Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jonathan's Card shut down

jonathanstark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 106 posts

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#51

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

shabda wrote: post #28

I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. Sam had the option of taking the gift card and selling the card and keeping the iPad. He exposed the vulnerability. If he hadnt you would have paid in for the card, but someone would have abused the system, and not disclosed it. Here is a though experiment. There is a widely used piece of software which has a vulnerability. There are bad guys who are going to abuse it. A g…

He highlighted a very obvious flaw in an 'experiment', and under the guise of such outstanding altruism proceeded to exploit said flaw to net over $500. To further his noble and honest cause he then published code and instructions on github to make the flaw even easier to exploit and allow other people to join in. He legitimised it.

To try and ease his mind over the implications of this, two justifications are offered:

1. his script only works when the card contains at least $50 (not that it's hard to change), at which point it's ok to proceed.

2. his own exploited proceeds will be donated to a charity that pulls sufficient heartstrings to hammer his point home (accompanied by sympathetic picture). However, of the $600+ he siphoned, there is no certainty that the balance taken will be the balance donated. Because it's on eBay.

Further to that, it's a shockingly cynical move. This guy isn't donating his own money to charity. He's taken everyone else's money, laundered it a bit through eBay (with requisite fees applied), and then donated whatever he gets from that.

Maybe he fancies himself as a modern day Robin Hood, sneering as he does at the typical Starbucks clientele. His methods and justifications are worthy of whatever criticism they get.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#52

Post by mayanksinghal »

bandushrew wrote: post #48
ltamake wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing a ton of money and then selling it on eBay is still wrong. If you rob a bank, does giving the money to charity make it right? If you shoplift a computer, does giving it to a poor family make it right? No, you still stole something you didn't own.

I dont agree with that. If I stole a loaf of bread to feed my family, that is a very different ethical proposition to stealing a loaf of bread to feed some ducks. If I rob a bank and give the money to a family who desperately needs it, I am a very different person from the person who steals it to purchase a ferrari. Legally , there may be no difference. Ethically and morally there is a huge difference in my opinion.

No there is not. To give away your own money is charity, it's good. To give away money that you stole from someone else is immoral. And then if you say that you are moral, it's not only stupid but also douche-y.

Oh and to steal to feed your own family is a different case altogether. You are not acting like a pretentious douche.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#53

Post by TeMPOraL »

bandushrew wrote: post #48
ltamake wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stealing a ton of money and then selling it on eBay is still wrong. If you rob a bank, does giving the money to charity make it right? If you shoplift a computer, does giving it to a poor family make it right? No, you still stole something you didn't own.

I dont agree with that. If I stole a loaf of bread to feed my family, that is a very different ethical proposition to stealing a loaf of bread to feed some ducks. If I rob a bank and give the money to a family who desperately needs it, I am a very different person from the person who steals it to purchase a ferrari. Legally , there may be no difference. Ethically and morally there is a huge difference in my opinion.

You might be a different person if you steal for poor family and not for a ferrari, but not in the way I think you're implying. You would use the money differently, but still you would be a thief.

Also, this behaviour doesn't scale. If everyone was allowed to steal bread because he/she is hungry, the whole trading system would probably collapse and make everyone hungry.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#54

Post by TeMPOraL »

It seems that experiment is live and running:

http://www.facebook.com/Craigscup

http://www.facebook.com/dccupofjoe

http://www.facebook.com/notes/paying-it-forward/paying-it-fo...

It's so wonderful that people picked the idea up! Another interesting result of Jonathan's social experiment! :).

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#55

Post by Someone »

ltamake wrote: post #33
shabda wrote: post #28

I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. Sam had the option of taking the gift card and selling the card and keeping the iPad. He exposed the vulnerability. If he hadnt you would have paid in for the card, but someone would have abused the system, and not disclosed it. Here is a though experiment. There is a widely used piece of software which has a vulnerability. There are bad guys who are going to abuse it. A g…

Stealing a ton of money and then selling it on eBay is still wrong. If you rob a bank, does giving the money to charity make it right? If you shoplift a computer, does giving it to a poor family make it right? No, you still stole something you didn't own.

"If you rob a bank, does giving the money to charity make it right?"

Well, there is the Robin Hood appeal that he only stole from the rich. Robin Hood (in the movies) gets away with that because the rich are also evil and due to the time difference, obviously not 'us'.

In this case, I think the fact that he stole from people like 'us' is causing the problem. I think people would react differently if this card were held by Mexican drug lords.

I guess reactions to this wealth distribution differ according to the measure in which one a) relates to these Starbucks customers, b) finds said Starbucks customers somewhat guilty for being (relatively) rich and not doing enough for helping out the poor, and c) finds the Salvation army a good enough way to help out the poor (what if his charity would be the famine in Africa?)

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#56

Post by dmn001 »

shabda wrote: post #28

I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. Sam had the option of taking the gift card and selling the card and keeping the iPad. He exposed the vulnerability. If he hadnt you would have paid in for the card, but someone would have abused the system, and not disclosed it. Here is a though experiment. There is a widely used piece of software which has a vulnerability. There are bad guys who are going to abuse it. A g…

The first card is on ebay, (obviously reaching the 500 dollar limit was not enough to expose the vulnerability so he had to take 2 cards - or possibly more that he isn't saying?), where the money will be donated less the Ebay fees and where he describes it as 'a social experiment where yuppies buy other yuppies coffee'.

I think the point was missed in his description. I think the experiment was about being generous and spreading goodwill, and the coffee was just a medium for passing that on. I am happy to see that this positiveness has spread on in the JonathansCard facebook comments, for example people buying a free lunch for strangers.

Sam Odio destroyed this positive spirit. How do we know 625 is the total amount that was taken? The blog post mentions 'him (and others)' indicating a group of people taking money. I would like a record of all the 'thefts' so I could line it up with the transaction log from Jonathan's card.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#57

Post by abraham »

Cushman wrote: post #8

So, this isn't necessarily because of Sam Odio, but everyone's thinking it. And... duh. The take-a-penny, leave-a-penny trays only work when more pennies follow the rules than don't. If somebody comes along every day to empty out the tray — even if they're bringing it right across the street to the Salvation Army — they're going to take the trays away. That's just not what they're for , and if they're not working the…

> So, this isn't necessarily because of Sam Odio, but everyone's thinking it.

Are you kidding me? Starbucks doesn't give a shit that someone was syphoning off money. A few hundred dollars is chump change to them. What they care about is the thousands of people "defrauding" their rewards program designed for use with a single customer. I'm sure their TOS restricts use to a single person as well.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#58

Post by Mz »

I've missed something. Can someone give a link to the back story? Who is Sam Odio and what exactly did he do? (Or just "what did he do?" -- I don't really need a bio with a pic of his two dogs or some such.)

Thanks.

Re: Jonathan's Card shut down

#59

Post by ahoyhere »

shabda wrote: post #28

I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. Sam had the option of taking the gift card and selling the card and keeping the iPad. He exposed the vulnerability. If he hadnt you would have paid in for the card, but someone would have abused the system, and not disclosed it. Here is a though experiment. There is a widely used piece of software which has a vulnerability. There are bad guys who are going to abuse it. A g…

Let's say you forget and leave your house door unlocked.

A guy like Sam comes along, notices the door is unlocked, and steals your TV -- donating it to the Salvation Army -- to make a point.

He could have just said, "Dude, your door is unlocked."

Stealing from the Starbucks card is simply stealing from the Starbucks card. Stealing to give to charity doesn't make it right, noble, "interesting" or anything but stealing.

Post reply on HN