Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited August 23, 2017, 12:02 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

It's time the lottery needs to stop releasing a person name and picture when a big win is won!

Topic closed. 128 replies. Last post 2 years ago by Stack47.

Page 4 of 9
53
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
Thread Starter

United States
Member #143211
May 27, 2013
2231 Posts
Offline
Posted: February 9, 2015, 2:00 pm - IP Logged

In everyday life their are nuts out in this world why make it easier for them to get you when you win the lottery . 

    Avatar
    NY
    United States
    Member #23835
    October 16, 2005
    3613 Posts
    Online
    Posted: February 9, 2015, 3:33 pm - IP Logged

    In a perfect world, yes everyone who plays the lottery would have those options. And true, most people who win the lottery are going to be safe and many are capable of getting an attorney or loan to either move to an anonymous location or claiming via a trust or LLC, but that doesn't mean the lottery couldn't use a slight change in how they announce winners.

    I'll ask, what is the big issue with not releasing a lottery winners name/location until 30 days after the money has been released? Is it really that important to you that people don't get a little help from the lottery in avoiding media and beggars the first few weeks of being a lottery winner? You'll still get to see their name and location plastered all over the news once those 30 days are up.

    It's a program run by the government and using public funds (save the argument - once you buy a ticket it's the government's money), so I don't see a valid reason for completely withholding a winner's identity, but I never said there's a problem with a 30 or 60 day period before releasing a winner's information.

    All I've said is that it's not hard for anyone with a room temperature IQ to become hard to locate. You don't even need to be smart enough to  do it by yourself. As long as you're smart enough to seek advice it's easy enough to do. As far as spending some money in the interim, if you've got a ticket that's worth millions, convincing a bank to loan you some money shouldn't be any harder than convincing the local market to sell you a loaf of bread. About the worst case scenario will be that they charge you for the work of having their lawyer do the necessary paperwork to be positive you won't take the money and run without paying them back.

      Avatar
      NY
      United States
      Member #23835
      October 16, 2005
      3613 Posts
      Online
      Posted: February 9, 2015, 3:37 pm - IP Logged

      Alright, if you want to think lottery officials would be winning if it was anonymous,  lottery officials could be telling their friends,  and those friends telling their friends how to win right now as we speak.....That is a whole new level of paranoia you got there dude.  I now see the light on how outrageous some of what I say is.

      "That is a whole new level of paranoia"

      Right. Because with a government that snoops through our emails, keeps records of every phone call we make, and just takes the money if you have a few grand in cash when they catch you speeding it's wildly unthinkable that they might just say there's a winner and keep the money.

        pickone4me's avatar - lightbulb
        Wisconsin
        United States
        Member #104962
        January 23, 2011
        1146 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: February 9, 2015, 4:14 pm - IP Logged

        In everyday life their are nuts out in this world why make it easier for them to get you when you win the lottery . 

        Exactly.  Winners shouldn't have to worry about that.  If they bring it on themselves getting into trouble,  and hanging out with the wrong crowd...Then that isn't the lotteries fault.

        Redacted

          pickone4me's avatar - lightbulb
          Wisconsin
          United States
          Member #104962
          January 23, 2011
          1146 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: February 9, 2015, 4:18 pm - IP Logged

          "That is a whole new level of paranoia"

          Right. Because with a government that snoops through our emails, keeps records of every phone call we make, and just takes the money if you have a few grand in cash when they catch you speeding it's wildly unthinkable that they might just say there's a winner and keep the money.

          I am not disagreeing with that stuff.  Are you saying they would keep the money after confirming the ticket,  or before anyone comes to claim it?  You also have to work about if they pull that cyprus thing here.  What you say is plausible considering the rampant corruption in others areas of government.

          Redacted

            ttech10's avatar - blobdude
            Texas
            United States
            Member #92330
            June 5, 2010
            887 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: February 10, 2015, 9:19 am - IP Logged

            It's a program run by the government and using public funds (save the argument - once you buy a ticket it's the government's money), so I don't see a valid reason for completely withholding a winner's identity, but I never said there's a problem with a 30 or 60 day period before releasing a winner's information.

            All I've said is that it's not hard for anyone with a room temperature IQ to become hard to locate. You don't even need to be smart enough to  do it by yourself. As long as you're smart enough to seek advice it's easy enough to do. As far as spending some money in the interim, if you've got a ticket that's worth millions, convincing a bank to loan you some money shouldn't be any harder than convincing the local market to sell you a loaf of bread. About the worst case scenario will be that they charge you for the work of having their lawyer do the necessary paperwork to be positive you won't take the money and run without paying them back.

            Okay, it just seemed like you were saying that since people can already go through a process to avoid the media, that the lottery shouldn't change their method/timeline of announcing winners.

            I agree with your second part, that everyone should be able to get a loan, but I'm sure it may not work for everyone. Of course, David Edwards (drug addict, criminal and owing child support) got a $200,000 loan so he could celebrate in Vegas before his money hit. So maybe literally everyone has that option, though I'd be interested in seeing if banks would still make that big of a loan after the bailout stuff.

            I still think the lottery should wait to release names, regardless of whether or not people can high-tail it out of the area, simply to give the winners a little more time to cope with having millions in the bank. Even if you don't collect for months, I'm sure it still won't sink in how big it is until you can look at your bank account and see all those numbers.

              Avatar
              Chicago
              United States
              Member #90131
              April 22, 2010
              38 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: February 10, 2015, 7:47 pm - IP Logged

              Now I'm worried about winning PB since I play through a subscription through the State of ILL.

                mypiemaster's avatar - 2015021003pileofcash
                JACKPOT HUNTER

                United States
                Member #141034
                April 2, 2013
                1478 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: February 10, 2015, 8:25 pm - IP Logged

                The winner should be the only one that has the right to decide. It's the winner's life that is at stake.

                Seek and ye shall find -Matt. 7:7 ...Ask and ye shall receive -John 16:24 ...Give and it shall be given unto you -Luke 6:38 ...Be careful what you ask for!!! -Mypiemaster 1:1

                Having Money Solves Problems That Not Having Money Creates Yes Nod ****John Carlton****

                  mikeintexas's avatar - h87TsB4
                  Texas Panhandle
                  United States
                  Member #136843
                  December 20, 2012
                  1448 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: February 10, 2015, 10:17 pm - IP Logged

                  "It's the winner's life that is at stake." Statistics show you're being overly dramatic. If you'll give me a verfiable number of total lottery winners over the last 20 yrs. along with the number of people known to have been murdered for their winnings in that same time period, then I'll give your statement some validity. Until then, however, it's nothing more than hyperbole.

                  After this thread was started, I've done a lot of reading and research on "lottery winners killed"; I came up with these cases: Jeffrey Dampier, Abraham Shakespeare, Urooj Khan and most recently, Arthur Neal. We can even add the Thorne kidnapping in Australia from nearly 55 yrs. ago. There may be more and I'd welcome any additions to that short list and it might very well sway me from my belief we need transparency in all dealings of the lottery. In the cases of Dampier and Shakespeare, they were murdered by people related to or close to them, not strangers. IOW, anonymity wouldn't have helped them.

                  The Khan case (poisoning) was initially ruled accidental, but foul play is now suspected and simple logic would dictate the murderer would have to be someone who would stand to inherit the money. (I've read he and his brother argued over the money and the brother is now a prime suspect). Anonymity wouldn't have helped in his case, either.

                  Neal's case is different, murdered by someone who thought he had cash from a lottery win...a win that hasn't been verfied, only given as the reason by Neal's family for his murder . (The last I read, the lottery says no one has claimed that money.) I would venture that - considering the location - Neal would have been murdered if it had been thought he had a significant amt. of money from any other source ... or for a big screen TV ... or for an eight-ball (or less) of cocaine.

                  The Thorne kidnapping, while certainly tragic, would be the best argument of the lot for anonymity and indeed, Australia now allows winners to stay anonymous, but it and the other cases also point out the need for common sense and a winner's need to be cautious after winning, anonymous or not.

                  If you're wanting to prove anonymity is required by cherry picking from such a small number of cases, then I'd counter with the example of Eddie Tipton, the Iowa man who won $14.3 million, but who also worked for the Multi-State Lottery Association as the association's director of information security. According to news reports, he enlisted the aid of others in trying to covertly claim the prize. I would maintain his case perfectly illustrates the need for public disclosure. (and I'm sure there are others, I just didn't care to do more reading about this subject - my eyes are crossed as it is.) Without the transparency, fraud can and certainly will happen.

                  Seems to me lottery winners face more danger from their family and/or friends than they do from total strangers wanting to kill them for their winnings. I would also suggest anyone who wants their state to allow for anonymous claiming to petition your state legislator by phone, email and preferably with written correspondence. (I've read that last makes more of an impression as it takes much more time and effort to write a letter than the other two) Make your opinions be heard where it counts; after all, your representatives are supposed to be working for you.

                  Lastly, while I agree with a few of the posts on this thread, I still think a period of anonymity after a win is all that's really needed. I have said it before and will keep on saying it that I'm more afraid of someone in a suit and tie and a million dollar smile stealing my money than I am of someone dressed in black with a ski mask covering their face. (they may think I'm reaching for my wallet, but they're going to be suprised with a loud bang and a bright flash of light, hopefully the last light they see before they head off into that other bright light...or darkness, whichever you believe the afterlife will bring) While I love my nieces and nephews and they love their Uncle Mike, I'll worry more (basically not much at all) about them killing me for my winnings than I will a stranger.

                    Romancandle's avatar - moon
                    Upacreek
                    United States
                    Member #136306
                    December 8, 2012
                    431 Posts
                    Offline
                    Posted: February 10, 2015, 10:56 pm - IP Logged

                    You sure did your homework there mikeintexas!

                    Got some good points there for sure.

                    Well, I still would prefer a choice- period. 

                    I am less concerned about lottery officials cashing in on old school ball drops with astronomical odds than I am with walking around town with giant $ sign on my back.  Yeah, you could easily lay low for awhile, but I don't want be a recluse either.

                    Now if we go all computerized drawings perhaps I may be a little more leery of fraud, however, if that fraud were to become rampant, eventually the cat will be out of the bag and the whole trust in the system will come to a grinding halt, along with all those billion $ sales figures... the lottery industry has way to much to lose there.

                    I say give anonymity a chance and let's see what happens.  If you want your mug and full legal name splattered all over the WWW and archived for eternity, then by all means go for it.

                    I for one, would prefer to hold that Delaware smiley face and the words "So long, thanks for all the fish"

                    Finally, the best people to weigh in here would be past winners... if we could only hear from them!

                    -RC

                      mikeintexas's avatar - h87TsB4
                      Texas Panhandle
                      United States
                      Member #136843
                      December 20, 2012
                      1448 Posts
                      Offline
                      Posted: February 10, 2015, 11:17 pm - IP Logged

                      I try my best to research both sides of an argument before making up my mind.  I have no use for people who debate on emotion alone or use a very few high-profile examples as "proof" they're right, especially when the statistics show otherwise.  I was just trying to point out you stand a much better chance of getting killed driving to get your lottery ticket than you do being killed for winning.

                        zinniagirl's avatar - flower avatar_0026.jpg
                        nc
                        United States
                        Member #99520
                        October 26, 2010
                        376 Posts
                        Offline
                        Posted: February 10, 2015, 11:21 pm - IP Logged

                        With my face being allover the news recently, I prefer no picture if I were to be blessed as a winner.  Name not associated with face at that time. Was involved in a community action that was given publicity.  Work in a position that puts me in the public eye.  Would prefer anonymity of course but my state won't allow it, even if you win in another state. They made SC reveal the winner when a NC player won in SC.

                          Avatar
                          Thread Starter

                          United States
                          Member #143211
                          May 27, 2013
                          2231 Posts
                          Offline
                          Posted: February 10, 2015, 11:27 pm - IP Logged

                          I try my best to research both sides of an argument before making up my mind.  I have no use for people who debate on emotion alone or use a very few high-profile examples as "proof" they're right, especially when the statistics show otherwise.  I was just trying to point out you stand a much better chance of getting killed driving to get your lottery ticket than you do being killed for winning.

                          I respect your opinion and the work you have done .  Yes, you can easily get kill walking down the street but it would be much higher if everyone knew you name.  I just would like to see if all states would leave it up to yourself if you wanted all your personal information release.  Their will always be people that would love all the attention the win brings.    Ty

                            Bondi Junction
                            Australia
                            Member #57242
                            December 24, 2007
                            1102 Posts
                            Offline
                            Posted: February 11, 2015, 6:42 am - IP Logged

                            According to the National Endowment for Financial Education in America, 70% of Americans who experience a sudden financial windfall lose the money within a few years.

                            Most lottery winners keep their windfall secret (this is especially the case in Australia), but plenty of those who do tell their story are living tragic lives a few years after their win, often facing bankruptcy, broken marriages, endless lawsuits and, in some instances, substance addition and mental illness.

                            We all get a lot out of lotteries!

                              Teddi's avatar - Lottery-008.jpg

                              United States
                              Member #142499
                              May 13, 2013
                              1313 Posts
                              Offline
                              Posted: February 11, 2015, 8:04 am - IP Logged

                              "It's the winner's life that is at stake." Statistics show you're being overly dramatic. If you'll give me a verfiable number of total lottery winners over the last 20 yrs. along with the number of people known to have been murdered for their winnings in that same time period, then I'll give your statement some validity. Until then, however, it's nothing more than hyperbole.

                              After this thread was started, I've done a lot of reading and research on "lottery winners killed"; I came up with these cases: Jeffrey Dampier, Abraham Shakespeare, Urooj Khan and most recently, Arthur Neal. We can even add the Thorne kidnapping in Australia from nearly 55 yrs. ago. There may be more and I'd welcome any additions to that short list and it might very well sway me from my belief we need transparency in all dealings of the lottery. In the cases of Dampier and Shakespeare, they were murdered by people related to or close to them, not strangers. IOW, anonymity wouldn't have helped them.

                              The Khan case (poisoning) was initially ruled accidental, but foul play is now suspected and simple logic would dictate the murderer would have to be someone who would stand to inherit the money. (I've read he and his brother argued over the money and the brother is now a prime suspect). Anonymity wouldn't have helped in his case, either.

                              Neal's case is different, murdered by someone who thought he had cash from a lottery win...a win that hasn't been verfied, only given as the reason by Neal's family for his murder . (The last I read, the lottery says no one has claimed that money.) I would venture that - considering the location - Neal would have been murdered if it had been thought he had a significant amt. of money from any other source ... or for a big screen TV ... or for an eight-ball (or less) of cocaine.

                              The Thorne kidnapping, while certainly tragic, would be the best argument of the lot for anonymity and indeed, Australia now allows winners to stay anonymous, but it and the other cases also point out the need for common sense and a winner's need to be cautious after winning, anonymous or not.

                              If you're wanting to prove anonymity is required by cherry picking from such a small number of cases, then I'd counter with the example of Eddie Tipton, the Iowa man who won $14.3 million, but who also worked for the Multi-State Lottery Association as the association's director of information security. According to news reports, he enlisted the aid of others in trying to covertly claim the prize. I would maintain his case perfectly illustrates the need for public disclosure. (and I'm sure there are others, I just didn't care to do more reading about this subject - my eyes are crossed as it is.) Without the transparency, fraud can and certainly will happen.

                              Seems to me lottery winners face more danger from their family and/or friends than they do from total strangers wanting to kill them for their winnings. I would also suggest anyone who wants their state to allow for anonymous claiming to petition your state legislator by phone, email and preferably with written correspondence. (I've read that last makes more of an impression as it takes much more time and effort to write a letter than the other two) Make your opinions be heard where it counts; after all, your representatives are supposed to be working for you.

                              Lastly, while I agree with a few of the posts on this thread, I still think a period of anonymity after a win is all that's really needed. I have said it before and will keep on saying it that I'm more afraid of someone in a suit and tie and a million dollar smile stealing my money than I am of someone dressed in black with a ski mask covering their face. (they may think I'm reaching for my wallet, but they're going to be suprised with a loud bang and a bright flash of light, hopefully the last light they see before they head off into that other bright light...or darkness, whichever you believe the afterlife will bring) While I love my nieces and nephews and they love their Uncle Mike, I'll worry more (basically not much at all) about them killing me for my winnings than I will a stranger.

                              So your entire argument is "let's wait for an actual kidnapped child or murdered winner to occur before we give up the right to know who lottery winners are."

                              Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and fully disagree with that premise.

                              We have a society built on preemptive measures in every single aspect of our lives (airbags, seatbelts, temp controls on water heaters, baby proofing, storm cellars, flood insurance) you name it and there's been a way devised to combat a risk.

                              Yet here you have a situation ripe with risk (recommended kidnap insurance and hiding like a terrorist are now par for the course when the publicity machine starts to roll), but hey, they're only lottery winners, who cares about their well-being, as long as our curiosity is met. After all, all the other lotteries in the world that allow anonymity are so lacking in integrity and transparency that no one ever plays those games and it ruined it for everyone, Right?