Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio • Hacker News Board

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#21

Post by uname_pword » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:25 AM UTC

gegegege wrote: post #14

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

What Sam did was pure genius in a self promotion kind of way. Some people may not agree with his tactics but clearly he knows how to act on opportunity. The lynch mob on Facebook is somewhat out of control, and spans the spectrum of intelligence one would expect to find there. People who are calling for Sams arrest over this are just going overboard. I completely agree that this is more a hack thing than a theft thin…

Within the spirit of the experiment? Jonathan himself says no: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/08/12/jonathans.card.ha...

I don't see this as self-promotional. Jonathan's open letter now ranks on the first google results page for "Sam Odio". I think this will have a hidden effect on Sam's career. Any hiring manager or venture capitalist worth his salt will learn about what Sam did, and make a value judgement on Sam's character. You only need to look at the Facebook page to see this means bad news for Sam: https://www.facebook.com/jonathanscard

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#22

Post by olalonde » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:26 AM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

It seems you are trying hard to rationalize Sam's actions.

> Did he take advantage of some flaws within the system? Sure. Did he use it for something that it wasn't expected to be used for? Yes.

Ethical hackers don't take advantage of flaws, they usually try to fix them or disclose them privately in a responsible manner.

> Most people (myself included) figured people were just lifting money from the account for their own means. On the moral spectrum, donating money is about as far away as possible from that suspicion.

Did you consider the possibility that he did this for his own benefit? Instant fame and "moral exhibitionism" come to mind...

> Someone says (paraphrase) "no one should be able to appoint himself the arbiter of how someone else's money should be spent." But isn't Jonathan (or perhaps the Starbucks corporation) dictating this by requiring them to put money on a Starbucks Card - not a VISA card, for instance?

Jonathan isn't forcing anyone to put money on the card. People chose to put money on the card to contribute to the experiment. Feeding African children isn't part of the experiment.

> Another person says (paraphrase) "Sam is donating other people's money without their consent." Didn't people give up any control they had over their money by putting it on Jonathan's card in the first place?

They did give up control legally. We're talking about morality here. People expect their money to buy someone else a coffee.

> If I had donated $10 to the card and it had instead gone to charity, I would have been fine.

Most people aren't fine with that. If I want to give to charity I give to charity, if I want to be part of this experiment I put money on the card.

How Sam spends the money is completely irrelevant in my opinion.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#23

Post by 100k » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:27 AM UTC

neebz wrote: post #13

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

Firstly, Sam's antics would've been a good discussion if he had taken out $10 out of it and given it to a charity. But the sheer scale of 'hack' i.e. to take a grand total $600 out of the card when the average single expense on the card is hardly $20-40 is plainly out of the way. In my personal opinion, that was never the part of the experiment. Secondly, the idea that he actually makes a blog post which suggests buy…

His taking the money and auctioning it for charity DID make the experiment more interesting, but I understand the anger.

Partially, it's the amount he took took, as you say. $100 would have been more reasonable.

I think it was also Sam's tone in his blog post. Perhaps buying strangers coffee is not as worthy as buying food for starving children, but it made people feel good. Sam essentially dismissed it.

I think that's mean spirited. There's a lot of needs in the world, and different people are interested in different things. Do we really want to get into a debate over whether giving money to MSF is better than an animal shelter?

Indeed, I can both donate to stop hunger AND buy a stranger a coffee.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#24

Post by uname_pword » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:29 AM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #22

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

It seems you are trying hard to rationalize Sam's actions. > Did he take advantage of some flaws within the system? Sure. Did he use it for something that it wasn't expected to be used for? Yes. Ethical hackers don't take advantage of flaws, they usually try to fix them or disclose them privately in a responsible manner. > Most people (myself included) figured people were just lifting money from the account for their…

> Did you consider the possibility that he did this for his own benefit? Instant fame and "moral exhibitionism" come to mind...

I wouldn't even give Sam that amount of credit. I think the charity donation was an out. A way to get him out of this mess with a minimum of damage to himself. If he hadn't skimmed such a huge sum of money I doubt he would have even gone public about it. I'd imagine he was sitting in a coffee shop, all sense of morals put to the side as he was getting giddy about his cool script that was making him free money. Only after he walked out the door with $600 in pocket did he realize what he had done.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#25

Post by secoif » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:30 AM UTC

Sam_Odio wrote: post #6

Udo wrote: post #3

It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.

Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.

I too would be interested in jonathans opinion on this.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#26

Post by simonw » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:33 AM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

Calling something an "experiment" isn't an invitation to screw it up.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#27

Post by gegegege » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:39 AM UTC

uname_pword wrote: post #21

gegegege wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Sam did was pure genius in a self promotion kind of way. Some people may not agree with his tactics but clearly he knows how to act on opportunity. The lynch mob on Facebook is somewhat out of control, and spans the spectrum of intelligence one would expect to find there. People who are calling for Sams arrest over this are just going overboard. I completely agree that this is more a hack thing than a theft thin…

Within the spirit of the experiment? Jonathan himself says no: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/08/12/jonathans.card.ha... I don't see this as self-promotional. Jonathan's open letter now ranks on the first google results page for "Sam Odio". I think this will have a hidden effect on Sam's career. Any hiring manager or venture capitalist worth his salt will learn about what Sam did, and make a value judgement on…

Not in the spirit no, but still part of the experiment. I honestly don't think Sam is going to get much heat over this from people who matter in his life. Most smart people will look at it from the experiment POV and not the emotionally charged theft and wire-fraud angles.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#28

Post by mebesilly » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:43 AM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

"I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage"

You misspelled "theft" as "charity"

His ethics are pretty dubious. He admits ( see here http://sam.odio.com/blog/ ) to having earlier bribed a blogger with a Mac Air for positive coverage in association with a previous enterprise.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#29

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:45 AM UTC

uname_pword wrote: post #21

gegegege wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Sam did was pure genius in a self promotion kind of way. Some people may not agree with his tactics but clearly he knows how to act on opportunity. The lynch mob on Facebook is somewhat out of control, and spans the spectrum of intelligence one would expect to find there. People who are calling for Sams arrest over this are just going overboard. I completely agree that this is more a hack thing than a theft thin…

Within the spirit of the experiment? Jonathan himself says no: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/08/12/jonathans.card.ha... I don't see this as self-promotional. Jonathan's open letter now ranks on the first google results page for "Sam Odio". I think this will have a hidden effect on Sam's career. Any hiring manager or venture capitalist worth his salt will learn about what Sam did, and make a value judgement on…

[deleted]

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#30

Post by masterzora » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:45 AM UTC

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

what he did was within the bounds of the experiment

I still don't understand how this is supposed to make anything okay. The experiment was set up to see how people dealt with a system inherently fueled by some combination of altruism and curiosity. I personally assume this means that, among other things, it is looking at some measure of morality. Thing of it is, you can't really construct an experiment about morality or something like it without making immorality (or something like it) within the bounds. (Or, more accurately, you could attempt to but then you'd also be dealing with a measure of how people respond to authority and similar which complicates things.)

Secondly, I think I could say just as easily that being an asshole is well within the bounds of US law. Yet, people tend to respond negatively to people being assholes. What is allowed and what is "right" or "good" or whatever are two entirely different topics.