3 ms·

It does lessen liability. Breaking & entering is a crime; tresspassing is a lesser crime. 'Just wandering in' is hard to prosecute.

wpietri 11y ago
Sorry if I was unclear, I was suggesting that the quality of a lock doesn't matter. I agree that the existence of a lock matters. Which I think should have been obvious from the phrase "criminal breaking in", in that as you point out, mere trespassing is a different crime from breaking in.
- awinter-py 11y ago
  Rewinding to the original question: the sys devs for the lotto system didn't install a lock.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    I doubt they, the prosecutors, the judge, or a jury will agree with you on this. I certainly don't. It wasn't very good security, easily jimmied. But that was true with early vending machine security as well, and with a surprising number of home door locks. The defendants here went beyond normal operation of the machine, which is all that it will take to qualify it for "rigging a game" and the computer crimes.
    - awinter-py 11y ago
      Most state lottos describe their product as a 'game' and by the common definition, games can be won if you know how to play them. Also, it's illegal in many states to operate a gambling establishment -- therefore we can assume that gambling is harmful to society. Given those definitions, these guys can defend themselves by saying (a) I was playing the game, (b) the mere fact that I turned a gamble into a sure win isn't evidence of ill intent -- as we all know, gambling is immoral, and (c) this use was not proscribed by the instructions. I wouldn't be surprised if there are rules against playing the lotto at your own store; that would be a contractual breach requiring the merchants to return their winnings. You can stretch that contractual breach to claim 'unauthorized use' for a CFAA charge, though if you lose it sets a tough precedent that hurts other CFAA prosecutions. But the mere act of using the machine in an alternative (but not prohibited) way isn't a crime.

wpietri 11y ago

Sorry if I was unclear, I was suggesting that the quality of a lock doesn't matter. I agree that the existence of a lock matters. Which I think should have been obvious from the phrase "criminal breaking in", in that as you point out, mere trespassing is a different crime from breaking in.

awinter-py 11y ago
Rewinding to the original question: the sys devs for the lotto system didn't install a lock.
- wpietri 11y ago
  I doubt they, the prosecutors, the judge, or a jury will agree with you on this. I certainly don't. It wasn't very good security, easily jimmied. But that was true with early vending machine security as well, and with a surprising number of home door locks. The defendants here went beyond normal operation of the machine, which is all that it will take to qualify it for "rigging a game" and the computer crimes.
  - awinter-py 11y ago
    Most state lottos describe their product as a 'game' and by the common definition, games can be won if you know how to play them. Also, it's illegal in many states to operate a gambling establishment -- therefore we can assume that gambling is harmful to society. Given those definitions, these guys can defend themselves by saying (a) I was playing the game, (b) the mere fact that I turned a gamble into a sure win isn't evidence of ill intent -- as we all know, gambling is immoral, and (c) this use was not proscribed by the instructions. I wouldn't be surprised if there are rules against playing the lotto at your own store; that would be a contractual breach requiring the merchants to return their winnings. You can stretch that contractual breach to claim 'unauthorized use' for a CFAA charge, though if you lose it sets a tough precedent that hurts other CFAA prosecutions. But the mere act of using the machine in an alternative (but not prohibited) way isn't a crime.