Not that I want to look for reasons to cast aspersions on hackers or for that matter defend characteristically poor writing at a tabloid like the NY Daily News, but the money these people won came from normal people playing the game in good faith; they weren't screwing over casinos.
If you think this is just "playing the rules to maximum effect", that's fine, but consider whether that sentiment will cost you in a later debate about Wall Street.
Hm, I'll agree, however where does the money from a casino come from? Ordinary people losing, creating casino profit which ends up back on the table for someone to play to win. At the end of the day the money comes from somewhere, often at the expense of a losing party. So when someone figures a way to con the system they're often taking money lost by people who played in good faith and it didn't work.
Plus with Wall Street whilst they play the rules to maximum effect, they often seem to step outside the rules and they're frequently not just playing with the $10 Joe Smith paid on Friday for his ticket, but with the entire retirement savings of Bill Brown.
It's pretty morally shady whichever way you cut it, but there's definite shades in there.
I don't understand how this is unethical. Maybe I'm missing something.
Back in college, one of the guys I worked with would manage a 'numbers' game for one of his 'uncles.' He had an encyclopedic knowledge how the state lottery worked, and how to prevent oneself from falling afoul of state laws with regards to gambling.
Like any gambling, the house always wins - in this instance, the house is the state or whatever corporate entity that the state leases its legalized stupid tax operation to.
It says they had 8 million in winnings, but they spent nearly 40 million dollars to secure that 8 million in winnings. That's 20% ROI over seven years. They could have put the money in a CD and earned almost as much or more.
