In an industry that attracts skilled fraudsters, casino operators clearly have to use a range of security screening measures, and everyone understands that these businesses have a right to protect themselves. One of the methods deployed is the negative database, but a better way has to be found for its implementation if future business and relationships with the consumer are not to be irreparably damaged.

We all know that negative databases, or as they are more pungently referred to "player blacklists" are widely used by online casinos as security screens, but most online gamblers believe that these measures are being abused in many cases, and not just by the more unscrupulous operators in the industry.

Almost every experienced onliner you talk to will have genuine first hand horror stories of unfair bonus and winnings disqualifications where the player's alleged presence on an un-named database is given as the reason for taking away what he or she regards as fair reward for their wagering. It is done unilaterally and communications contesting it are more often than not simply ignored.

In every case, players avow that they have not previously been told of their inclusion on such a list, which usually has severe personal as well as pecuniary consequences in that their accounts are locked and they are barred from playing at other casinos.

There can be few other aspects of life where such liberties are taken with individual rights. There is no notification, no right of appeal and there is a general fear that way too little control is exercised over who makes database entries and on what grounds.

Stories of casinos using "bait and switch" marketing techniques abound, driving the wedge ever deeper between the customer and the casino.

For example, clients are often lured with attractive email or site promo offers, urging them to deposit and then unilaterally penalizing them using the unchallengable database entry as justification. It is no coincidence that this is frequently after a good win and it begs the questions "why is the database disqualification not invoked BEFORE deposits are made? And "why was the player sent the promo material in the first place?"

Using databases as a means to circumvent winner payouts is not only dishonest and shortsighted in a business sense - it harms the industry by giving momentum to claims that it is unregulated and irresponsible.

The key question of player privacy comes into the equation, too. Casino sites assure their clients that they will protect the very sensitive personal and financial information which is given in trust to the operator, and that is a promise that players expect casino operators to keep. Does this information find its way onto generally circulated databases, and if so how can that be reconciled with serious undertakings to safeguard a genuine player's information?

Fraudsters and unfair chargebackers attract absolutely no sympathy from the players, but the industry has to be responsible in the use of the blacklist system.

The obvious place to start is the credibility of the database itself. Noone wants to see another Online Casino Managers Association debacle where falsification of sponsors and almost criminal invasions of player privacy outraged the entire industry. So an effective database should ideally be under the aegis of a respected, independent third party.

The identity of the database and who is accountable for the entries carried in it would seem to be a reasonable requirement, yet getting this sort of information from present day database users is akin to squeezing blood from a stone. Why the coyness and secrecy? If it is a genuine vehicle, and if the entries being made on it are responsible and justified there should be no problem with transparency regarding who stands behind it.

Perhaps the most critical element is who is authorised, and on what grounds to make entries? Does that person appreciate the gravity of the matter and the seriousness with which every entry should be considered?

I suspect that a very laissez faire attitude exists at present, with casino personnel too often making entries which are neither formally justified or really scrutinized within acceptable guidelines.

This needs tightening up, with firm guidelines on the level of personal information to be disclosed and what circumstances merit an entry. There should preferably be an independent controlling panel of experts which regularly double check entries to ensure they are for sound and fully explained reasons, and that the process has been correctly initiated.

It is an important principle of democracy that an accused has the right to answer his or her accusers and know what allegations are being made. This is singularly lacking in industry databases. Any player condemned to a negative database should have the fundamental right of being personally and privately advised why and by whom, and there should be a right of appeal.

All of these precautions can, with a little forethought and structuring be achieved without reducing the efficacy of online gambling negative databases. In fact these basic measures could actually strengthen the process, lend more justice and credibility to it and thereby improve relationships between consumers/players and the operational side of the business.

That has to be a goal worth striving for.