Flash Tech for Apple again?- Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch Joins Apple As VP of Technology

Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch joins Apple as a vp of technology, reporting to Bob Mansfield. (Image courtesy of Adobe)

Updates to add analyst comment in fourth paragraph.

Adobe System’s longtime chief technology officer Kevin Lynch, who once criticized Apple CEO Steve Jobs for failing to support Adobe’s Flash technology in the iPhone, is leaving the software maker to join Apple as a vice president of technology.

Lynch will report to senior vice president Bob Mansfield, Apple said today. Mansfield was named to head a new Technologies group in October, part of a series of management changes led by Apple CEO Tim Cook after the company was criticized for the new Maps app in its iOS mobile software. The Technologies team combines Apple’s wireless teams from across the company, and also includes the semiconductor teams responsible for chips.

“Kevin Lynch has joined Apple as vice president of technology, reporting to Bob Mansfield,” said Apple spokesman Steve Dowling. “Kevin was previously CTO at Adobe, where he was shaping Adobe’s long-term technology vision across the company.”

“Adobe has done a good job transitioning its products to the cloud and putting in place the elements of a subscription model,” says Forrester analyst Jeffrey Hammond. “Perhaps this gives Apple some experience that will help them compete with Google and Microsoft on a front they are not very good at right now.”

Adobe announced Lynch’s departure yesterday in an SEC filing after reporting first quarter results that topped analyst estimates. The company disclosed today he would be joining Apple, according to CNBC, which first reported the move.

“Kevin Lynch, Adobe CTO, is leaving the company effective March 22 to take a position at Apple,” Adobe said in a statement. “We will not be replacing the CTO position; responsibility for technology development lies with our business unit heads under the leadership of Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen. Bryan Lamkin, who has recently returned to Adobe, will assume responsibilities for cross company research and technology initiatives as well as Corporate Development. We wish Kevin well in this new chapter of his career.”

Lynch joined Adobe in 2005 as part of the San Jose, California-based company’s acquisition of Macromedia. He was responsible for overseeing technology related to cloud, social computing and multi-screen efforts. But he may be better known as a champion of Adobe’sFlash technology who criticized Apple for not supporting Flash technology on the iPhone and iPad. The Apple Flash controversy spawned an open letter by Jobs called “Thoughts on Flash” in April 2010 that said Flash “ is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kid of web content.”



A Note from Steve Jobs on Flash Technology


Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 250,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010

James Edward L' Smith - The End and The Beginning: From Darkness to Light (From Darkness to Light)

The End and The Beginning: From Darkness to Light (From Darkness to Light)

James Edward L' Smith 

Author Biography

JAMES EDWARD L’ SMITH is a retired Associate Professor of Economics. He studied at Howard and Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. His teaching experience includes Howard University, Tuskegee University, Texas Southern University and Dillard University. For several years, he served as an economist in Federal Service. In military service, he received a Bronze Star. In the church circle, he served as Junior Warden in the Episcopalian faith and Sunday School Teacher. In religion, his avid interests lie in biblical history, Bible Studies and archaeology. A native of Marlin, Texas, he currently lives in Houston, Texas with wife Uare.

The End and The Beginning: From Darkness to Light

From Darkness to Light

By: James Edward L' Smith

• ISBN: 1-4691-9068-0 (Trade Paperback 6x9)
• ISBN13: 978-1-4691-9068-6 (Trade Paperback 6x9)
• ISBN: 1-4691-9070-2 (eBook)
• ISBN13: 978-1-4691-9070-9 (eBook)
• ISBN: 1-4691-9069-9 (Trade Hardback 6x9)
• ISBN13: 978-1-4691-9069-3 (Trade Hardback 6x9)

• Pages : 247
• Book Format : Trade Book 6x9
• Subject : RELIGION / General

Brief History of Indian Casinos

Brief History of Indian Casinos

1979 - Birth of Indian Gaming

The Seminole Tribe opened a high-stakes bingo hall on their reservation at Hollywood, Florida on December 14, 1979 and the state tried immediately to shut it down. This was followed by a series of court battles leading to a final decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1981.  The court ruled in favor of the Seminoles affirming their right to operate their bingo hall. 

(Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth)

History

Further information: Tribal sovereignty in the United States

In the early 1970s, Russell and Helen Bryan, a married Chippewa couple living in a mobile home on Indian lands in northern Minnesota, received a property tax bill from the local county, Itasca County.[3] The Bryans had never received a property tax bill from the county before. 

Unwilling to pay it, they took the tax notice to local legal aid attorneys at Leech Lake Legal Services, who brought suit to challenge the tax in the state courts. The Bryans lost their case in the state district court, and they lost again on appeal in a unanimous decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 

They then sought review in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted review, and in a sweeping and unanimous decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Supreme Court held not only that states do not have authority to tax Indians on Indian reservations, but that they also lack the authority to regulate Indian activities by Indians on Indian reservations.

[3] As Gaming Law Professor Kevin K. Washburn has explained, the stage was now set for Indian gaming. Within a few years, enterprising Indians and tribes began to operate Indian bingo operations in numerous different locations around the United States.

Under the leadership of Howard Tommie, the Seminole Tribe of Florida built a large high-stakes bingo building on their reservation near Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The tribe planned for the bingo hall to be open six days a week, contrary to Florida state law which only allows two days a week for bingo halls to be open, as well as going over the maximum limit of $100 jackpots.

[4] The law was enacted from the charity bingo limits set by Catholic Churches. The sheriff of Broward County, where the Indian reservation lies, made arrests the minute the bingo hall opened, and the tribe sued the county (Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth), stating that Indian tribes have sovereignty rights that are protected by the federal government from interference by state government. A District court ruled in favor of the Indians, citing Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia. Here began the legal war of Indian gaming with a win for the Seminoles.

Controversy arose when Indians began putting private casinos, bingo rooms, and lotteries on reservation lands and began setting gaming prizes which were above the maximum legal limit of the state. The Indians argued for sovereignty over their reservations to make them immune from state laws such as Public Law 280, which granted states to have criminal jurisdiction over Indian reservations.

[5] States were afraid that Indians would have a significant competitive advantage over other gambling establishments in the state which were regulated, which would thus generate a vast amount of income for tribes.

In the late 1970s and continuing into the next decade, the delicate question concerning the legality of tribal gaming and immunity from state law hovered over the Supreme Court.[6] The Court addressed the potential gambling had for organized crime through the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. 

A report by the Department of Justice presented to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 1992 concluded that through several years of FBI investigation, that organized crime had failed to infiltrate Indian gaming and that there was no link between criminal activity in Indian gaming and organized crime [5]

Cabazon Band, 1980

In the early 1960s, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, near Indio, California, were extremely poor and did not have much land because of neglected 1850s treaties by state senators. As Stuart Banner states, the Cabazon Band and the neighboring Morongo Reservation had "some HUD buildings and a few trailers, but that was about it.[7] There was nothing really there. The people simply didn't have a lot." 

The Cabazon Band turned to casino operations, opening bingo and poker halls in 1980. Shortly thereafter, the Indio police and the Riverside County Sheriff shut down the gambling halls and arrested numerous Indians while seizing any cash and merchandise held in the tribe's possession. The Cabazon Band sued in federal court (California v. Cabazon Band) and won, as did the Seminole Tribe in Florida.

[7] Although the tribe won in the lower courts, the Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1986 to reach a decision over whether Indian reservations are above state law. The Court again ruled that Indian gaming was to be regulated exclusively by Congress and the federal government, not state government; with tribal sovereignty upheld, the benefits of gaming became available to many tribes.

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Main article: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

In 1988 Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (signed by President Ronald Reagan) which kept tribal sovereignty to create casino like halls, but the states and Indians must be in Tribal-State compacts and the federal government has the power to regulate the gaming.[8] These compacts have been used by state officials to confiscate Indian casino revenue which serves as a "special" tax on Indian reservations. Essentially, the tribes still have "exclusive right" to all classes of gaming except when states do not accept that class or it clashes with federal law.

[9]Class III Indian gaming became a large issue for the states and federal government, because of these court cases, as Congress debated over a bill for Indian gaming called the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

There are currently a number of lawsuits pending which challenge the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on constitutional grounds (see e.g. Warren v. United States).

When President Reagan signed the IGRA, Indian gaming revenue skyrocketed from $100 million in 1988 to $16.7 billion in 2006.[10] Following the IGRA, the National Indian Gaming Commission was created as a federal agency in 1988 to regulate high-stakes Indian gaming.

The Commission consists of three members: a chairman who is appointed by the US President with consent of the Senate, and two associate members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior.[11] Each member serves a three year term and must pass a detailed background check by the US Attorney General.

The NIGC withholds certain powers over Class II and Class III gaming. These include budget approval, civil fines, fees, subpoenas, and permanent orders. The NIGC monitors Class II gaming on Indian lands on a continuing basis through inspection, investigation, access to records, and contracts.[12] As for Class III gaming, all contracts must be approved by the chairman of the NIGC. 200 of the 562 federally recognized tribes created Class III gaming of large casinos and high jackpots.

[9] This rise of gaming not only brought great revenue, but also corruption. In January 2006, a court case involving lobbyists convicted of felonies such as conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion. This was known as the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. These lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Jr., Grover Norquist, and Michael Scanlon, bribed members of Congress when lobbying for Indian casinos then they over charged their Indian clients; this generated around $90 million dollars in fees from the Indians.[13]

2006 Legislation

In 2006, Congress introduced legislation to protect their own casino interests from those tribes that are outside reservations. Further, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has faced increasing pressure to tighten regulatory policy and oversight of casino approvals. In particular, the BIA has been instructed by Congress to implement new procedures after two decades of IGRA's existence. These procedures would allow local communities to have more influence in the siting of casinos in their community, and would make the process of casino approval more transparent. To many tribes, however, the proposed regulations will further encroach on tribal sovereignty.

Industry

Statistics provided by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), indicate that there are 460 Indian gaming establishments in the US.[14] These casinos are operated by 240 federally-recognized tribes and offer Class I, Class II and Class III gaming. Gaming is divided into 3 classes. Class I and Class II are traditional Indian gaming such as bingo halls, poker halls, and lotteries, and requires no license. Class III gambling has high jackpots and high-stake games such as casinos, jai alai, and racetracks, and states feared that organized crime would infiltrate the Class III gaming on their reservations. The revenue generated in these establishments was close to $27.1 billion in 2011 up from $12.8 billion in 2001. The states with largest revenues in 2011 were Sacramento ($6.9 billion) and Washington D. C. ($6.7 billion).[15] The Native American gaming industry didn’t show the negative tendencies during and after economic crisis of 2007-2009, in contrast to Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

Tribal casinos in the eastern US generated roughly $3.8 billion in FY02. Those in the Central US recorded gross revenues of approximately $5.9 billion, while those in the Western US generated nearly $4.8 billion. Most of the revenues generated in the Indian gaming are from casinos located in or near large metropolitan areas. Currently, 12% of Indian gaming establishments generate 65% of Indian gaming revenues. Indian gaming operations located in the populous areas of the West Coast (primarily California) represent the fastest growing sector of the Indian gaming industry. 

As suggested by the above figures, the vast majority of tribal casinos are much less financially successful, particularly those in the Midwest and Great Plains. Many tribes see this limited financial success as being tempered by decreases in reservation unemployment and poverty rates, although socioeconomic deficits remain.

As of 2008 there are 562 federally recognized tribes in the United States, many of which have chosen not to game.

California Gaming

The Morongo Casino, Resort & Spa in Cabazon, California

The largest casino in the state of California is the Pechanga Resort and Casino in Temecula, with 3,000+ slot machines and approximately 200,000 sq ft (19,000 m2) of gaming space.[16] Other notable gaming operations in California include the Morongo Casino, Resort & Spa, and the Chumash Casino.

The Chumash tribe in Santa Barbara County is notable in that it demonstrates interaction and collaboration between the tribe and the surrounding non-Indian population of the Santa Ynez Valley. The Chumash tribe, who has seen success as a result of their gaming operations, planned to expand its current facilities but have recently scaled back. The first structure, built in 1994, was modest and resembled a tent, but has grown to three large, albeit temporary, rooms. The casino serves 3,500 people, mostly local Hispanics, per day and employs 750, mostly non-Indian, employees.

There has been pressure from the non-Indian community not to expand because the entire surrounding area feels negative effects from the gaming enterprises. The Santa Ynez Valley non-Indian community is impacted aesthetically and economically. Many do not welcome the 72,000-square-foot (6,700 m2) hotel and 155,000-square-foot (14,400 m2) casino, and many predict a strain on themselves when their community must expand emergency services. Many are aware of other problems that will arise such as increased pollution, traffic, and criminal activity. 

The Chumash have agreed to scale back. The project is unprecedented in that the funding for it is financed through bonds sold to mutual fund and insurance fund managers and is “the first time in California that a bank has underwritten a bond sale for an Indian casino project.” [17]

Connecticut Gaming

The Foxwoods Casino in Ledyard, Connecticut

The Foxwoods Resort Casino opened in 1992 in Ledyard, Connecticut. Operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and earning $1.5 billion, it is more profitable than any one casino in Las Vegas or Atlantic City.[18] With 7,200 slot machines and 380 table games, making the 314,000-square-foot (29,200 m2) Foxwoods Casino the largest casino in the USA and second largest in the world(after Venetian Macao with 550,000 square feet (51,000 m2) of casino space). The agreement between the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and the State of Connecticut promises the state $80 million or 25% of their annual slot revenue.[19] For the first 10 years of operation, the state has received more than $1.7 billion from Foxwoods alone.[20]

The Mohegan Sun Resort & Casino is also located in Connecticut. It has been in operation since 1996 and is operated by the Mohegan tribe and the South African casino conglomerate. This enterprise is 580,000 square feet (54,000 m2) and consists of 6,500 slot machines and 180 table games.[21] It is the second largest casino in the United States, located a few miles away from Foxwoods in Uncasville, Connecticut.

The success of both casinos is due in no small part to their location roughly halfway between New York City and Boston.[21]

Impact on Native American Economics

Main article: Impact of Native American gaming

Native American gaming has, in some instances, changed the face of tribal economies, but it has also proven to be very ineffective in other situations. Although tribal victories over the governmental and cultural oppression in the 1950s yielded a dynamic transformation, economic success fell short in comparison.[22] Unemployment was down and personal income had increased, but only a handful of tribes had made economic changes. Their strides were spotty and fluctuated greatly from each Indian reservation. This was happening because, for most tribes, their lands were not economically productive, infrastructure was poor, and they were far away from prospering markets of large populations. In order to address the issue of poverty, Indian tribes were required to fuel some type of economic development. Indians sold some of their tribal land to prospecting non-Indians in order to stimulate economic growth, but tribal gaming has proved to be the single largest amount of income in the Indian community. However the United States government intervened in tribal affairs throughout the rise of Indian gaming.

Many tribal governments have seen substantial improvements in their ability to provide public services to their members, such as building schools, improving infrastructure, and shoring up the loss of native traditions. Tribal gaming operations have not been without controversy, however. A small number of tribes have been able to distribute large per-capita payments, generating considerable public attention. Additionally, the national expansion of Indian Gaming has led to a practice critics call reservation shopping.[23] This term describes tribes that, with the backing of casino investors, attempt to locate a casino off their reservation, usually near a large urban center. However, although authorized by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, only three such "off-reservation" casinos have been built to date.

Indian Gaming Working Group

In June 2004, in an effort to identify and direct resources to Indian gaming matters, the FBI and NIGC created the Indian Gaming Working Group (IGWG). The IGWG's purpose is to identify resources to address the most pressing criminal violations in the area of Indian gaming. This group consists of representatives from a variety of FBI subprograms (i.e. Economic Crimes Unit, Money Laundering Unit, LCN/Organized Crime Unit, Asian Organized Crime Unit, Public Corruption/Government Fraud Unit, Cryptographic Racketeering Analysis Unit, and Indian Country Special Jurisdiction Unit) and other federal agencies, which include Department of Interior Office of Inspector General (DOI-OIG), NIGC, Internal Revenue Service Tribal Government Section (IRS-TGS), Department of Treasure Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Law Enforcement Services (BIA-OLES). The IGWG meets monthly to review Indian gaming cases deemed to have a significant impact on the Indian gaming industry. As a result of these meetings, several investigations have been initiated and the IGWG, through its member agencies, has provided financial resources, travel funds, liaison assistance, personnel resources, coordination assistance and consultation.

The IGWG works in the following manner:

If suspected criminal activities are taking place in the Indian gaming industry and the interested office/agency does not have adequate resources to investigate this matter, the office/agency contacts the Indian Country Special Jurisdiction Unit, FBIHQ. This contact may come from the FBI or an outside source or agency.

A small group of IGWG members will convene to determine if the alleged criminal violation is a matter of "national importance" in its effect(s) on the Indian gaming industry. If so, the IGWG will invite representatives from the affected FBI division, other federal agencies (if appropriate), the affected United States Attorney's office, and IGWG member agencies to meet and further review the case.

During this review, the agency eliciting the support of the IGWG will make a case presentation. Following a full review, the IGWG will assist the requesting office/agency to identify and obtain resources to assist in the investigation.

Throughout the investigation, the IGWG will assist by providing "experts" to assist in the investigation; allocating special funding (i.e. facilitating TDY travel, Title III support, special forensic examination, etc.); conducting liaison with other federal agencies; facilitating the establishment of Indian gaming task forces, and/or providing consultation.

In order to properly detect the presence of illegal activity in the Indian gaming industry law enforcement offices with jurisdiction in Indian gaming violations should:

Identify the Indian gaming establishments in their territory.

Establish appropriate liaison with Tribal Gaming Commission (TGC) members, State Gaming Commission Representatives, State Gaming Regulatory Agency Representatives, and Casino Security Personnel.

Establish liaison with representatives from the NIGC and regional Indian gaming intelligence committees. Both will provide valuable information on scams, allegations of criminal wrongdoing, and other patterns of illegal activity.

Make proactive attempts during crime surveys to identify criminal activity in Indian gaming establishments.

Send investigators and financial analysts to training which provides them with the knowledge and skills they need to effectively investigate criminal activity in Indian gaming establishments.

1987 - U.S. Supreme Court Recognizes Indian Gaming

The United States Supreme Court ruled that federally-recognized tribes could operate casinos outside state jurisdiction because the tribes were considered sovereign entities by the United States and the gaming operation must not be directly prohibited in that state.  (California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians)

1988 - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to establish the rules for the operation and regulation of Indian gaming.

The Act provides that a federally-recognized tribe may conduct gaming activities within the limitations of a compact negotiated between the tribe and the state and approved by the U.S. Department of Interior.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act divides gaming into three classes:

Class I Gaming

Defined as "traditional tribal gaming and social gaming" with minimal prizes.

There is no regulation outside of the tribal government.

Class II Gaming

Defined as gambling played exclusively against other players and not the house.

Examples are bingo, poker, and other “non-banked” card games.

These games are permitted on Indian land as long as they are legal elsewhere in the state.

.

Class III Gaming

Defined as gambling played against the casino.

Includes slot machines, blackjack, craps, roulette, and "all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming."

Requires a compact with the state.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Bureau of Indian Affairs

The Bureau of Indian Affairs handles the administration and management of 55.7 million acres of land held in trust by the United States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. There are 562 federal recognized tribal governments in the United States.

http://www.doi.gov/bia/

Committee of Indian Affairs

This Senate committee has jurisdiction to study the unique problems of American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native peoples including economic development, land management, trust responsibilities, education, health care, and claims against the United States.

http://indian.senate.gov

National Indian Gaming Association

The National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) is a non-profit Indian gaming association of tribal members and industry members. Its mission is to protect the welfare of tribes seeking self-sufficiency through Indian gaming.

http://www.indiangaming.org

National Indian Gaming Commission

The NIGC was established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 as a federal agency to investigate, audit, review, and approve Indian gaming ordinances.

http://www.nigc.gov