
Forged Subway Passes - Boston - obtino
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/05/19/mass_ag_man_reaped_millions_with_fake_mbta_passes_1305843490/
======
quesera
MBTA is an embarrassment.

The cards have serial numbers, but they weren't checked? Seriously? Not even
in the nightly audit report? They do a nightly audit report, right?

Billsf showed BART how to run an electronic ticketing system 15 years ago. Of
course, he got prosecuted for it. But MBTA could surely have learned a thing
or two. Amateurs.

~~~
ajays
It's simple, really. It's not their money. If they run short of funds, they'll
just dig into the taxpayers' wallets.

~~~
sspencer
Got it in 1. MBTA is 8 _billion_ dollars in debt. They are the MA poster child
for "too big too fail."

~~~
ajross
It's a public transit system. Is the goal to turn a profit or provide transit
services? For comparison, how far in "debt" is the road system (which costs
far more to operate and has zero "revenue")?

I'm always amazed at the libertarians who freak out at the idea of subsidized
transit (which is clearly what this is, even if there's a nominal balance
sheet attached) as they drive their cars to work on the road system provided
entirely at taxpayer expense.

~~~
anamax
> For comparison, how far in "debt" is the road system (which costs far more
> to operate and has zero "revenue")?

When did MA repeal its gas taxes, license fees and taxes, and sales tax on
auto related stuff?

~~~
ajross
Ancient argument long settled. Those don't come close to meeting the cost of
maintaining this stuff. Even roads (e.g. the pike) which are expressly
mandated by law to support themselves via usage fees fail to break even.

It's a hypocrisy argument: government subsidies on transportation are bad,
except for the method of transportation you use. Some people actually take
those buses and subways and have different perspective.

~~~
anamax
> Those don't come close to meeting the cost of maintaining this stuff

Not so fast. The claim, which I refuted, was "which costs far more to operate
and has zero "revenue")?"

Not enough revenue is very different from "zero revenue".

> It's a hypocrisy argument: government subsidies on transportation are bad,
> except for the method of transportation you use.

Except that I wasn't making an argument - I was showing that your "zero
revenue" claim was false.

Note that it isn't at all hypocritcal to say that some subsidies are worse
than others. And, when you're arguing for subsidies, you can't argue that all
subsidies are bad.

------
wccrawford
So, to recap, if that commuter had told the operator to mind his own business,
this would still be going on.

Also, the T doesn't bother to count the number of passengers and compare it to
the number of tickets sold.

Also, the T's management doesn't read Craigslist, and hasn't for years.

~~~
sp332
_Also, the T doesn't bother to count the number of passengers and compare it
to the number of tickets sold._

Passengers can get on & off the train at multiple points along the line.
Counting passengers would not be very helpful.

~~~
wccrawford
They manage to check the tickets for all those passengers.

I've seen it in action.

~~~
rglullis
Go to Fenway on a game night. You just wave something that looks like a pass
and you get in.

------
woodrow
I'm actually kind of disappointed this wasn't more complicated, like actually
hacking the system or altering cards
(<http://web.mit.edu/zacka/www/mbta.html>,
<http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N30/subway/Defcon_Presentation.pdf>) instead of just
opportunism.

~~~
eli
Unfortunately the real world usually isn't that interesting.

Crooks in DC figured out that paper farecards had the same bits encoded over
and over for the length of the magnetic strip. So they'd get a high value card
and literally splice it into multiple high-value cards.
[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/washington_dc_...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/washington_dc_m.html)

------
ynniv
The passes described are neither "fake" nor "forged" - they were created by a
contractor hired to create them, using the system that creates all T passes.
The contractor wasn't authorized to create these, but we could call this a
licensing issue. It isn't obvious that this is a criminal case (even tho it is
being prosecuted as such) unless the MBTA gets special treatment under law.
The details make this look more like a copyright violation than a
counterfeiting case.

~~~
patio11
This is hacker logic, and specifically, hacker-who-is-committed-to-piracy-
being-noncriminal logic. The actual legal system will look at this like
printing fraudulent checks on authentic check paper. The illegality of this is
about as controversial a proposition as "Javascript is a programming
language."

If a lawyer told you Javascript was not a programming language, you'd
immediately think "Cripes, he's a bozo."

~~~
ynniv
_This is hacker logic_

I would expect it to be hacker logic, but I still don't agree. Company X hired
a contractor to produce keys. Contractor Y produced more keys than he was
authorized to produce, and sold them on the side. Are those additional keys
"fraudulent"? Was he authorized to produce and sell any number of them as long
as he paid for them? Clearly he had no intention of paying for these, but that
doesn't make the keys he sold on the side any less valid than the keys he was
authorized to produce. He is certainly liable for his contractual obligations
(the money owed per key), which the article states the MBTA is trying to
recoup.

 _The actual legal system will look at this like printing fraudulent checks on
authentic check paper._

In this case, by the payroll company that was in charge of printing checks.
Does that make them fraudulent? Is cashing them a crime? I would expect the
payroll company to be liable for the damages, but I would not expect the
company to be prosecuted for fraud.

You have picked a particularly poor example because an unauthorized check
deprives the account holder of the value of a check. An unauthorized MBTA pass
deprives the MBTA of the possible revenue that a customer purchasing a
discounted pass might have contributed, and additionally increases the
operating costs (generally fixed) of the MBTA by little to none.

 _specifically, hacker-who-is-committed-to-piracy-being-noncriminal logic._

To my knowledge, most piracy cases are civil cases. I don't recall any being
prosecuted by the Attorneys General.

(EDIT: I am wrong. High value for-profit cases are prosecuted as criminal
offenses by the FBI under Title 17 §506.)

 _The illegality of this is about as controversial a proposition as
"Javascript is a programming language."_

I don't know what kind of argumentation that is supposed to be, but it doesn't
suit someone of your stature. This is a complex situation that few or none of
us are properly equipped to resolve, but I still expect reasonable
discussions, or else what's the point of being here?

~~~
patio11
"This is a complex situation that few or none of us are properly equipped to
resolve."

This is, in fact, not a complex situation. Law is not a magic, unknownable
realm populated by wizards who have the sole ability to understand what it
means. Hard questions in law are hard questions, like hard questions in
engineering are hard questions, but this is not a hard question. It's only a
hard question if you are ignorant of the law or are intellectually committed
to law not working the way law actually works.

Printing a check which exceeds one's granted authority is, with absolute
certainty, a crime. You seem to be hung up on the notion that the payroll
company can print one check and, therefore, if it prints two checks, check #2
is kinda grey-area authorized. The law does not see things that way: if you're
knowingly printing extra checks to with the extent of stealing from their
account, it is _screamingly_ illegal.

I mean, want to look at an actual law? Here you go, MA General Law Chapter 267
(Forgery and Crimes Against the Currency) Section 1 (False or forged records,
certificates, returns, attestations and other writings)

"Section 2. _Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, falsely makes_ ,
alters, forges or counterfeits a railroad ticket, railroad mileage book or
_railroad pass_ , or a ticket, badge, pass or any written or printed license
purporting to entitle the holder or owner thereof to admission to any
exhibition, entertainment, performance, match or contest of any kind, _shall
be punished by imprisonment in the state prison_ for not more than three years
or in jail for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars."

This is really not ambiguous. Was it unpredictable that this was the law in
MA? No.

If one hypothetically believes that this case does not qualify as "falsely
makes" or that the bad actor here didn't have "intent to ... defraud", one is
wrong. One is not just a little wrong, or arguably wrong, or sort of grey area
wrong.

~~~
ynniv
I think that we have a fundamental misunderstanding here. My stance is that
the wrongdoing is not "fraud" because the passes which were sold were in fact
valid passes for which the MBTA was not compensated. You seem to be
interpreting my statements as claiming there was no wrongdoing, which isn't my
claim.

 _Law is not a magic, unknownable realm populated by wizards who have the sole
ability to understand what it means._

Law is not magic. But I am not a lawyer, and I don't think that many lawyers,
let alone those who specialize in criminal prosecution or even intellectual
property read Hacker News. Hence my claim that this is a complex issue for
"us" to engage in, for which "we" are not fully qualified. My interest in this
stems from the notion that we should be informed of the society we live in,
and that Hacker News comment threads are places of philosophical discussion.
Also, the Hacker News article uses the term "forged" instead of the article's
"fake", and I think that both of these are incorrect. The passes produced were
clearly valid, but unauthorized.

 _If one hypothetically believes that this case does not qualify as "falsely
makes" or that the bad actor here didn't have "intent to ... defraud", one is
wrong. One is not just a little wrong, or arguably wrong, or sort of grey area
wrong._

I apparently lack your swagger. Given that the MBTA could not differentiate
these passes from the ordinary pass, I claim that these passes are not
"falsely made". In every way they behave as stolen passes, but not fake ones.
Why does this matter? I suppose that I care because the headline "Forged
Subway Passes" is the only reason this article belongs on Hacker News. But
given that these are more "stolen" than "forged", there is nothing technically
interesting about this event and it doesn't really belong here.

But our discussion has been interesting, because you have presented compelling
arguments that this is actually fraud. I still believe that it is not, but the
process of arguing has made me develop my intuition of something that I
wouldn't normally have cared about. I certainly wouldn't have realized that I
thought the event was theft and not fraud.

