Singapore is standing by its decision to regulate online betting in the island nation despite criticisms that the government’s move is in conflict with the country’s Remote Gambling Act (RGA).

The Strait Times reported that Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin is drawing flak from the government’s decision to allow Singapore Pools and Turf Club to offer bets online, which critics claim to be sending “confusing and conflicting signals.”

Responding to his critics, Tan has pointed out that regulating online betting will better protect its citizens that are drawn to these sites. He conceded that illegal online betting cannot be completely eradicated and in fact “is there and it is growing.”

“You can close down sites, but new sites will be set up, sometimes faster than you can close them down,” Tan said, according to the news website. “It is a global market with a lot of money to be made, and the worst thing is that it is unregulated and there are no safety measures in place.”

Singapore is standing by its decision to regulate online betting in the island nation despite criticisms that the government’s move is in conflict with the country’s Remote Gambling Act (RGA).

The Strait Times reported that Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin is drawing flak from the government’s decision to allow Singapore Pools and Turf Club to offer bets online, which critics claim to be sending “confusing and conflicting signals.”

Responding to his critics, Tan has pointed out that regulating online betting will better protect its citizens that are drawn to these sites. He conceded that illegal online betting cannot be completely eradicated and in fact “is there and it is growing.”

“You can close down sites, but new sites will be set up, sometimes faster than you can close them down,” Tan said, according to the news website. “It is a global market with a lot of money to be made, and the worst thing is that it is unregulated and there are no safety measures in place.”

Bitcoin’s unregulated nature is a threat to Kenya’s economic stability, according to the country’s central bank.

The Central Bank of Kenya recently placed advertisements to warn residents against using the popular digital currency, saying that cryptocurrency products like bitcoin is “not legal tender in Kenya and therefore no protection exists in the event that the platform that exchanges or holds the virtual currency fails or go out of business.”

Kenya isn’t the first country to be wary of digital currency. We have Russia, which remains undecided if it wants to criminalize bitcoin-related activities or not. In Kenya’s case, however, the central bank appears to be miffed with the idea that bitcoin are unregulated at the moment—meaning it doesn’t have any jurisdiction over its use in the country.

Well, Kenya could learn a thing or two from its Japanese counterpart.

This is a guest contribution by Lenny Borodin, iGaming and Licensing Executive at Prospectacy LTD. If you would like to submit a contribution please contact Bill Beatty for submission details. Thank you.

There are hundreds of millions URLs our there on the World Wide Web. Yet some of the word combinations are so valuable that they command price tag in the millions. Obviously, with asset being so valuable while still very intangible, there is bound to be perpetrators looking to benefit from properties of unwary owners. Those Internet malefactors are widely known as domain or cyber squatters.

So how specifically do cyber squatters take advantage of high value domains? There are various methods in their arsenal ranging from unethical down to outright illegal. Previously, most common was purchase of expired domains. Business owners would forget to renew their domains only to see them hijacked with help of automated programs tracking expirations. After that, squatters would offer entrepreneurs to buy domains back at premium price. Owners would either have to ante up some serious money or face the hassle of moving business website to a new domain. All the while, squatter would be monetizing the existing traffic via ad displays on snatched domain. To make matters worth, business would be dealt a serious setback in client confidence and retention unless hefty buyback demands are satisfied.

Methods of domain hijacking can get even more illicit once business grew into an established, industry-leading brand. Monetary and reputation losses could be so high that business stakeholders would drop some serious cash to get domain back. To achieve their goal, intruders would go as far as sending out phishing e-mails in order to gain the registrar access information. Having obtained access, squatters would transfer it to different registrar. Once that was done, recovery of domain would be a complicated and lengthy process. Less clandestine but also reputation damaging would be the practices of Trademark Infringement and Bad Faith Registration. In this case, squatter would buy a domain name bearing similarity to established brand or even person. Resemblance is achieved by choosing the same name with different domain extension or very similar domain easily confusing the visitors.