
Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad - Sam_Odio
http://sam.odio.com/2011/08/12/i-took-625-jonathans-card/
======
Udo
So essentially you're proud of stealing huge amounts of money from a fund set
up by people for a specific purpose, and then you channel this money to suit
your own needs while claiming _moral superiority_?

You know, even if the money you stole for "the little children OMG think of
the children" really reaches the intended recipients, which it probably won't
if this is a typical 3rd world development fund, you still betrayed
everybody's trust and you're actually proud of it.

Sam Odio is either the worst kind of stealing hypocrite out there, or he's
genuinely living in a cardboard box under a bridge giving all his money away
to charity. I think I can guess which one is the case.

I apologize for the tone of this post, but the sheer amount of arrogant
jerkiness on display here actually makes me angry; and that's saying
something.

On the plus side, I suppose now we know who kept on abusing the card (people
were wondering in other threads).

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Jonathan said it was a social experiment. This, and people's reaction to it,
is part of that.

~~~
burgerbrain
The social experiment revealed that there are in fact people miserable enough
in this world to senselessly steal from such a good will fund. In fact, so
miserable that they see fit to even brag about it and pretend to themselves
their actions were noble. The experiment revealed that the name of one such
miserable person is Sam Odio.

~~~
kennywinker
yuppies buying each other coffee: a goodwill fund.

~~~
burgerbrain
Why not?

Care to give your definition of goodwill? Or are you just going to repeat
things and not justify your apparent condescension?

~~~
kennywinker
Sure, it's goodwill... just the really empty kind of goodwill that makes
everyone feel good but nobody actually better off.

Sorry, I probably came off more condescending than I intended. I'm only trying
to inject a measure of perspective. People (yourself included) are acting like
this was a "miserable" and "disgusting" thing to do. He could have stolen the
money and never said a word (which would have been lame), but he played within
the bounds of the experiment by reporting his contribution.

~~~
burgerbrain
_"People (yourself included) are acting like this was a "miserable" and
"disgusting" thing to do."_

I am not acting like it is, I am saying that it is.

And yes, I know that I am doing that... since _I_ am doing it. Regardless of
wither or not it was within the bounds of the experiment it was an asshat
thing to do.

~~~
kennywinker
How is this worse than someone who buys coffee with the card, and never
contributes any money?

~~~
tensor
I guess it's about as bad as someone who buys $600 worth of coffee and never
contributes any money. That's 200 $3 coffees, or almost 3/4's of a years worth
assuming one a day. Of course, this is also in the span of weeks.

~~~
kennywinker
A total aside: I could definitely spend $600 at starbucks in a week.

------
sequoia
"Or am I alone in thinking that helping a stranger find their next caffeine
fix is not what we should be worried about in today's world?"

 _sigh_ This is such a silly, stupid point to make:

Buying an iPad? What about world hunger!? Going to the movies? What about the
modern slave trade!? Painting a picture? Women in Sudanese refugee camps can't
go to the bathroom at night without fear of rape, and here you painting a
picture. The way you take your privilege for granted makes me sick, you
selfish bastard!!!!

Yes there are problems in the world. Does this mean no one is allowed to do
anything frivolous until they are all solved? In my opinion, no.

Get off your high horse, OP.

EDIT: Neat project tho! Took the originator's project in a new, unexpected
direction, which makes it even more interesting. Kudos!

~~~
Triumvark
Eh, I found Jonathan's "Buying yuppies coffee will improve the world!" naivete
far more offensive.

I didn't see OP as criticizing frivolity, I saw him more criticizing
Jonathan's suggestion that this game was meaningfully altruistic.

Eye of the beholder I guess.

~~~
josscrowcroft
Not forgetting, of course, that it was all an elaborate (or not) marketing
campaign by somebody connected to Starbucks.

~~~
zacharycohn
It wasn't. Jonathan denied it, Starbucks denied it. The "proof" was flimsy at
best.

~~~
josscrowcroft
As the man in orthopaedic shoes said ... I stand corrected

------
cssndrx
I'm probably going to get down-voted to hell, but I'm not sure what this
counter experiment is trying to prove... we all already knew it is easy to
take from Jonathan's card.

When people noticed that money was disappearing off Jonathan's card $100 at a
time, most people thought it was an uninformed, karma-less nobody stealing
from the card. It is incredible that the transactions are due to some educated
do-gooder imposing his beliefs onto the donors of Jonathan's card.

I've read many of Sam's comments before, and respect them as thoughtful and
intelligent. However, just because you don't like the idea of "yuppies buying
yuppies coffee", doesn't mean that you should try to destroy Jonathan's card.
Some people feel good and more connected with others by adding to and taking
from Jonathan's card.

By taking money out of the system, you are in effect going against donors
wishes and imposing your own beliefs on them. It is almost like taking from
the vault of a charity that you dislike and giving the proceeds to your
charity of choice. Its less atrocious than pocketing the money and buying an
iPad, but obviously still bad.

EDIT: I feel sorry for Jonathan and his good intentions.

~~~
Karhan
I agree with you except on one point. Sam is exactly the kind of person I
thought was taking the money and I think most people probably suspected the
same thing. I thought it was someone sitting around watching the twitter feed
stealing money 150$ at a go. Someone who looked at this, possibly silly
probably naive, social project and said 'This is stupid and I'm gonna show
them how stupid it is.' I also knew that this person would eventually write a
blog post about how smart they were for figuring out how to steal from people
giving away money and how the project wasn't just foolish it was immoral.

------
blhack
God I hate this mentality.

Yeah, you can exploit this, but are you doing anything fun or interesting by
it?

I live in a community that has a lot of cyclists in it. If I'm at home, I tend
to spend a lot of time on my front porch working on my bikes with my friends.
Most of them know that I keep some tools slightly "hidden" there, and I've
told all of my friends that they're welcome to come over and use them if I'm
ever not there.

Could they steal these tools?

Yep.

Would they would demonstrating some OMG SECURITY HOLE in my "Ryan's Porch"
scheme?

No. They'd be acting like assholes, which is exactly what this guy is doing.

I'm an amateur locksmith. I usually keep a half diamond pick and a torsion
wrench in my car, and sometimes I even carry it in my pocket. _Could_ I steal
half of the bikes locked up across the street from my house?

 _Could_ I break into buildings and steal things from them?

What if I donated the money to poor people?!

Sam Odio, you're being a jerk here. Knock it off.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _but are you doing anything fun or interesting by it?_ //

140 comments here would imply that it is at least interesting.

~~~
blhack
Most of the comments here are scolding the person for it. Similarly, if a
prominent YC alum broke into our local hackerspace and stole some of our
tools, there would probably be a lot of comments scolding them for it.

That doesn't mean the breakin itself is interesting.

(What I meant was that the "hack" wasn't interesting)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Certainly not all. Several address the morality and question it further. I'm
sure you'll agree there is a lot of noise from people saying the same thing
(aside: this wouldn't be the case under if votes were visibly I think, me toos
aren't needed then).

------
epenn
_Since I don't find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies coffees very
interesting I decided to mix things up a bit._

OP/Sam, I understand that you believe there are worse problems in the world. I
have no doubt that you are correct. However, this does not change the fact
that your own social experiment amounts to you taking advantage of the good
will of those who contributed to the Starbucks card by stealing from them.
Contributing the money to a charity afterwards does not change this fact.

You are not Robin Hood stealing from a corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham. So
please don't act like it.

~~~
wefqwefqwfe
Robin Hood is all about stealing to the rich to give to the poor and in that
respect, I think Sam is right on.

~~~
zacharycohn
Okay, but I'm not rich and Sam stole from me.

~~~
kennywinker
No, you donated to a commons. You expected it to be used in a specific way,
but it was used in a different way.

~~~
burgerbrain
He donated to a fund that was intended to be used in a very particular way.
Sam Odio took money from that fund, used it otherwise, and insulted everyone
who placed money into it.

Sam Odio stole from the fund, Sam Odio stole from zacharycohn.

------
lotharbot
What I find most interesting about this is Sam's comments in the previous
thread:

1) Claimed that a large purchase was him buying food for two homeless guys:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2857712>

Sam, is this true? Did you actually buy food for some homeless guys (and then
later decide on this strategy), or was this cover for your experiment?

2) in response to a comment about the card being ripe for abuse, he said the
balance seemed to be holding at a low and steady value, and _"That would imply
that the card is currently being used as intended."_
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2858511>

Interesting, then, that he's most definitely _not_ using the card as intended.
An "edgy/controversial twist" for sure.

------
Cushman
Congratulations. You broke Johnathan's Card. But more than that— I think you
made a valuable point.

Lots of people who were exposed, maybe for the first time, to the idea of a
stranger doing something nice for them for no reason, and then to the idea
that they might then do something nice for a stranger in return, have had that
illusion shattered. There is no act so charitable that somebody won't steal
from it.

You take money from yuppies to give to charity. The people who run the charity
take 10% off the top to pay the bills— they have children too, you know. When
the food actually gets on the ground, local warlords come and take half for
themselves.

The yuppies still drink coffee, the charity still pays its salaries, the
warlords still try to kill each other, and children are still starving to
death. The experiment has changed nothing— except that a few of those yuppies
maybe believe in the idea of random acts of kindness just a little bit less.

Point _well made._

------
gregschlom
I personnally never donated anything significant to charity. I haven't tried
Jonathan's card either (for lack of time), but if I had, I can picture how I
would have felt, and how it would have changed my views on human nature and
altruism.

Jonathan's experiment was letting people experience other people's generosity
and let that change their minds.

And then Sam comes and ruins everyhting. And he's totally convinced that he's
doing the Good Thing.

You're not, Sam. You are destroying an opportunity for people like me to
become less individualistic assholes.

------
tobtoh
Strip away all the fluff that Sam put in his blog post and what do you have?
You have Jonathan's 'take a penny, leave a penny' project. You have Sam who
thinks he's very clever by showing how someone can come in and siphon off the
pennies and whoa ... spend it on other things.

The amusing thing is Sam thinks he's done something really amazing or
insightful. The whole 'donate to charity angle' is just Sam trying to justify
his actions and put a veneer of credibility on his uninspiring actions.

~~~
Kirchart123
Agree ... There is no honor in his acts, just shame ... Please never say to
your kids about u doind this.

------
oflannabhra
Great, you donated $600 to kids who really needed it. Next time you get the
desire to do so, I suggest you build your own crowd-sourced donation scheme,
or donate your own money. Either way, you won't be leeching off of other
peoples' hard work.

~~~
wccrawford
If I were that charity, I would immediately stand up, return the money, and
chastise him for his illegal and unethical actions.

------
byrneseyeview
Donating money to starving children in Africa well-meaning, but cruel. Life in
Africa sucks, and making people live there longer is not a good deed. The West
has invested incredible sums of money into Africa, and the result is
corruption, violence, and stagnation. They are begging us to stop:

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html)

I believe that about as strongly as Sam believes that donating to Africa will
help (this time is different!). Buuut I wouldn't feel justified in stealing
from a charity in order to act on that belief.

------
esmevane
Used to work for Starbucks. We once had a day where all of our customers
decided to 'pay it forward', and buy the next person's drinks.

It led to a lot of accounting for me, but the final tally was something in the
vein of 800 transactions in an unbroken chain.

The high points involved folks buying $50 or more worth of transactions, down
the line. The low points involved people trying to put down $20 and the next
person using all of it up on silly frappucinos.

To answer another topic, I think that the assertion here that buying Starbucks
coffee for someone else as intrinsically frivolous, when we could be doing
something valuable, like perhaps Saving the Children, or Helping Starvation,
is itself frivolous.

Helping one another is helping one another, and criticizing how it's done is
missing the point altogether. I have to wonder where the utility is in
comparing the weight of one charity versus another. It seems pointless.

------
sharjeel
The original post about Jonathan's card Stated that the experiment is inspired
by "'take a penny, leave a penny' trays at convenience stores in the US".

Then here is what happened:

People started using the tray, taking them as well as leaving them. Then one
day a guy started showing up at the store. He would intermittently dump the
tray into his knapsack whenever there were enough pennies. Not only he did
this for many days, but later he also proudly publicly announced that how he
did it. Since all the people who show up at the store are rich and wealthy, it
makes more sense to give that money to poor in some other parts of the world.

If this logic is acceptable then I should be allowed to break apart any petty
charity collection box and use the money for the purpose I deem more noble.

~~~
georgefox
_> If this logic is acceptable then I should be allowed to break apart any
petty charity collection box and use the money for the purpose I deem more
noble._

Not really. Jonathan's Card is not charity. It's like saying you should be
able to take change from the give a penny, take a penny tray at the
supermarket and drop it into the breast cancer awareness tin instead.

------
flocial
I feel sorry for the moron who thinks he's making a statement with this. The
card was a brilliant social experiment regardless of critics claiming it a
stealth marketing campaign. People who participated felt good giving whether
someone was free-riding. However, this just leaves a bad aftertaste. You ruin
it for everyone then pretend it's okay by "donating" money that isn't even
yours and killing the experiment then brag about the ordeal. Kudos to you.
Bravo indeed.

Having said that I'm not at all surprised by the outcome just didn't expect
something like this. Now I'm sure some yuppie wannabe is going to try and
score an iPad for themselves.

------
tobtoh
Sam has posted on Google+
([https://plus.google.com/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NB...](https://plus.google.com/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NBAp1))
... however be aware that I suspect he is deleting posts and blocking people
(^) that are critical of him as I posted the following:

"It's not much different to taking money out of the church collection plate
and donating it to a charity that you prefer over the churches. Whilst I
acknowledge this could be considered an extension of Jonathon's social
experiment - it's hardly insightful or clever - you took money from an open
fund and spent it. Hardly mind shattering stuff. The whole 'charity versus
coffee' justification is little better than the 'think of the children'
arguments that are used in similar ways. For the record, I don't think what
you did is theft or immoral (it was a social experiment after all), but it was
just a lame move that served no purpose and made no point."

... and now it doesn't appear in my stream and i can no longer post on the
comment thread.

(^) There is a chance I'm just not understanding how to use G+ and Sam has
done nothing of the sort - I only started using it recently.

~~~
TranceaddicT
He has disabled commenting on the post. And, as such, now no one can even view
the comments. He puts himself up on a pedestal only to be a fascist when
criticized.

------
random42
> "Since _I_ don't find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies coffees very
> interesting"

Wow, This is some serious sense of entitlement of someone _else's_
money/experiment.

I don't believe in many of people's belief. However its their beliefs and it
is Jonathan's (and other donors') social experiment. If you do not agree with
its philosophy, don't participate in it, but ruining it would be as senseless
as me trying to make a personal mission to harass people on having belief's
other than mine.

------
zipstudio
This is clearly theft. What he used the money for is not relevant. The card
was put out for a specific use, and this use case was not the intended one.
Had he actually bought an iPad, everyone would agree that it's theft.
Transferring money between someones else's card and your own with out
permission is theft.

------
rjett
I find it ironic that the OP, who hacked the experiment to divert funds onto
his own card (which are now going to a just cause), is the brother of the
person in the original comments thread who was posturing about whether or not
the card had been hacked.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2858120>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2858226>

Perhaps Sam made this script well after there was a question as to whether or
not the card had been hacked, but if not, this is just funny.

~~~
lotharbot
Good find.

Also note that danielodio put some of his startup's money on the card ($100,
$49, $300 mentioned in HN comments, and a total of $85 mentioned on twitter).
So he almost paid for Sam's withdrawals.

EDIT: I find myself wondering if, in a few hours, Sam and Daniel will give
this as a further explanation, and reveal that they'd actually donated the
full amount to the card that was taken out. The whole thing is a social
experiment; it may not be over.

~~~
danielodio
Indeed: @Socialize has paid $625 to @Jonathanscard to promote our SDK Speed
Challenge. That's enough for an iPad, @sodio! <http://besoci.al/q2I0QE>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875>

~~~
dmn001
If you and Sam are related, then I suspect you are only 'donating' money into
the card because Sam can get it straight out again, free publicity?

------
sequoia
I think I've changed my mind about the project, reading everyone's opinions
here. At least sort of.

An analogy: You have some clothes, and you build a little covered rack outside
your house on the street and put a sign up that says "clothing swap, takes
some for yourself or leave some for someone else." Some people take some
clothes and drop some off. THEN some guy comes along and says "this is BS,
it's just a bunch of yuppies trading clothes" and proceeds to take _all_ the
clothes and bring them to the goodwill, where he believes they'll be put to
better use. He does this a few times.

Now, if I were the project founder or a clothing donor (or taker), I would be
_pretty pissed_ if someone decided to take all the clothes and give them to
Goodwill because s/he thinks "they'll be put to better use" there.

1\. There's an ulterior goal here (community building) that is scuttled by you
taking all the clothes 2\. How do you know I don't give to poverty related
charities already 3\. I have my reasons for not giving to Goodwill 4\. Even if
you think it's stupid _it's not your decision_.

On the other hand, if I leave a pile of dollar bills in a bowl on the street
with a sign that says "please take only one," would it be reasonable of me to
get upset when someone takes more than one? In my opinion it would not be
reasonable. Someone abusing the system was the _inevitable_ conclusion of this
experiment. That doesn't make what he's doing "right," per se, but it seems
silly to rage about something that was predictable with 100% certainty.

EDIT: downvoter: which part didn't you like? I put a couple of different
points in one post (I know, my fault) so I can't tell what you're objecting
to. :P Just curious.

~~~
TranceaddicT
Your argument with the dollars fails on two accounts. First, the "take a
penny/leave a penny" concept has one MAJOR security guard that this experiment
doesn't have ... a monitor. That monitor being a sales clerk. The second a
MAJOR security breach, the anonymity factor.

All arguments to make this experiment analogous to any "Take/Leave" scheme is
flawed on these accounts. (Not that I don't appreciate the analogies, I do.)
Would Sam (or anyone) have acted the same had they been in the same position
with any of the "Take/Leave" assumptions. My guess, no. Sam like the anonymity
of being able to take without consequence. Now that he has revealed his
duplicity he's not liking the consequences.

------
kingofspain
The rich steal stealing from the rich to eventually pass a percentage on to
the poor. I'm sure it seemed much more Robin Hood-y at the time.

There are _far_ less scummy ways to do something like this. Game a Bing
promotion, take advantage of lax security in some other MegaCorp rewards
programme - or _gasp_ use your own money. Mind you, those guys are more likely
to sue than a disparate bunch of well-meaning folks.

~~~
kingofspain
In my blinding e-rage I do seem to have forgotten about the 'social
experiment' aspect of the card. I guess this could be interpreted as being
fair game. I think the attitude that came across in the post makes it seem
worse too. So I revise my pointless internet opinion to: hmmm ok, but still
_feels_ rotten.

------
huhtenberg
Another lesson here is to be careful with @font-face styling -
<http://i55.tinypic.com/1z342ee.png> \- the whole thing is barely readable on
Windows.

~~~
NumberFiveAlive
It's not even that readable on my box.

------
johndoe12
This is the same Sam Odio that had a scam Iraqi Dinar exchange...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcq2LXSAn_U>

The service received a cease and desist letter from the government...

<http://www.iraqidinarmoney.com/dinar-profits/>

Sam Odio seems to exhibit the traits of a sociopath,defined by the American
Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "...a pervasive
pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins
in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.

Why YC supports people like this is beyond me.

~~~
prbuckley
I am claiming responsibility for the above comment. It was wrong of me to
leave such a snarky comment from a sock puppet account. Someone pointed this
out to me so I am trying to do the right thing by taking responsibility for
it.

The reason I left the comment is that I myself am a YC alum and it makes my
quite upset when I see members of the YC community behaving in ethically
questionable ways. It reflects poorly on the YC community and threatens the
reputation of the entire program.

------
pmsaue0
I can't help but feel that this just isn't the right way to go about helping
the less fortunate. It's just too underhanded.

Just build something similar that doesn't involve taking advantage of J's
Card. Man up.

------
ltamake
No wonder the card's been empty every time I try to use it (I'm on vacation in
the States). People like you steal the money. Fuck you, and fuck your script.

------
AndrewWarner
Cached copy of the page: <http://bit.ly/pKIoGi>

~~~
beaumartinez
Whoa, a bit.ly link? Was that really necessary?

~~~
mkopinsky
Excuse my ignorance, but what's wrong with bit.ly? Or are you simply objecting
to the need to shorten the URL?

~~~
iqster
A bit.ly link prevents a HN reader from figuring out where the link is going
to send him/her. When there is a limitation of 144 characters, URL shortners
make a lot of sense. I got the feeling that people generally don't prefer them
on HN.

------
thehotdon
Sam is such a great guy. I'm sure he donates all of his earnings to charity
and doesn't own a single luxury, so he's definitely qualified to judge how
"yuppies" spend their money.

On a slightly darker note: He sure seems proud of himself for donating to a
charity that keeps children barely alive, just long enough for them to have
more children that no one can provide for. It seems slightly counter-
productive to me.

------
Triumvark
Gift cards held by a group are an interesting way to move money around with a
little deniability.

If there was an easier way to cash in Starbucks gift cards, Starbucks could
take over Western Union.

~~~
khafra
Coffee-laundering. Interesting thought.

------
nhangen
Yeah, it's cool, but also nefarious, charity or not.

~~~
sequoia
Not really... I don't think that the people who put money on the card have any
claim to determine how the money is used. It's like giving a gift, once you
give it you don't get to control it anymore, and they are giving a gift to an
anonymous recipient. If they want to control how the money is spent... perhaps
don't put it on a publicly accessible debit card? ;)

~~~
mzahir
It's not like giving a gift. It's making a donation for a specific cause and
then having the funds misspent on something different. The publicly accessible
debit card was part of the 'social experiment' which seems to result in what
we already knew a long time ago. People are happy to abuse the system for what
_they_ believe to be the greater good.

~~~
sequoia
How is what he's doing not "part of the social experiment?"

Q: What happens if you let everyone contribute to and take from a Starbucks
card? A: We are in the process of finding out, and the answer wasn't what we
expected!

Why isn't this just an interesting, unexpected result? Furthermore, condemning
this guy is like condemning Lulzsec for exposing security vulnerabilities. Do
you think that _no one_ would have figured this out if OP hadn't? He's
exposing the vulnerability and sending the proceeds to charity, would you
prefer that Mr. Unscrupulous just silently steals it all?

~~~
zacharycohn
This isn't anything like "exposing a security vulnerability." Everyone
understood that the card COULD be misused.

That doesn't make the misuse of it okay.

~~~
jt2190
But at the same time, if Jonathan knew that the card could be misused, he
either should have attempted to provide some security or disclosed that
problem up front to the community, to let them make an informed choice.

~~~
zacharycohn
No one is surprised that someone was able to take advantage of it. Everyone
immediately recognized it was possible and easy to take advantage of. People
made an informed choice.

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's okay. I can reach in and grab $50
from the tip jar at a restaurant while the cashier's back is turned. I can
walk into most stores, stuff something under my jacket, and walk out.

Just because it's easy doesn't make stealing okay.

~~~
jt2190
I never said that stealing was O.K. Read my post again.

Both of your examples of ignore that there is an "appropriate" level security
for those contexts. The tip jar is in the plain view of other diners and
staff; the store has staff and video surveillance. I'll leave it to others to
decide whether an unsecured cash account accessible to millions of anonymous
users has appropriate security in place.

------
mcantor
Mr. Odio lives up to his name. This is a truly odious act.

------
kcurtin
meh. don't care who you are donating too, its still shitty. get down of your
high horse.

~~~
kennywinker
Meh. I don't care who you are donating too, it's still shitty. Get down off
your high horse.

FTFY

------
100k
I'm Starbucks illiterate. How did they transfer the value from Jonathan's card
to theirs?

~~~
rickyc091
My guess would be that someone wrote a script to figure out the pin number.
Starbucks pin is just 8 random digits. There is no captcha if you put an
incorrect pin. One should be able to figure out the pin pretty quickly like
this. Once you have the pin you can transfer the money onto your own account
or write a script to automate the process.

~~~
kennywinker
"to transfer the money off the card I had to do it IRL, at a Starbucks
location"

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqh...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NBAp1)

------
sondh
I don'5 know who is OP but I believe what he did is wrong, both in legal
ground and moral ground. Obviously Jonathan didn't allow him and his friends
to transfer money off the card, is that enough to sue him? I'm no lawyer but I
can't believe that's acceptable. Also, he misused the card + donate other
people's money -- what did he think? And one last point, he said they did that
many time but he only intended to donate that $600, what about the other
attempts? Can we do something, please?

------
jokermatt999
I've seen a lot of hostility in this thread to the perceived egotism of this
act. I've also seen some people who dislike that the donations were used for
something other than their intended purpose. Since my initial reaction was
that he's in the right here (accusations of high horse and such aside, I'd
rather not go into that), I'm curious to hear people's reasoning on why they
dislike this so much. So, some hypotheticals and questions...

1) What if it had been anonymous and "Ego free". Would you feel better about
it if it were disconnected from status?

2) Most people would agree that giving to charity is better than giving a
coffee (note I said charity, not Africa specifically. There can be some debate
over whether aid helps or harms Africa, but I'm less interested in that now).
If charity > coffee, why is this such a bad thing?

3) I understand the hostility to statements about "You should be doing charity
instead" because there's always an element of hypocrisy to them, but if the
statement is divorced from the person, isn't it correct? So why should there
be so much hostility when it's put into practice in this case?

I'm not trying to judge anyone for their opinion here, I'm just curious about
their reasoning since it differs from my own.

~~~
burgerbrain
1) No, I would not feel better. I have an intense hatred of people who
anonymously abuse TOR to torrent movies for their own personal use. Not
knowing who did it doesn't make it better.

2) It was not his to give. The money was put forth by other people for the
express purpose of being used by others for coffee.

3) No, the statement is not correct. _"You should be doing charity instead"_
is a poor philosophy because it does not recognize the needs of individuals
that need to be fulfilled by themselves. This philosophy cannot be
universalized because it expects too much of people.

reasonable statement:

    
    
      "*I* should be doing charity instead"
    

unreasonable statement:

    
    
      "*You* should be doing charity instead"

------
aforty
I think Sam/OP should transfer all the money he took back onto Jonathan's
card. In small increments of course in order to curb further abuse like what
he committed.

------
ck2
cache
[http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fsa...](http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fsam.odio.com%2F2011%2F08%2F12%2Fi-
took-625-jonathans-card%2F)

why he's installing memcache for a single-server wordpress I have no clue -
just install wp-super-cache and use .htaccess to do rewrites to static files -
only way to bypass the (lack of) performance nightmare that is wordpress

------
usedtolurk
I'm surprised at the outraged expressed in this thread.

Everybody expects participants in this experiment to be divided into givers
and takers, right? Why would anybody donate and then claim if they could just
buy their own cup? The very nature of the thing is that both party's are
anonymous, so the givers have no right or expectation to the "worthiness" of
the taker or the purpose it is put to (on-selling included). However, it is
clear that the hope and intention is to spread good will and kindness.

Originally, Jonathan provided a means to distribute these gifts to random
strangers. The demographic was somewhat limited by technical and geographic
constraints but Sam figured out a way to broaden (a small portion of) the
benefits to a wider audience. To my mind that is entirely in keeping with the
spirit of the original experiment (i.e. spreading goodwill and kindness).

Also, it's worth noting that Sam did not explicitly moralize about this -
other than to say that he didn't "find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies
coffees very interesting".

Can anyone explain why it has provoked such an aggressive response?

EDIT: I've no connection with Jonathan or Sam or Starbucks (really).

------
rickdale
Jonathan's card strikes a good point beyond giving to Yuppies and not those
seriously in need. The social implications of this experiment I think shows
that people are willing to help others if its relatable and also accessible
for them to do so. Besides, I am sure somewhere someone bought a coffee with
Jonathons card and then gave it to a hobo

------
davidandgoliath
This Sam Odio guy sounds like an absolute douche.

------
z0r
Jonathan's card, at worst a marketing experiment, at best a means of charity
for those who are privileged enough to learn about it and who like to frequent
Starbucks, has been subverted to give to the truly poor and needy. Does it
leave a bad taste? It might. Truly, a shame. This toy for the well off might
now be broken for good. I might have used it, I might have even given to it
(in the spirit intended by the creator), and in either case this exploit would
not upset me. I don't see why there is so much umbrage present in these
comments.

------
yaaqmon
Very interesting experiment on an already interesting experiment.

Would everyone be up in arms if he didn't publish how he did it on his blog
and publicly post the code on github and instead used it to buy himself coffee
for life?

He saw a "flaw" in the system and is publicizing it. Sounds pretty holy to me.
Certainly holier than buying yourself a luxury item from an exploiting
corporation, meanwhile deluding yourself into thinking you're doing something
good for society by donating 5 bucks to said cause.

~~~
TranceaddicT
He saw a flaw and abused it and publicized it for others to abuse for a while
BEFORE he announced it to the world. Had he announced he had found a flaw (or
better, contacted Jonathan that there was a flaw) his altruism would be real.

And, they (we/I) are not deluding themselves into thinking they are doing
something good for society. They/We are showing goodwill to others.

------
dreamdu5t
But I thought everybody giving according to their ability, and taking
according to their need would work out just great?

------
EGreg
Actually I have an idea which I will implement soon hopefully. It involves a
vending machine for the homeless and money donated by people. If you're
interested in participating, and have some kind of experience, contact me.
<http://magarshak.com/contact>

------
Tutorialzine
Would someone care to explain how is this fundamentally different from the
Firesheep experiment a few months back, which was heavily applauded by the
community here?

------
AlfaWolph
It was never meant to be an experiment about charity. It was meant to be an
experiment about yuppies buying other yuppies coffee. That is it.

------
jt2190
Jonathan's Card claimed to be a social experiment, but it was never clear to
me exactly what the experiment was supposed to test. As an outsider looking at
this experiment, the first question I has was: How would he prevent unintended
use of the card's funds?

Sam is just part of the experiment. Yes, he's spoiling the good fun of buying
coffees for each other, but if it weren't him taking the money, it'd be
someone else. At least we still have data on the where most of the money went.

~~~
jt2190
I equate the downvotes as "disliking" this argument, however I still think my
question is valid: What exactly was Jonathan setting out to learn (other than
that the world is full of untrustworthy people.)

~~~
burgerbrain
Why don't you ask him?

~~~
jt2190
He was responding to posts on the original thread. I asked this same question
there.

------
ether
So what happens if you steal from a charity and donate it to another charity?
Is this cool? Hey it's all for good purpose :)

------
pavel_lishin
I like the message that replaced 500: "too. much. traffic. Please wait while I
install memcache."

~~~
jules
I don't get it. Why not serve the original content statically instead of that
message? That's bound to be faster than memcache.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Maybe he wants to preserve commenting, or maybe getting memcached up and
running is faster than generating a static copy. /me shrugs

------
danielodio
Hacking the hack of the hack: @Socialize has paid $625 to @Jonathanscard to
promote our SDK Speed Challenge. That's enough for an iPad, @sodio!
besoci.al/q2I0QE <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875>

------
heelhook
An alarmingly high number of comments are saying pretty much the same thing,
would be great if people writing had something new to say, if not just upvote
a well written comment that states your view!

------
brosephius
how does this work? is he using stark's card balance to buy a new starbucks
card?

------
mattdeboard
_gasp_

Rich people toying with the emotions of the proletariat? I am truly shocked
that such a thing happens in America!

------
aneth
This seems like an unauthorized use of the card and could be criminal theft.
If I give you my stored value card to buy coffee and you instead steal all the
money, it doesn't matter whether you're donating to charity or disagree with
my cause - it's stealing.

Regardless, it's certainly a shitty thing to do.

~~~
sequoia
You _no longer control_ the money once you donate it to an anonymous
recipient! You _don't get to choose_ how the money is spent. If you're not
comfortable with that, __don't put money on a publicly accessible debit card!!
__

~~~
aneth
I'm not sure that's the case here. It's not an anonymous recipient, it's
Jonathan's stored value card and therefore Jonathan. Jonathan authorized
anyone to use his card to buy coffee. He did not authorize anyone to steal his
money.

Another way to look at it is as a common fund dedicated to the purpose of
buying coffee. Using it for anything else seems like embezzlement.

~~~
geeksRus
agreed and sharing the code ensures that others with more devious ambitions
will pretty much ruin this experiment.

~~~
sequoia
"I was doing an experiment to find out what would happen if I had a leave a
dollar take a dollar jar in an alley, but then some jerk took all the money
and ruined the experiment."

1\. If the experiment initiator here didn't see something like this coming
(someone taking advantage of a free pot of money), he is naive beyond belief.

2\. An experiment not turning out how you DESIRE it to does not mean it's
"ruined;" to the contrary, it's how learning happens. "Oh, I didn't know
_that_ would happen!" _takes notes_ <\- Science

------
napierzaza
Why does a project that's about a minor form of good will always need to be
trumped by something else? Like we need to be incessantly reminded that there
are starving people for every decision we make in our day to day lives?

It's nice that he's trying to increase the awareness of starving children. But
I don't see why he feels he needs to basically destroy the system Jonathan has
come up with.

Yes, apparently the one second you were thinking about your own needs, or
anyone OTHER than a very poor person, was selfish and horrible. We should all
stop buying things, walk out into the street and start screaming at the
futility since there are people in the world who are worse off than us.

------
TranceaddicT
Guess Sam couldn't handle the heat. He cutoff commenting on his G+ thread.
Hmmm, could he finally be realizing that he messed up and actually did wire
fraud and stole money?

~~~
mattdeboard
No, because a bunch of assholes were threatening him with bodily harm

~~~
woof
So his social experiment didn't work out they great? Bummer...

------
jaekwon
wtf

------
dreamdu5t
Awesome. What a hack. Can everyone please shutup with their dumb subjective
value judgements already? Grow up, these were both fun, benign, experiments.

------
Pointsly
I love how his site is now down... I'm sure some one in the HN community is
responsible... thank you.

------
beatpanda
Hi Sam. I know a lot of people are going to talk shit to you about this, but I
think what you did was right. You shouldn't have published though. Next time
just take the money and run.

------
ImprovedSilence
I think some people on here took too much offense to his 'holier than thou'
attitude. the kid showed off a neat little hack (we're all nerds here) showed
it to the world, put the money towards a good cause, and hopefully educated
some people about security issues. i think is hilarious, I give sam some
props, and I can live another day without free coffee...

------
niels_olson
To all who want to slam on Sam Odio's moral code:

You're seriously arguing that a hack that converts money into fat, caffeinated
Americans and corporate profit is better than a hack that hacks that hack to
feed the poor? We should be finding more ways to prevent the conversion of
money into American fat. In fact: as a doctor, there's my challenge to you:
please find ways to catch calories before they land in middle-class American
bellies and convert them to some better good.

I know the HN crowd is pretty libertarian, but Sam's behavior is, by
definition, thoroughly with the scope of acceptable behavior in a libertarian
polity. By the way, Sam's fairly successful startup guy. If you're on HN and
not your text editor, you should probably be noting this is how successful
entrepreneurs behave, and emulate Sam.

~~~
filmgirlcw
He's not feeding the poor, he's feeding his ego and acting holier than thou.
If he wanted to make a donation to charity, he could do that without
subverting an experiment under the guise of "helping people who really
matter."

I find this entire episode disgusting and if being a "successful entrepreneur"
means acting like a douchebag like Sam, may I never be successful.
Incidentally, MOST successful entreprenurs I know (and many are far more
successful than Sam could ever hope to be) don't act like this. They have
better things to do than jack money off a community Starbucks card so that
they can create Internet drama.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _They have better things to do than_ //

Better things to do than steal coffees from wealthy Americans in order to feed
starving people ...

The internet drama is being created by others.

I see this as a really interesting, surprising outcome of the experiment, not
a "subversion" of it. FWIW people in his sphere of influence appear to have
added more money on than the worth he subtracted.

Edit: that->than

~~~
burgerbrain
_"Better things to do that steal coffees from wealthy Americans in order to
feed starving people ..."_

Why stop at coffee? Steal their cars too. Evict them from their homes and set
up shelters in them. Kidnap their children and hold them for ransom.

 _"see this as a really interesting, surprising outcome of the experiment, not
a "subversion" of it."_

The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated by people acting grossly out of
what is reasonably expected from people. As a result, the scientific value of
the experiment was completely lost. That is what Sam Odio appears to have
attempted to cause here. He didn't want to participate, he wanted to destroy
the experiment because he found the very notion of such an experiment to be
offensive.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Why stop at coffee?_ //

Because missing out on a cup of coffee is not going to really affect anyone
involved in this experiment in any significant way. They probably drink too
much of it anyway.

> _The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated_ //

Excuse me? It was a highly successful experiment it demonstrating how moral
judgement can be manipulated, how people react to roles and outward signs of
authority.

To say an experiment was invalidated suggests that it didn't have the right
outcome, experiments don't have right outcomes they have results. Sure results
can show that you should have used a different methodology or that more
experimentation is needed but results aren't wrong unless they fail to show
what happened in the experiment.

~~~
burgerbrain
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stanford_pris...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Criticism_of_the_experiment)

Contrary to popular believe, the scientific value of the experiment was lost.
It's only real value today in the field is as an example of how _not_ to run
an experiment.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _the scientific value of the [Standford Prison] experiment was lost_ //

I strongly disagree. It has informed psychological experiment strongly since,
yes partly by being an example of how not to conduct experiments but not
wholly. It has also strongly informed understanding of human nature and the
conditions in which minimal pressure can modify moral action.

Under test was how "assignment of a label" would affect the development of
"norms, rules and expectations". The results showed how such assignment could
affect a persons character dramatically even to the point of drawing in
Zimbardo to the point that he had to be corrected by his partner to stop the
experiment.

<http://www.prisonexp.org/links.htm> is a good source.

------
rrival
Thought this was already revealed as a viral marketing campaign by starbucks:

[http://www.coffeestrategies.com/2011/08/08/starbucks-and-
the...](http://www.coffeestrategies.com/2011/08/08/starbucks-and-the-
starkbucks-jonathan-card-viral-marketing-campaign)

Not sure if that means there's more of a reason to exploit it or not, at least
Sam's doing it for good =)

~~~
raganwald
There are people who may or may not wear tinfoil hats who have shared
circumstantial evidence suggesting this. Jonathan, his friends, and Starbucks
have all denied this is the case.

My experience is that when confronted with the evidence, the people behind
“viral marketing campaigns" have no trouble ‘fessing up, they usually boast of
it and use it to drum up more business for their “social media agencies.” A
company like Starbucks as zero incentive to lie about it and a huge
disincentive. If even one employee spills the beans that it was a marketing
stunt and that Starbucks is lying, their brand equity takes a huge hit.

It is difficult to “prove” things one way or another to the standards of
science or law, but I’m personally satisfied that it was not a marketing
stunt.

~~~
vidar
I kind of agree with your point, but saying that the Starbucks brand takes a
"huge" hit is a bit of an overstatement.

~~~
raganwald
If Starbucks does a viral marketing campaign, gets outed, and says “Yes, we
did a viral marketing campaign,” there’s no hit to speak of. But I do think
that if they deny in writing that there is a viral marketing campaign and then
are busted for lying about conducting a viral marketing campaign, this is a
scandal that would end up on the evening news.

I suppose there’s room for conflicting views over how much damage that might
be, but I can’t see any marketing person thinking that it is worth the risk.

