And you'd be wrong as well. NO ONE in all the various discourses covering this nefarious act has ever threatened him nor has anyone called for or promoted physical violence.
Actually, the goodwill generated is that of knowing that there are otherzs in the world that are kind, just and fair just like you. It was a miserable thing to do. First it started as simple mischief when he created a hack. It progressed to diabolical when he actually took funds. It reached nothing less than evil when he posted the hack for others to inflict the same evil.
I guess you dismissed the part were he said "have a cup of COFFEE on me" (my emphasis) as an implicit rule governing the use of the funds. So you are saying if it can be done it okay. He was wrong to hack it and you are wrong for trying to intellectualize his actions.
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.
<I don't think that the people who put money on the card have any claim to determine how the money is used.>
Yes, they do. When any funds were contributed the presumptive use was that the funds were to help someone down the line get a cup of coffee if they really couldn't afford one. To say they don't have can't claim determination is like say anyone who contributes to aid projects sent to Africa can't be upset when it is siphoned off by corrupt politicians.
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.
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.
The unfortunate thing about structuring the card in that manner is that: 1) it's not the way the card is programmed to work and 2)the experiment was to provide a vehicle for those who can't to benefit from those who can. The moment the individual the experiment as designed for would end the experiment; the inevitable end of buy one, give one.
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?
No, but it certainly does destroy the experiment in the process.