Six Face Charges In Scheme To Manipulate Lottery Game
courant.com
courant.com
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.
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.
computer law will get so much clearer if we stop blaming people for using systems as they're built.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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?
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.