
Jonathan's Card shut down - aaronbrethorst
http://jonathanstark.com/card/?asd
======
Cushman
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 there's no reason for them to
exist.

The net result in the end being that the homeless are still homeless, life is
a little bit more of a hassle for shoppers who don't have the right change,
people are a little bit less connected with each other, and the dick who was
emptying the trays feels like he's "made his point," whatever it was supposed
to be.

But all of that being said: This only applies when abuse makes the system
unsustainable. Is it? Craig's Cup thinks not:
<http://www.facebook.com/Craigscup> The "experiment" is _far_ from over.

~~~
abraham
> 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.

~~~
Cushman
Interesting. Where are you getting that opinion from? Mine comes from the
article Jonathan himself tweeted:

"At 7 p.m. PT Friday, Starbucks reluctantly pulled the plug on Stark’s pay-it-
forward social experiment following allegations of fraud or misuse. ...

Adam Brotman, vice president of digital ventures at Starbucks, phoned Stark
earlier Friday evening to inform him that the card would be deactivated.
Starbucks, he says, was rooting for the experiment from the sidelines, even
though the company’s terms do not permit the use of shared registered cards.
'I’m sad about it, first and foremost, because we were legitimately cheering
on this experiment,' Brotman says. ...

Once the exploit was public, however, Starbucks felt compelled to deactivate
the card."

<http://mashable.com/2011/08/13/jonathans-card-shut-down/>

------
deltaqueue
Maybe I'm getting too cynical and pessimistic about society, but an abuse of
the system seemed like a guaranteed result of this project. Jonathan's card is
simply a redistribution of wealth based on the honor system (masked by words
like "karma" and "good will"). Some people will throw ten bucks on the card
because it makes them feel great, but leeches will always take part in the
project, and at some point there will be more leeches than seeders. People
have been abusing programs (government or otherwise) that do the same thing
for generations, even without the honor system.

*I enjoy volunteering, donating, paying it forward, etc., I'm just trying to illustrate a point.

~~~
awakeasleep
You're right, and at the same time the card existed for a couple weeks and it
made a bunch of people happy while giving everyone a lot to think about!

You're right, and at the same time we have a functioning society where people
love and grow and the sun's still shining, and I experience kindness more
frequently than the opposite!

------
delinka
No one has mentioned the obvious legal snags for Starbucks in this whole
"experiment." Starbucks is not a money transfer service and therefore is not
registered with the US government as such. If Sam could siphon off that much
money so easily, how long before the Bad Guys learn that Starbucks can be used
to move money?

Or maybe they suddenly realized themselves that criminals could have been
moving money through them for years. I'd say it's almost certain that a
Starbucks lawyer pointed this out and the executives didn't like the idea.
Watch for changes to Starbucks' money card program.

~~~
shabble
I'm probably missing something, but the exploit was all about filling up a
Starbucks gift card. It was touted as "Enough to buy an iPad", but at no point
was one actually bought. The $500 card is now being eBayed for charity, which
(for profit), would be one way to close the loop and get cash out, but surely
that applies to any business operating a gift-card scheme.

Are you normally able to redeem these cards for cash? My (limited) experience
is not only no, but sometimes the amount is rounded up to the nearest
$currency_denomination as well.

~~~
sstrudeau
I don't believe most retailers will redeem cards for cash (if they can avoid
it) but gift cards are use widely as a money laundering and value-exchange
system amongst criminals: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored-
value_card#Money_launder...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored-
value_card#Money_laundering)

------
LiveTheDream
Surprised no one has mentioned it, but I'm impressed with Starbucks for
contacting Jonathan and telling him what they were going to do with the card,
and when.

------
shabda
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 guy comes
and abuse the system, to prove the vulnerability and expose the vulnerability.
I s he good or bad? full disclosure vs responsible disclosure

~~~
ahlatimer
I think we were all aware that the system could be abused. It was based
entirely on the honor system since we don't know who was using the card, only
that it was being used. The original thread was full of people talking about
how it could be abused.

As far as what Sam did in particular, it'd be entirely different if Sam came
out and said, "Hey, look! I was able to write a script that has syphoned off
$625 from the card and put it into Starbucks gift cards. I could then turn
around and sell those cards on eBay and turn them into cash. I'll be putting
the money back onto the original card, but I just wanted to expose the
exploit." Instead, he followed through with turning it into cash and wrote a
snarky blog post about how yuppies buying yuppies coffee isn't all that
interesting, and he had decided to redirect the experiment to "will someone
buy a Starbucks gift card for full price."

~~~
lotharbot
> _"we were all aware that the system could be abused"_

I think we were all aware that the system could be abused to buy yourself an
extra coffee every once in a while, if you happened to be in Starbucks when
the card had money on it. We were all aware that you could overspend, either
on yourself or "for charity" (witness Sam's comment about buying food for
homeless guys.) If that was the only vulnerability, most of us would think it
acceptable -- most of the time money you put on the card goes to brighten an
honest person's day, but occasionally someone games the system.

Until the exploit was posted, I was not aware that it could be abused by
skimming $50 at a time onto your own card within moments of it being deposited
on the main card. This is an unacceptable level of exploitability -- if you
put money on the card, it's very likely that it will go to a scammer of some
sort.

I'm glad Sam exposed this far-more-serious-than-most-of-us-realized
vulnerability. I'm not pleased with _how he went about it_ (particularly the
game he and his brother seem to be playing; Daniel's startup deposited exactly
$625, the same amount Sam took.) I'm not pleased with the "yuppies buying
coffee" vs "starving kids in Africa" comparison. But I'm glad this particular
exploit has been exposed, which means we now have the opportunity to set up a
better-and-safer version of Jonathan's Card.

------
madiator
Had to happen, thanks to Sam and other crooks.

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

~~~
madiator
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'...

------
kens
Interestingly, Sam Odio's sale of the $500 Starbucks card on Ebay is currently
at $3950. Unless the bidder is feeling really charitable, I assume someone is
sabotaging Sam's "experiment" with massive overbidding they won't pay.

Ebay sale is at:
[http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=16063...](http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160636718148#ht_500wt_1156)

------
robryan
Would be great if Starbucks took up on the theme and made a card designed for
sharing but allowed the creator to define a single purchase limit. I don't
think a system like this could ever be completely locked down to abuse but at
least it could take away the gift card thing.

~~~
ajays
Now that's a great idea. Have a card that is limited in certain ways: max
purchase of, say, $5 (I don't know if $5 will buy anything in $tarbuck$, since
I haven't been there in many years). Limit purchases to coffee (or tea) only.
No transfer allowed from one GC to another. No more than, say, 30 uses per
location.

It would be an interesting series of social experiments to limit the card in
these various ways, and see which limitation helps the uptake, and which hurts
it. Fascinating!

------
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...](http://www.facebook.com/notes/paying-it-forward/paying-it-forward-with-
starbucks-how-it-works/118639894901035)

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

------
bitdiffusion
It might be slightly off-topic, but I used to work in the same building as
"Save the Children" at a swanky address in central London (this is the charity
where the money ended up iirc). The employees dressed better than us and I
could see (when the lift opened on their floor on the way up) that their
offices were pretty awesome.

Anyway - how much of the donation actually ended up feeding starving children
I guess is neither here-nor-there; at the end of the day giving to charity is
usually about how it makes _you_ feel.

~~~
lylejohnson
According to Charity Navigator, "Save the Children" is a four-star charity,
with about 90 percent of their budget going to program expenses. That seems
pretty reasonable.

[http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...](http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4438)

------
lurker19
The thing about computer security flaws is that unless someone makes a point
of publicly exploiting them, others will go around quietly exploiting them. It
is almost certain that someone was quietly siphoning Jonathan's card. Would
all the donors really prefer to have their donations be embezzled like they
are at a skeezy charity front like Palotta or Komen? Why, just for smug
satisfaction of feeling good about giving, without any concern or
accountability regarding whether the gift is doing the good you give yourself
credit for?

There is no use in condemning Odio unless you have a plan to fix the security
hole he highlighted. Otherwise you are going to shutdown the open and honest
takers and willfully ignore the quiet and dishonest takers.

~~~
shabble
Being able to mark a card as "only purchases @foodstuff products", or being
able to blacklist it from refilling gift cards would be the easiest way to
close this particular hole.

If you could only purchase actual physical objects (ideally, only fresh food,
rather than, say, a coffee-maker), that would go a long way toward preventing
misuse.

------
savrajsingh
Here's a free idea for Starbucks: issue gift cards that only allow purchase of
a specific product, like a tall chai/coffee.

Scenario: I want to thank someone. Instead of giving them a gift card with an
arbitrary dollar value that they will inevitably need to round out with their
own money, I can give them a gift card and say "your next drink is on me."

And I get billed/deducted in the background. This would make Jonathans card
work as intended.

Incidentally I have previously pitched this idea to employees at Starbucks
corporate, to the Starbucks "idea" forums, etc over the last two years. My
core scenario is I want to have a stack of these cards and give out free
drinks to random people. :) $5 gift cards make things too cumbersome.

~~~
iamscanner
I actually waited in line at a bank for about 15 minutes once, and when I got
to the teller the manager said "hey - want a coffee?", and handed me a Tim's
card (reloadable gift cards for Tim Hortons). I had no idea what the value was
- but it turned out to be $2 (just enough to buy any size of coffee at Tim
Hortons).

Having it be $2 was a lot more useful than having it be for a large coffee - I
don't drink coffee, and I ended up using the $2 to subsidize a bagel.

------
daniel_reetz
I read the writeup. This is a great example of a classy way to end an
experiment in the face of enormous snark and doubt. Jonathan had every
opportunity to become defensive and flame out, but instead he kept it cool and
emphasized the positive.

A lesson taught by example. Great work.

------
nchlswu
While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit
'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were
going to take advantage of the system. While his actions may run counter to
the 'spirit of the experiment,' it's fair game and part of the experiment.
Stark didn't enforce any sort of rules for a reason. People who participated
in the experiment can continue to pay it forward however they want.

I don't necessarily agree with the reasons Sam cited for running his own take
on the experiment, but I have to say I'm sort of surprised by the general
reaction by so many -- then again, these reactions are just another outcome of
the experiment. I find the following and dedication to this movement utterly
fascinating. He made a statement regarding people's generosity (or illusions
of generosity?) and the resultant attacks on Odio himself are even more
intriguing.

~~~
Cushman
Sam _literally_ did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is
nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive.

The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-
penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. And in fact, it largely _can_ , as the
growing popularity of Jonathan's Card showed. That there are people who will
abuse the system does not excuse the people who abuse the system— that's
_absurd_.

I'm baffled by your surprise at the reaction. Are you likewise surprised by
the fact that people don't like the guy who comes up to the bowl labeled "Free
Candy" and takes all of the candy, leaving none for anyone else? "But I'm just
demonstrating that any system based on goodwill is open to abuse!" Well,
_yeah_. We _know_. People _hate_ that.

"But I'm giving the candy to underprivileged children!" That's good for them,
then. We hope they enjoy it, _dick._

~~~
sjs
He wasn't the only one skimming money from the card he just got the most
attention for it by publicizing what he did.

You might even draw the parallel to a white hat who publicizes a vulnerability
rather than quietly exploiting it for profit.

 _edit: He did skim quite a lot to prove the concept. Maybe he was seriously
considering that iPad._

~~~
Cushman
I could draw the parallel to a white hat who breaks into my house to steal
some of my stuff, gives it to the Goodwill, and then blogs about it in order
to publicize the vulnerability that I leave my front door unlocked.

"Hey man, you left your front door unlocked. Anyone could have done that."

I _know_. I leave my front door unlocked with the expectation that, in
general, people won't. You're one of the _bad guys_.

"Hey, that's unfair. It's not like I'm profiting from it. I gave it to the
Goodwill."

Next time you're feeling charitable, donate some of your own stuff. That's
what I do. It's all the good feelings, without any of the stealing.

------
flocial
All in all a brilliant experiment illustrating the possibilities and pitfalls
of social gifting. This is something a company like Foursquare can improve on.

------
bgurupra
I just don't see what the experiment was about really considering the audience
entirely consisted of people who can afford coffee - I just don't get it! The
only explanation is a viral marketing scheme in my mind

~~~
gregschlom
There's a huge difference between buying myself a coffee and enjoying someone
else's generosity.

The latter makes me feel happy, and makes me want to be generous, too.

------
nakedslavin
Sucks it didn't work.. I know Sam decided to send all the money to some
charity or something like that, but the fact is, if he really wanted to do
something useful he could have done it himself, but not basing his 'ebay-
experiment' on that project. But again,that would require being creative.

------
paulnelligan
Social gifting is cool. The only problem with it is that the people who REALLY
need the gift are the ones who can't afford smartphones, tablet devices, or
computers. So i'd rather give my gifts the old fashioned way.

But i still like the idea in a symbolic sense.

~~~
shabble
Print a bunch of tear-off QR codes and tape it to your nearest lamp-post? Or
have a bunch at the desk of a homeless shelter maybe?

------
ronnier
This is similar to our tax dollars. Pay in, and others use them as fast as
possible. No matter how much money was put on Jonathan's card, people were
there to take it.

------
sebkomianos
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.

~~~
uname_pword
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.

~~~
sebkomianos
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.

~~~
uname_pword
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...](http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/08/12/jonathans.card.hacked/)

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.

------
nazgulnarsil
My take-away: append moral statements with "unless you could get an ipad."

------
arithmetic
Comments have been pouring in for the last couple of hours on the Facebook
page - <https://www.facebook.com/jonathanscard>

------
yuvipanda
Wonder if the 'iPad hack' had anything to do with this...

~~~
sorbus
Probably. One of the statuses on the facebook page begins "All we can hope for
in life is a strong moral compass that helps guide us in doing the right thing
and when something happens that might seem unfair we need to realize that
those incidences are in the minority."

Of course, since they're saying that "Starbucks has informed me that they will
be shutting off the card", it's also possible that Starbucks has some reason
to shut it off that's entirely unrelated to that.

~~~
Cushman
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.

~~~
mikeleeorg
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 Jonathan's spirit.)

~~~
Cushman
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.

------
kevinpet
Am I the only person here who thought the whole "experiment" was "how much
publicity can I buy for $100 initial investment?"

------
kidh0
I really don't know why Starbucks shut down the Jonathan's Card, it was a free
ads, Starbucks was still profiting...

------
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.

~~~
mrud
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2877779>

~~~
Mz
Thank you.

------
drivebyacct2
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?

~~~
Cushman
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.

