3 ms·

If he outsmarted the poker-logic, I'd say great for him. If the game always shuffled two aces next to each other, that would be fine knowledge for him to use.

If he outsmarted the poker-logic, I'd say great for him. If the game always shuffled two aces next to each other, that would be fine knowledge for him to use. He didn't use something like that, though. The payout was supposed to be $820 and by messing with the denominations he got it to be $8,200.

sneak 14y ago
No, by the very rules of the game (the code), the payout was supposed to be $8200, and the machine dispensed it accordingly. To impose criminal liability upon someone because they didn't make the assumption that the programmer/casino/manufacturer really meant for something else to happen instead is an exceptionally dangerous state of affairs. Weev is doing 41 months right now for conspiracy to commit unauthorized access and identity fraud (possession of a list of email addresses) because his team spidered a website run by AT&T. AT&T themselves said that there was no crime and no damages, and said in court that they (AT&T) were the ones who published the data on the web. The US Attorney felt differently, and now he's in federal prison for a few years while we try to sort out his appeal. This is what happens when you make someone who requests data or a system state change criminally liable for that independent, autonomous system responding with data or changing to that state by its own software's defined operation. It's a blatant misapplication of responsibility.
- evandijk70 14y ago
  The rules of the game are not in the code. If the bug would be the other way around, where it would suddenly payout 82$ if you'd press this sequence of buttons, the casino would definitely return the money.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >the casino would definitely return the money // It's different. The casino provided the game. It's like giving money to strangers. If you surprise them by giving them money that's OK, it's your money. If you surprise them by stealing from them, that's not OK. So a game that surprises you by giving more winnings than expected is fine; a game that suddenly reduces the winnings by taking some of the money you've won is not fine. Or another way: Sometimes I feel generous and forgo a customer the decimal part of their bill to save them trying to find the money or if they haven't enough, that's fine, it's my "game". I can't decide to take their change though. When the giving more is built in to the game, so you play it a a particular way and the you win more, that's just a game that you're winning.

sneak 14y ago

No, by the very rules of the game (the code), the payout was supposed to be $8200, and the machine dispensed it accordingly. To impose criminal liability upon someone because they didn't make the assumption that the programmer/casino/manufacturer really meant for something else to happen instead is an exceptionally dangerous state of affairs. Weev is doing 41 months right now for conspiracy to commit unauthorized access and identity fraud (possession of a list of email addresses) because his team spidered a website run by AT&T. AT&T themselves said that there was no crime and no damages, and said in court that they (AT&T) were the ones who published the data on the web. The US Attorney felt differently, and now he's in federal prison for a few years while we try to sort out his appeal. This is what happens when you make someone who requests data or a system state change criminally liable for that independent, autonomous system responding with data or changing to that state by its own software's defined operation. It's a blatant misapplication of responsibility.

evandijk70 14y ago
The rules of the game are not in the code. If the bug would be the other way around, where it would suddenly payout 82$ if you'd press this sequence of buttons, the casino would definitely return the money.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >the casino would definitely return the money // It's different. The casino provided the game. It's like giving money to strangers. If you surprise them by giving them money that's OK, it's your money. If you surprise them by stealing from them, that's not OK. So a game that surprises you by giving more winnings than expected is fine; a game that suddenly reduces the winnings by taking some of the money you've won is not fine. Or another way: Sometimes I feel generous and forgo a customer the decimal part of their bill to save them trying to find the money or if they haven't enough, that's fine, it's my "game". I can't decide to take their change though. When the giving more is built in to the game, so you play it a a particular way and the you win more, that's just a game that you're winning.