Jonathan's Card shut down • Hacker News Board

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#11

Post by Cushman » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:28 AM UTC

sebkomianos wrote: post #7

Thing is, it was an experiment from the very beginning. Experiments don't have good and bad guys, only observations and results. And the observation isn't a new one: "systems" like that work nicely until the first few exploits.

I don't buy your logic. If I, as a researcher, leave a car in a bad neighborhood overnight to see what happens, the guy who smashes the window to steal the radio is still a bad guy whether or not that's relevant to my results.

Science doesn't concern itself with morality, but that doesn't mean it exists in a moral vacuum.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#12

Post by uname_pword » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:34 AM UTC

sebkomianos wrote: post #7

Thing is, it was an experiment from the very beginning. Experiments don't have good and bad guys, only observations and results. And the observation isn't a new one: "systems" like that work nicely until the first few exploits.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the credit on the gift card could only be transferred to another gift card using a PIN. If this is true, Sam Odio must have brute forced that PIN which was clearly not part of the experiment. I'd call that wire fraud. Even if there was no PIN Jonathan himself stated that he didn't want this to happen, that the experiment was in sharing change between Starbucks customers.

At the end of the day I find it hard to defend Sam Odio's actions no matter the scope of the experiment. As is often the case, I think he had a potent mix of greed (for money) and ability (to siphon money out of the gift card). Ultimately he ended up with over $500 and gave himself a reality check - anyone in their right mind would feel they have been at least "very surreptitious" if they were in his shoes. Sam wanted an out, and donating the stolen money to charity is the easiest way to spin his actions in a selfless view. From the wording in his blog post you can see he's no better than the so called yuppies he's trying to teach a lesson. The first thing going through his mind was "This is enough money to buy an iPad". Spoken like a true materialist? Not a single mention of the people who contributed that money in the first place.

And finally, just what lesson was he trying to teach here? That sharing spare change is greedy? Let's not forget that Sam treated himself to a coffee with his loot.

I can't help but feel he's getting what he deserves by having his name plastered on CNN and other media. When we dig beneath the surface his actions are truly revealing of his shady character.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#13

Post by Cushman » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:37 AM UTC

mikeleeorg wrote: post #9

Cushman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd imagine Starbucks was loving the free publicity as long as it was working, but when things started to turn sour they didn't want the controversy and decided to assert their rights.

The social media team at Starbucks struck me as being fairly social-media-savvy. I have some doubts - or at least a lot of confusion - over why they'd want to shut this down now. The publicity wasn't _that_ negative. It seemed like they stood to gain a lot for it continuing to work out too. But I suppose we'll never know the true story. Whatever the case, I think it's a sad shame. (I also hope this doesn't kill Jonat…

I don't think they can, or would want to, kill the idea— I think (assuming it's what happened) they shut down Jonathan's Card, which we know is being actively skimmed, to nip the negative press in the bud, secure in the knowledge that copycat projects will (and already have) swoop in and pick up the torch.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#14

Post by drivebyacct2 » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:38 AM UTC

I have read the implication that this experiment was killed off because it affected Starbuck's revenue or profitability. I don't really understand how that would be the case at all. Can someone speculate?

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#15

Post by Cushman » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:42 AM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #14

I have read the implication that this experiment was killed off because it affected Starbuck's revenue or profitability. I don't really understand how that would be the case at all. Can someone speculate?

If that's true, I expect it's a case of the left hand not talking to the right— the positive buzz and in-store traffic has got to dwarf any marginal loss in profitability by an order of magnitude.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#16

Post by sebkomianos » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:42 AM UTC

uname_pword wrote: post #12

sebkomianos wrote: post #7

Thing is, it was an experiment from the very beginning. Experiments don't have good and bad guys, only observations and results. And the observation isn't a new one: "systems" like that work nicely until the first few exploits.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the credit on the gift card could only be transferred to another gift card using a PIN. If this is true, Sam Odio must have brute forced that PIN which was clearly not part of the experiment. I'd call that wire fraud. Even if there was no PIN Jonathan himself stated that he didn't want this to happen, that the experiment was in sharing change between Starbucks customers.…

So I guess my comment made it sound like I am defending Sam Odio.

I am not. What I am saying is that he (or, more precisely, "what he did") is part of Jonathan Stark's experiment.He never said he set the card up so poor people can drink coffee, he set it up to observe how people will "utilise" it and test if such a thing can actually work.

It's not like it's the end of the world either, if all these people that LOVED the card can't live without it they can sure think of a way to replace it. Prepaid coffee is one.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#17

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:48 AM UTC

uname_pword wrote: post #12

sebkomianos wrote: post #7

Thing is, it was an experiment from the very beginning. Experiments don't have good and bad guys, only observations and results. And the observation isn't a new one: "systems" like that work nicely until the first few exploits.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the credit on the gift card could only be transferred to another gift card using a PIN. If this is true, Sam Odio must have brute forced that PIN which was clearly not part of the experiment. I'd call that wire fraud. Even if there was no PIN Jonathan himself stated that he didn't want this to happen, that the experiment was in sharing change between Starbucks customers.…

[deleted]

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#18

Post by uname_pword » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:48 AM UTC

sebkomianos wrote: post #16

uname_pword wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the credit on the gift card could only be transferred to another gift card using a PIN. If this is true, Sam Odio must have brute forced that PIN which was clearly not part of the experiment. I'd call that wire fraud. Even if there was no PIN Jonathan himself stated that he didn't want this to happen, that the experiment was in sharing change between Starbucks customers.…

So I guess my comment made it sound like I am defending Sam Odio. I am not. What I am saying is that he (or, more precisely, "what he did") is part of Jonathan Stark's experiment.He never said he set the card up so poor people can drink coffee, he set it up to observe how people will "utilise" it and test if such a thing can actually work. It's not like it's the end of the world either, if all these people that LOVED…

Here is a direct quote from Jonathan on the matter:

"It's obviously not in the spirit of the experiment, It's not what the money was put there for. The point of this is to be wide open and trusting, and to expect the best of people. If [Odio] thinks this is good, and that people will see it that way, it's up to him to decide."

- http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/08/12/jonathans.card.ha...

As I see it, it was meant to be like a spare change tray. Not a slush fund for someone to steal and then donate to charity when they realize what they've done.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#19

Post by andywood » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 4:58 AM UTC

sebkomianos wrote: post #7

Thing is, it was an experiment from the very beginning. Experiments don't have good and bad guys, only observations and results. And the observation isn't a new one: "systems" like that work nicely until the first few exploits.

Labeling it an experiment or a "hack" doesn't change the fact that there is a large group of cooperative participants on one side, who feel violated by one or a few non-cooperating rogues on the other.

Imagine something similar happening "in real life". Imagine a group of 1,000 people who have come up with a cooperative, good-faith system for some shared goal - say, setting up and decorating a fairground. The group is happy with how things are going. Now one person comes along and takes it on himself to subvert their system, in order to make a point about the frivolity of fairs, and in the process frustrates the goals of the group. What do your ordinary social instincts tell you about such a person?

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#20

Post by madiator » Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 5:07 AM UTC

citricsquid wrote: post #10

madiator wrote: post #4

Had to happen, thanks to Sam and other crooks.

Shh, you can't say that, he's a YC guy! He'll quote some PG to justify it, I'm sure.

I don't know whom you are talking about, I didn't refer to anybody's last name :) Regarding other comments, I agree Sam didn't bring this down single handed, but may be ten years down the line if I tell my kids about this 'starbucks social experiment', I will pretty much remember about 'one guy who messed it up all'...