatian court transcripts) and found both match and spot fixing in the same games. one sports expert, David Forrest of University of Salford, says that's a great way for gangs to increase revenues, you get to place two-three-four bets on the same fixed game.
Do you think that the punishment for participants should be more severe the further up the ladder the investigation goes? That is, should the first-year first-teamer found to have been involved be given less of a penalty than the national team star? Or should a message be sent with uniform penalties for even the least involvement? Hmm. it's kinda like doping in that you need zero tolerance. That said, its clear that match-fixers target players like lions on the savannah, picking off the young (easy to manipulate) the old (nearing the end of their employment, fearing what's next) and the weak (those with betting problems or financial difficulties. Young players lured into fixing by older players should get lesser sentences if it's found that they were forced or pressured into it. Older players (or refs hitting age limits) should get harsher penalties because they absolutely knew what they were doing. national stars who fix bring shame upon an entire nation but the fixing penalities should be the same no matter what the league.
Do you feel like, historically, there has been more corruption in Italian leagues, or is it more a matter of the Italian investigations being more frequent and successful in revealing the corruption and making cases stick? There's no question that Italy has had repeated, major match-fixing instances at least since 2005. And each case seems to bring new amazing allegations. My all time favorite is the goalie who wanted to fix a game, so he drugs the water bottles of his teammates to play poorly. they stink, lose the game, and one even crashes his car afterward. Since Italy takes drunk driving quite seriously, the driver gets a blood test which shows he is full of sedatives, and the whole fixing operation is unveiled. can't make this up. I give plenty of kudos to Italian prosecutor Roberto Di Martino but the country has had plenty of corruption issues in all walks of life ... , so i dont think we can just credit good prosecutors for us hearing about italian match-fixing
At what point do you as an organisation decide that you will look into that matter. How did this all start - or better yet, what event triggered this investigation? We noticed that AP was doing about a dozen match-fixing spot stories around the world a month... but it was country by country. This trial, that arrest, this investigation. It was time to look at the whole of the sport, something that fits an international news agency better than a local or national paper. I had been interested in match-fixing since i covered FIFA for AP in 2007-2008 and did a story when they first set up their EWS monitoring site. got promoted to London, distracted by volcanos and a wonderful London Olympics, but began interviewing people last june.
Glad to oblige blatter? justkidding. What i should have said yesterday -- this AMA is about match-fixing, not Blatter. Blatter is such a vast topic that he needs a whole 'nuther forum. Maybe ask him to come on himself.
How do you stop match fixing? Whoever figures that out gets a nobel peace prize.
Do you have any knowledge of match fixing in Latin America? Specifically Libertadores Cup and Brazilian and Argentinian national leagues? Bolivia and Venezuela have had several suspicious friendlies, Guatemala had 3 players banned in recent months for fixing.
What do you have to say about one of the most outrageous things that happened in the last decade: Lyon 7-1 Zagreb leaving Ajax out of CL? Everyone seems to have forgotten about that thing and no one ever really talked or investigate that game further. That is certainly the one game that Europeans came away thinking must be fixed. it would be a great subject for a magzine piece. maybe when everyone in that game has retired, more might come out.
Which league do you believe to be the most corrupt? Even if it isn't one you've investigated. Impossible to say. too many candidates.
My dad used to bet on soccer matches with his buddies frequently, and pointed out how he would know if a match is fixed or not depending on the players' reactions during a penalty kick. Apparently, whenever a player looks backwards before taking a penalty, he is always looking for a signal as to whether or not he is allowed to make the goal. Is there any merit to this conspiracy theory that my dad and his friends developed? Wild theory, too bad it's prolly not true -- they must have been drinking pretty heavily! If a game is fixed by players, they know beforehand and they know exactly what marks they need to hit: X-X score at halftime, X-X final result, X goal differential. No need to look over their shoulder, they already know if they should make it or not. If the game is fixed by club officials, they have already told their players what to do. If the game is fixed by referees, often players don't even know. They might think it's a ridiculous penalty call but they are not going to hurt their stats, they are going to try to make the penalty.
Who's going to win the European Cup? Going to leave all game analysis to commentators and Match of the Day boys. I'm just all about corruption.
Are there times when two different groups try to fix a match with conflicting goals? This was a significant problem in Asia, and its a terrible business model when two crime gangs are trying to fix the same game. That propeled at least Asian gangs to seek out more European games, which were considered several years ago to be much cleaner. One monitor told me about a match in which his company's spotters at the game saw thugs from two different crime gangs shouting with the ref at halftime. Only one side won. (think the ref in that case had a death wish or was just blinded by greed)
What is the most common betting market on fixed games? A straight win? or something like over 2.5 goals? Or even corners or number of cards? Do you bet on any games? I don't bet on sports, not after seeing all this...! The most common bets on fixed games are four things: final score, half-time score, total number of scores and score differential. who is taking the corner doesnt bring in enough money...
Where does the actual money the gangs win come from? Is straight from the betting agencies pockets? David Forrest, the UK economist who specializes in sports betting, tells us that fixed sports betting is a fabulous way to launder money. You take cash from drug or trafficking operations, you bet on fixed games, not only do u make a profit but dirty money comes back clean. He says some crime gangs are trying to buy soccer clubs just to launder money through them.
Was the Qatar bid for hosting the 2022 world cup involved in bribery of any kind? Sri, this AMA is on match-fixing. The FIFA decision to give the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar respectively is a whole separate (and vast) discussion.
Did your investigation have any overlap with Declan Hill's investigations in the past? Declan is a pioneer, kudos to him. Suggest everyone interested in this topic read his book "The Fix: Organized Crime and Soccer"
a comment: Kudos to you and your team for really doing some real investigative journalism. Too much TMZ-style or reactive news these days so it's refreshing to see some real shit. Second my question: I saw the amount of profit gained from this scheme was a seemingly paltry $11m. In 2012, $94m was bet on the Super Bowl alone. Is the $11m as truly insignificant as it appears? What percentage of the pie is legitimate vs illegitimate? You maybe are just looking at one Italian match-fixing investigation. Multiply that by investigations in 50 nations last year, add to it all the bribe money that is linked to organizing friendlies that can generate big TV revenue... the point about match-fixing is not illegal or legal betting. It is tainting all betting with a fix. European betting agencies pride themselves on their legality, but anyone can be undermined by a fix. In asia, illegal gambling dens thrive because gambling in an ingrained cultural habit that is going to occur even if govts ban it.
Does this only happen with football? are there stories of match fixing happening in the European basketball, volleyball, handball, water polo leagues? All sports can be vulnerable to match-fixing, especially if there is betting on them. add tennis, cricket, horse racing to that mix.
I don't really understand soccer but how and what makes a game suspicious? Huge amounts of late bets on an obscure game. In-game live betting in which lots of bettors put money on another goal and the referee orders a penalty for an unfathomable reason. Games in which all scoring is due to penalty kicks. Games in which scoring is so high that it looks more like baseball. Games in which many goals are disqualified for offsides. so many options i just cant list them all
Does anyone know if Domenico Cricito is still being investigated or if they've finished with him? Cricito, an Italian defender who plays for the St. Petersburg club Zenit, was cleared, not charged with any match-fixing. He has said that he's trying not to be angry but still is about how he was dropped from the Italian team playing in Euro 2012 due to allegations that turned out to be unproven.
How are investigations going in regard to serie a? i know the mafias in Italy have a lot of control over players and referees. Big break on Thursday (feb 21, day after this AMA). a top suspected fixer was arrested by Italian police, Admir Sulijic. he reportedly has links to singapore money man Dan Tan. --- Big break on Friday, Dan Tan being interviewed by Singapore police!!!
Is there a chance Chelsea has been involved with match fixing please say no? I'm such a cynic that I can't say 'No' about any team. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, that's a 'known unknown' -- we know there are some things we do not know. that applies to all teams, not just Chelsea.
Have there been any murders or serious crimes committed in the name of covering up max fixing? In Bulgaria, over a dozen soccer officials have been slain over the last decade. and the crime gangs there don't even pretend to make it look like an accident, they just gun people down in the street.
Due to the nature of your work, do you ever feel in danger? Our medical writer tells us that sitting at a computer for hours on end is the most deadly thing for reporters. if she's right, we are all doomed.
Which top leagues would you say are the least corrupt? Certainly the premier league, due to the players' huge salaries.
Why do FIFA or UEFA never step in to take action on the obviously corrupt English FA, more specifically, Referee's decisions going heavily in the way of a certain Alex Ferguson? There is plenty of evidence, but you just leave them to get away with it. Why? Gotta say, FIFA and UEFA are clearly not fans of the English FA and are certainly not favoring them in any way re refereeing decisions.
I like how this question is dodged. Glad to oblige.
Please tell me the Celtic v Barcelona game wasn't fixed! I have to be sure... Hey even amazing teams lose sometimes! Plus this doesnt match the typical M.O. of the most successful match-fixers. When great teams lose, it always raises more suspicions among bet monitoring companies than when bad teams lose (our reporters visited some secret betting monitoring sites). A convicted midfielder who talked to us about match-fixing says it's always better to simply have bad teams lose once again -- criminals just pre-determine HOW MUCH that team will lose by and play those odds.
Whoever figures that out gets a nobel peace prize. Sri don't mean to be flippant. You go for zero tolerance, you establish anti-match-fixing officials in every national league, you teach players and refs and soccer officials how to recognize approaches by fixers, you increase criminal penalities for fixing, you don't stop investigating serious allegations just because a referee has retired 'from the football family,' (FIFA) you protect whistleblowers better. Italian defender Simone Farina told police about being approached by a fellow player to fix, and that effectively ended his playing career and made him a pariah in italy...happily months and months later Aston Villa made him a 'community coach'
No question, but thanks for doing what you do. This kind of high quality investigative journalism is what the free press is all about. Very kind to hear. are we related? jk. hope you got a chance to read, watch or hear all the eight Dirty Game stories, three sidebars, online video, broadcast video, radio reports, etc.
What's amazing is how ESPN hasn't said a word about this yet. Because they'd rather show more Tim Tebow praying coverage, or Mark Sanchez picking his asshole coverage, or LeBron James changing shampoo types coverage, or Erin Andrews trimming her fingernails coverage. ESPN online did pick up the AP Dirty Game story... and they did a video piece after Europol cited 680 suspicious games. but on that video piece they got an Italian soccer commentator who thought this was being overblown...
Could you please investigate the NBA now pls. Hmm. I saw an NBA rep at the London conference on sports betting. the major difference, obviously, is the huge number of scores in basketball and low number of scores in soccer. 1-0 wins a soccer game, but you need what, 35-50 scores to win an NBA game? So many more scoring variables in the NBA and such high salaries. I would think college ball (no salaries) would be much much more vulnerable to spread fixing.
I am Sheila Norman-Culp, AP’s Assistant Editor for Europe, who led the AP's “Dirty Game” multiformat team that investigated match-fixing in football. FTFY. Ahh, you say football, i say tomato. Let's call a truce. Otherwise Americans in this chat will start talking about Alabama
Last updated: 2013-02-25 02:10 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

online gambling in new zealand public discussion document video

Online gambling is growing fast in New Zealand, but critics say new government ideas for regulating websites focus on what's good for the industry, rather than protecting people from harm.. Hours ... As more New Zealanders pour money into overseas casino websites and betting agencies - an incredible $381 million through offshore operators in the past 18 months - the government has announced it wants to review the 2003 Gambling Act to make sure it keeps up with technological changes.. On 31 July, the Department of Internal Affairs released a discussion document suggesting four options for ... Online Gambling in New Zealand – Public Discussion Document operators and products we allow to enter the market. Online gambling presents challenges for the New Zealand gambling regulatory system, for example by cutting across domestic jurisdictions. Historically, gambling has involved identifiable individuals DIA floats online gambling censorship Internet freedom advocates have slammed the Government for proposing censorship of online gambling sites, Marc Daalder reports. The Department of Internal Affairs' discussion document on online gambling in New Zealand has come under fire from all angles. Ensuring that overseas gambling sites don’t undermine New Zealand’s rules is behind a public discussion document on online gambling launched today by Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin. “Our current Gambling Act is from 2003 and like a lot of legislation it is being challenged by the place of the internet,” Minister Martin says. Ensuring that overseas gambling sites don’t undermine New Zealand’s rules is behind a public discussion document on online gambling launched today by Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin. The current Gambling Act is from 2003. Back then, internet technology was still developing. Law makers couldn’t have foreseen the way that gambling would develop online. This discussion document has been released to seek public feedback on a new framework for online gambling in New Zealand. A discussion document was released in July 2019 which sought New Zealanders’ views on a future regulatory framework for online gambling. Over August and September 2019, 2,997 submitters shared their views, including on minimising harm from online gambling and other concerns and opportunities. Public health advocates say the Department of Internal Affairs is prioritising the profits of Kiwi gambling companies over the health of Kiwi gamblers, Marc Daalder reports. New Zealand spends hundreds of millions of dollars on online gambling every year, but only two Kiwi organisations are earning anything from it. As part of the review of online gambling in New Zealand, the Minister of Internal Affairs released the discussion document Online Gambling in New Zealand in July 2019. In August and September 2019, the Department consulted publicly on the discussion document and sought New Zealanders views on the future of online gambling. The Department also ...

online gambling in new zealand public discussion document top

[index] [952] [8084] [7291] [5582] [8823] [542] [6956] [4650] [5413] [7241]

online gambling in new zealand public discussion document

Copyright © 2024 m.kazinobest.fun