'Iowa...
... lottery CEO Terry _Rich_'?
You can't make this stuff up. You really can't... :-)
Iowa state lottery's IT security boss hacked his employer's computer system, and rigged the lottery so he could buy a winning ticket in a subsequent draw. On Tuesday, at the Polk County Courthouse in Des Moines, Iowa, the disgraced director of information security was found guilty of fraud. Eddie Tipton, 52, installed a …
There have been instances where a Lotto ticket was a good investment. Here in Canada we have a Lotto that costs $5 for 3 plays with a 1 in 28.6 million odds of winning a (sometimes) $50 M jackpot with overflow into a series of up to 50 $1 M prizes.
So, wait for a big pot paid for by others and then buy just over 9.5 M cards at a total cost of $48 M and you can cover ALL possible winning combinations as well as collecting all of the overflow prizes. Even if you have to split the jackpot and several overflow prizes you still come out ahead.
This story has been in the news around here for several years. The prize went unclaimed for many months, and the year that you have to cash it was almost done, so there were stories in the news wondering if someone had the jackpot winner lost in the bottom of a purse or if it had been accidentally thrown out.
A few hours before the time expired, an out of state lawyer delivered the winning ticket to the lottery office in the name of a trust in Belize. State law requires that lottery winners be made public, but the lawyer said he couldn't divulge the the person or persons behind the trust and eventually dropped the matter. The state ended up using the prize money to fund some other lottery prizes so it didn't go to "waste".
Obviously dropping a claim to millions of dollars will raise some suspicions, so the state began investigating, but they couldn't learn much. Eventually they released the security tape footage from the convenience store where the mysterious person bought the ticket, asking for the public's help to identify him. Someone figured out who he was, and the rest of the investigation put the pieces together. AFAIK this guy had not been suspected previously, the investigation had focused around the idea that maybe the ticket had been criminally obtained by the bearer and that's why they wanted to hide their identity, or they were trying to avoid paying taxes on the prize.
I know it looks like there's not much evidence from what the story says, but I'm sure considering how long this investigation has been going on, they wouldn't be moving on him unless they were sure they had enough for a conviction.
What this goes to show is that allowing people to claim lottery prizes anonymously is bad policy - he would be living it up in Belize if they did that here. Also that the state lottery's IT oversight was poor - like the NSA they placed too much trust in those with administrative access. But in the end the bad guy never got a cent and will probably go to prison for a long time for his trouble, so the system worked "well enough" even if there is some obvious room for improvement.
This is why the lottery in the UK is a physical ball draw with checks and randomisations.
This is also why voting machines are a dreadful idea. $14M is nothing compared with the value of forcing an election result. Pencils on paper with entirely open transport and counting works because there is no hidden element. Nobody trusts reach other, which keeps it fair and hard to corrupt as each side is always watching for fairness.
There is no doubt this has been a fascinating case," Rich said in a statement. "We respect the court's work and the jury's verdict. The facts in this case have enabled us to further enhance our layers of security to protect the integrity of lottery games, and that ultimately has been a positive."
How many layers of Charmin TP does your site use, Mr. Rich? Have you ever had any independent outside audits? Or is this just another example of "the state is never wrong"? Connections with Kenneth Blackwell? Members of the same party? Or just thieves?
My Original Post: "'A tax on the poorer people usually.' The problem with calling it a "tax" is that no one is obligated to play."
Your Reply: "'The problem with calling it a "tax" is that no one is obligated to play.' ok so some metaphors don't bear close examination" - Neil Pye"
I've actually rethought my position on this. I've decided that it *is* a tax - but not necessarily on the poor. It is a tax on stupidity and magical thinking - which are not necessarily related and are not necessarily found together.
Zener diodes or similar electrical noise generators would likely still go through a PC, and so couldn't be trusted in this context.
It's like Random.org that claims to provide random numbers based on atmospheric static, but it might just be an NSA front. You never know...
"Hey, I asked the folks at Random.org and they denied any connection to the NSA. So you're wrong." Ah, okay then, that proves it.
Disclaimer: Random.org is just an example. I'm sure that they're trustworthy.
+1 for 'couldn't care less'
Yes, the odds are somewhat against the punter, but on the basis that someone wins, it's a moon shot with built-in low churn rate, so actually less expensive than, say, scratchies.
Fruit machines are a mugs bet, small prizes and very fast churn, even if they return 70-98% of stake money, the rate of play cumulatively takes it all over an hour. The lottery at least is on a glacial timeframe by comparison.
In the UK psychical balls are used to stop computer fraud as bouncing balls cannot be calculated. My brother doesn't know what a random number is and believes he can use a calculator to work out the lottery numbers. I pray he never wins or I'll never hear the last of it.
There are people who think voting by the internet and using computers is a good idea.
This sentence ""because in a case where a jury is allowed to speculate on what occurred without actual evidence of what occurred, a jury can engage in all sorts of leaps of logic." represents my opinion about jury system.
I say enable voting via. a 1-900 (or your equivalent.. high priced premium Tel Number), the proceeds of which will then go to the Political Party, for whom you voted for....
I mean this works soooo well for those TV Phone-in Talentless hack shows... + they've got 10+ years under their wheels to prevent that kind of miss-use... I mean what could possibly go wrong!?
Whereas a commenter above writing
> I'm sure considering how long this investigation has been going on, they wouldn't be moving on him unless they were sure they had enough for a conviction.
is an equally disturbing remark.
A jury should never be looking at the person in the dock and thinking "... yeah, must be guilty, the prosecutors wouldn't have brought the case if he was innocent...". The jury is there to test the evidence, and reject the "is guilty" hypothesis when they still have a reasonable doubt. Weakening this protection for the accused (and any of us could be accused) is damn dangerous.
Yes, plus if you have a forged ticket there's a good chance the genuine ticket holder will also claim. It won't be difficult to work out which is genuine. Certainly in the UK they know which machine printed the ticket in which town and which shop. Even if they managed to forge all those identifying details they can then resort to cctv footage.
And so is your trust in ...
Humans are fallible, they may have families to support and protect, they may have drug or gambling habits. They might do things that lead them open to blackmail.
Even if the hardware and software is secure, the human that has access might not be, never has been and never will be.
This really casts some doubts on Whitey Bulger's 1991 jackpot, I have to say. My faith in state-run games of chance with laughably terrible odds has been challenged.