6 ms·

Six Face Charges In Scheme To Manipulate Lottery Game

18 points by jzwinck 11y ago

dang 11y ago
Url changed from http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/cops-lottery-terminal-hack-allowed-suspects-to-print-more-winning-tickets/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/cops-lottery-termina..., which points to this.
Kenji 11y ago
Most interesting bit is in the end: An investigator for the Connecticut Lottery determined that terminal operators could slow down their lottery machines by requesting a number of database reports or by entering several requests for lottery game tickets. While those reports were being processed, the operator could enter sales for 5 Card Cash tickets. Before the tickets would print, however, the operator could see on a screen if the tickets were instant winners. If tickets were not winners, the operator could cancel the sale before the tickets printed. Lack of atomicity of the operation is the key here.
- capitalsigma 11y ago
  That's really terrible design. It seems almost unfair to charge these guys for exploiting such an obvious loophole.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    The point of the law is not to physically preclude violations. The law is to declare what is a violation and enforce it through, ultimately, violence. The "good kind" of violence, tautologically.
  - slavik81 11y ago
    They found a flaw in one layer of security. That's why there's more than one layer of security.
    - capitalsigma 11y ago
      Sure, I guess. But this is like playing craps at a table where you can take back your bet after you see where the ball lands... What else are you supposed to do?
      - mvid 11y ago
        Aside: Roulette has a ball that landed, craps has dice.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
braythwayt 11y ago
The basic premise: “We the government, who represent the people, are in the business of exploiting the people’s unfamiliarity with probability. You the retailer, who represent us, are not supposed to be in the business of exploiting our unfamiliarity with security.”
- danharaj 11y ago
  Yes, laws are unphysical and totally notional. When people talk about the law as if it were a physical real thing, that is just abuse of language. Law is convention. Defrauding the government is what the government says is defrauding the government. Try to convince a Judge and Jury that this wasn't fraud.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  > exploiting the people’s unfamiliarity with probability You have to give "the people" a little more credit than that, I'm sure most people know that they aren't actually going to win the lottery, but are doing it for the thrill. Edit: Do the downvoters believe that a significant portition of lottery players expect to win?
  - braythwayt 11y ago
    I was just making a joke. In reality, it’s a lot more complicated then innumeracy, there are a number of “profiles” of lottery ticket buyers. Here are three common ones: Alice buys a ticket every once in a while for “the thrill,” usually she buys tickets for the big jackpot games, and usually she buys just one on her own, plus she puts a small amount into a go in a pool with friends for social reasons. She doesn’t spend a lot every month, but she’s steady. Bob has a sense of desperation in his life. He's older, and with chronic economic problems. For him it’s a hail-mary play: He doesn't believe he has any other way to get rich, or even be comfortably provided for in his old age. Bob spends a lot on tickets, more than is advisable, but he tries to pick the ones with the biggest rollover jackpots to maximize his outcome. Carol is addicted to the rush of the gaming itself. She goes for the instant payoff games, and mixes lottery purchasing with video slots. There is a compulsive aspect to her play, and she spends what to us is a horrifying proportion of her disposable income on lotteries and video slots. She also has substance abuse problems. Alice, Bob, and Carol all know the odds are against them. Alice thinks that what she loses is made up for in entertainment and the social interaction with her friends. Bob know he’s losing, so he thinks he’s being perversely rational in buying tickets. Carol has problems, and the instant-win games and video slots are engineered to exploit them.
awinter-py 11y ago
oh god I hope their legal defense is 'we thought this was a feature not a bug'. computer law will get so much clearer if we stop blaming people for using systems as they're built.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Unlikely. Many kinds of cheating are basically using systems as they're built. Social systems, accounting systems, computer systems. Those systems are just a (fallible) embodiment of the relationships we choose to create between one another. If somebody abuses a system to shift a relationship to one that's parasitic or harmful, they shouldn't expect the rest of society to blame the system rather than the system's abuser.
  - awinter-py 11y ago
    Are you saying that the original 'relationship' of the lottery isn't parasitic or harmful? I take your point that it's useful to have a definition of cheating that goes beyond 'what the system seems to permit'. On the other hand, there's a point at which you release software that's so vulnerable that the liability is as much on the coder as the criminal.
    - wpietri 11y ago
      > Are you saying that the original 'relationship' of the lottery isn't parasitic or harmful? I agree that it is, but that doesn't matter for the moral analysis of the people who got arrested. If they had been screwing the lottery and donating the money to gambling addiction programs, I'd applaud them. But this was just thievery. > On the other hand, there's a point at which you release software that's so vulnerable that the liability is as much on the coder as the criminal. I don't think there's a fixed quantity of moral responsibility that you have to allocate between criminal and victim. If you don't install a very good lock on your door, that does not lessen the criminal's liability, moral or legal, for breaking in.
      - awinter-py 11y ago
refurb 11y ago
the operator could see on a screen if the tickets were instant winners. If tickets were not winners, the operator could cancel the sale before the tickets printed. Wow, looks like someone screwed up big time. Why the hell would you ever allow someone to see whether or not it was a winning ticket before printing it? That's asking for abuse.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

18 points by jzwinck 11y ago

dang 11y ago

Url changed from http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/cops-lottery-terminal-hack-allowed-suspects-to-print-more-winning-tickets/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/cops-lottery-termina..., which points to this.

Kenji 11y ago

Most interesting bit is in the end: An investigator for the Connecticut Lottery determined that terminal operators could slow down their lottery machines by requesting a number of database reports or by entering several requests for lottery game tickets. While those reports were being processed, the operator could enter sales for 5 Card Cash tickets. Before the tickets would print, however, the operator could see on a screen if the tickets were instant winners. If tickets were not winners, the operator could cancel the sale before the tickets printed. Lack of atomicity of the operation is the key here.

capitalsigma 11y ago
That's really terrible design. It seems almost unfair to charge these guys for exploiting such an obvious loophole.
- danharaj 11y ago
  The point of the law is not to physically preclude violations. The law is to declare what is a violation and enforce it through, ultimately, violence. The "good kind" of violence, tautologically.
- slavik81 11y ago
  They found a flaw in one layer of security. That's why there's more than one layer of security.
  - capitalsigma 11y ago
    Sure, I guess. But this is like playing craps at a table where you can take back your bet after you see where the ball lands... What else are you supposed to do?
    - mvid 11y ago
      Aside: Roulette has a ball that landed, craps has dice.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

braythwayt 11y ago

The basic premise: “We the government, who represent the people, are in the business of exploiting the people’s unfamiliarity with probability. You the retailer, who represent us, are not supposed to be in the business of exploiting our unfamiliarity with security.”

danharaj 11y ago
Yes, laws are unphysical and totally notional. When people talk about the law as if it were a physical real thing, that is just abuse of language. Law is convention. Defrauding the government is what the government says is defrauding the government. Try to convince a Judge and Jury that this wasn't fraud.
ryanlol 11y ago
> exploiting the people’s unfamiliarity with probability You have to give "the people" a little more credit than that, I'm sure most people know that they aren't actually going to win the lottery, but are doing it for the thrill. Edit: Do the downvoters believe that a significant portition of lottery players expect to win?
- braythwayt 11y ago
  I was just making a joke. In reality, it’s a lot more complicated then innumeracy, there are a number of “profiles” of lottery ticket buyers. Here are three common ones: Alice buys a ticket every once in a while for “the thrill,” usually she buys tickets for the big jackpot games, and usually she buys just one on her own, plus she puts a small amount into a go in a pool with friends for social reasons. She doesn’t spend a lot every month, but she’s steady. Bob has a sense of desperation in his life. He's older, and with chronic economic problems. For him it’s a hail-mary play: He doesn't believe he has any other way to get rich, or even be comfortably provided for in his old age. Bob spends a lot on tickets, more than is advisable, but he tries to pick the ones with the biggest rollover jackpots to maximize his outcome. Carol is addicted to the rush of the gaming itself. She goes for the instant payoff games, and mixes lottery purchasing with video slots. There is a compulsive aspect to her play, and she spends what to us is a horrifying proportion of her disposable income on lotteries and video slots. She also has substance abuse problems. Alice, Bob, and Carol all know the odds are against them. Alice thinks that what she loses is made up for in entertainment and the social interaction with her friends. Bob know he’s losing, so he thinks he’s being perversely rational in buying tickets. Carol has problems, and the instant-win games and video slots are engineered to exploit them.

awinter-py 11y ago

oh god I hope their legal defense is 'we thought this was a feature not a bug'. computer law will get so much clearer if we stop blaming people for using systems as they're built.

wpietri 11y ago
Unlikely. Many kinds of cheating are basically using systems as they're built. Social systems, accounting systems, computer systems. Those systems are just a (fallible) embodiment of the relationships we choose to create between one another. If somebody abuses a system to shift a relationship to one that's parasitic or harmful, they shouldn't expect the rest of society to blame the system rather than the system's abuser.
- awinter-py 11y ago
  Are you saying that the original 'relationship' of the lottery isn't parasitic or harmful? I take your point that it's useful to have a definition of cheating that goes beyond 'what the system seems to permit'. On the other hand, there's a point at which you release software that's so vulnerable that the liability is as much on the coder as the criminal.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    > Are you saying that the original 'relationship' of the lottery isn't parasitic or harmful? I agree that it is, but that doesn't matter for the moral analysis of the people who got arrested. If they had been screwing the lottery and donating the money to gambling addiction programs, I'd applaud them. But this was just thievery. > On the other hand, there's a point at which you release software that's so vulnerable that the liability is as much on the coder as the criminal. I don't think there's a fixed quantity of moral responsibility that you have to allocate between criminal and victim. If you don't install a very good lock on your door, that does not lessen the criminal's liability, moral or legal, for breaking in.
    - awinter-py 11y ago

refurb 11y ago

the operator could see on a screen if the tickets were instant winners. If tickets were not winners, the operator could cancel the sale before the tickets printed. Wow, looks like someone screwed up big time. Why the hell would you ever allow someone to see whether or not it was a winning ticket before printing it? That's asking for abuse.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]