Simply blowing the contrast out in Photoshop makes the fakery pretty apparent too: http://i.imgur.com/6niwJ.png
The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
21–30 of 54 posts
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#22[deleted]
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#23There is nothing scientific about any of these tests. What's a 'high' ELA or 'low'? The thing that triggers a 'positive' seems to be only the authors intuition. While some of the tests might show something, I'm pretty sure ELA is absolute garbage - you can't separate the number of needed resaves because of the content frequencies from number of times it has already been resaved.
What, may I ask, makes a test scientific?
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#24There is nothing scientific about any of these tests. What's a 'high' ELA or 'low'? The thing that triggers a 'positive' seems to be only the authors intuition. While some of the tests might show something, I'm pretty sure ELA is absolute garbage - you can't separate the number of needed resaves because of the content frequencies from number of times it has already been resaved.
What, may I ask, makes a test scientific?
You don't need to get technical about it, but I think most people would expect any test described as scientific to be objective.
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, may I ask, makes a test scientific?
You don't need to get technical about it, but I think most people would expect any test described as scientific to be objective.
Do you mean free of bias or reproducible?
I think the author was clearly free from bias, and his results are easily reproduced by applying the same algorithms.
The subjectivity which you complain about may be the conclusions drawn from the results of the tests, which I think are distinct. Specifically, you cite his "intuition" as the origin of the conclusion.
I think the author's intuition is reliable because, like "real" scientists, he's an expert and speaks publicly about his work.[1] Or at least he appears to be. Are you prepared to challenge him as an expert?
[1] http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about this US lottery specifically but in most systems everything is recorded at HQ. Not just the numbers, but the place, the date and time, serial number etc That way they can also check with CCTV. It's an interesting topic in database design because the link to the store may fail at any time (remember lotteries started years ago on dialup) and you must not have an issued-unrecorded ticket at any point…
Then why did it take so long for them to announce how many winners there were? First they said "at least one", and then they said "three". If everything was stored in a central database, they could have found out the exact figures (and a lot more) as soon as the last winning number was announced. Maybe it's due to lack of coordination between states? Or maybe they need to do fraud checking, etc. by watching CCTV foot…
I doubt they use recordings for fraud prevention. I'd be pretty upset if my winning lottery ticket were denied because the store lost the recording, or never had them. It's just too costly to record every purchase.
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#27There is nothing scientific about any of these tests. What's a 'high' ELA or 'low'? The thing that triggers a 'positive' seems to be only the authors intuition. While some of the tests might show something, I'm pretty sure ELA is absolute garbage - you can't separate the number of needed resaves because of the content frequencies from number of times it has already been resaved.
He used PCA as well as ELA, making your first statement unfounded.
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#28I find it utterly frustrating that a scientific seeming article would end with this conclusion:
"A single algorithm can trigger false-positive or false-negative results... if something is really real, then it should pass everything."
How you going to be so thorough about detecting a crappy photoshop job and then trip over your own words in the conclusion?
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#29[deleted]
Re: The Photographic Science of Detecting Fake Lottery Tickets
#30To fake a lottery ticket for posting online, it'd be much easier just to print a fake ticket and then photograph it. I suppose, however, that the purpose of doing it digitally is to practice skills and "because I can." To fake a lottery ticket for claiming a prize ... well, that'd be fraudulent and would result in loss of freedom for quite some time.
[deleted]