Jonathan's Card shut down(jonathanstark.com)
jonathanstark.com
Jonathan's Card shut down
http://jonathanstark.com/card/?asd
105 comments
> 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.
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.
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/
"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/
I'm not so sure based on their public response to the experiment:
"We think Jonathan’s project is really interesting and we are flattered he chose Starbucks for his social experiment."
"We think Jonathan’s project is really interesting and we are flattered he chose Starbucks for his social experiment."
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.
*I enjoy volunteering, donating, paying it forward, etc., I'm just trying to illustrate a point.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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
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."
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."
> "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.
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.
[deleted]
Come on. The "if I didn't do it someone else would have" justification for bad behavior is covered in Ethics 101. He acted like an asshole and got called out for it. Not just an asshole, a pretentious asshole (the worst kind) who put a picture of a starving African child in his post. This wasn't even some obscure vulnerability, and certainly not in some "mission critical" operation, so even that reason doesn't fly.
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.
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.
He's like the kid who destroys other kids' sandcastles to show that they were not so awesome after all. What's not to hate?
At worst he's being snarky. But I don't think he'd destroy sandcastles. He's not that kid. He's the kid adding concrete and rebar so that when a storm comes, his castle is still standing.
Don't rape my analogy. He's not building (in the relevant sense).
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?)
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?)
Exactly. He stole from people who generously put money on the card instead of, for example, running a donation drive for the charity.
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.
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.
Oh and to steal to feed your own family is a different case altogether. You are not acting like a pretentious douche.
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.
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.
Well, It is quite possibly scalable to allow impoverished to take free bread, if there is a defined poverty level and an insurance safety net provided by the not impoverished. This is the principle behind Social Security
That's not the principle behind social security. Social security is a store of your accrued wealth of today that is meant to be returned to you once you are retired.
> I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio.
His surname, in Italian, means "hate" or "hatred".
His surname, in Italian, means "hate" or "hatred".
... and is a prefix of "odious", a word which describes his behavior to the T.
No, it means "from the family Odio".
Snopes explains this sort of thing better than I can: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp
Snopes explains this sort of thing better than I can: http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp
And let's not talk about the meaning accruing to "jrockway".
I am surprised that you are surprised. What you say is correct, but so what.
People can still hate him, for exposing this vulnerability. People can still hate him for turning this into something mean, rather than something altruistic. People can hate him for showing that some of us will abuse this.
I am not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. Even if this was not true, people can hate Sam for totally non logical reasons.
People can still hate him, for exposing this vulnerability. People can still hate him for turning this into something mean, rather than something altruistic. People can hate him for showing that some of us will abuse this.
I am not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. Even if this was not true, people can hate Sam for totally non logical reasons.
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.
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.
"He exposed the vulnerability."
What 'vulnerability' did he expose, that wasn't already STARING everyone in the face? The card was no more 'vulnerable' than an unattended tip jar or an unattended farmstand. This was like taking money from a 1-year old.
Ooooh! Look at the big boy Sam! He's so smart, he showed how you can rip a child off!
To me, Mr. Odio seems like an attention whore who got jealous that Stark's experiment was creating a buzz.
I'm sorry if this sounds like an adhominem rant, but I'm sick of people who will piss in the punch just to make a point that there's someone thirsty in Africa.
What 'vulnerability' did he expose, that wasn't already STARING everyone in the face? The card was no more 'vulnerable' than an unattended tip jar or an unattended farmstand. This was like taking money from a 1-year old.
Ooooh! Look at the big boy Sam! He's so smart, he showed how you can rip a child off!
To me, Mr. Odio seems like an attention whore who got jealous that Stark's experiment was creating a buzz.
I'm sorry if this sounds like an adhominem rant, but I'm sick of people who will piss in the punch just to make a point that there's someone thirsty in Africa.
Exposed the vulnerability? Can I kick you in the nuts to demonstrate the importance of wearing a cup?
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.
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.
Had to happen, thanks to Sam and other crooks.
Shh, you can't say that, he's a YC guy! He'll quote some PG to justify it, I'm sure.
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'...
I blame the public schools.
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...
Ebay sale is at: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=16063...
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.
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!
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!
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! :).
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! :).
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A lesson taught by example. Great work.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
I agree. If Sam Odio's post had a graph or table with the suspicious changes highlighted, and a conservative total of them exceeding the amount he took, I think fewer people would have given him grief over it.
>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 //
Well it's like a guy coming up to a bowl of free candy in a place where everyone already has their pockets stuffed with candy, then going to some other place where people haven't got any candy and giving the candy to them.
Oh and the kicker, the guy who took all the free candy made sure, it seems, that the candy bowl was stocked up already and didn't take any more candy than was put in by his friend.
... and then there was uproar, because dammit, giving that free candy to people without any candy was not part of the intention of the sign "free candy", the people fervently agreed that free candy should only be for those who have lots of candy already.
Then people posted abusive messages because they hated being pointed out to that giving free candy to people with lots of candy was probably not really as generous as all that ... or something.
Well it's like a guy coming up to a bowl of free candy in a place where everyone already has their pockets stuffed with candy, then going to some other place where people haven't got any candy and giving the candy to them.
Oh and the kicker, the guy who took all the free candy made sure, it seems, that the candy bowl was stocked up already and didn't take any more candy than was put in by his friend.
... and then there was uproar, because dammit, giving that free candy to people without any candy was not part of the intention of the sign "free candy", the people fervently agreed that free candy should only be for those who have lots of candy already.
Then people posted abusive messages because they hated being pointed out to that giving free candy to people with lots of candy was probably not really as generous as all that ... or something.
> Well it's like a guy coming up to a bowl of free candy in a place where everyone already has their pockets stuffed with candy, then going to some other place where people haven't got any candy and giving the candy to them.
The merits of that action aside, we don't actually know that's what he's going to do with the money from eBay. We do know that he's going out of his way to convert it to cash, and we also know that he's gone out of his way to make himself seem less trustworthy. Given that cash is fungible and he wants to promote the idea of giving to charity, you'd think he would have given what he expected to make off the card to charity and pointed that out up front, if giving the money to charity were really his intention.
The merits of that action aside, we don't actually know that's what he's going to do with the money from eBay. We do know that he's going out of his way to convert it to cash, and we also know that he's gone out of his way to make himself seem less trustworthy. Given that cash is fungible and he wants to promote the idea of giving to charity, you'd think he would have given what he expected to make off the card to charity and pointed that out up front, if giving the money to charity were really his intention.
He's converting it because he doesn't think starving children in Africa have much use for a Starbucks gift card.
My point is that if he intends to give the money to starving children in Africa (or, really, to people who say that some percentage will end up being given to starving children...), the fact that money is money means that there's no reason not to do that at once.
I'm not one of those willing to call what Odio did theft; it's merely rude and underhanded. But I do wonder if people who do business with him in the future will not pause to remember that he's proud of being someone who will exploit the exact letter of the rules to his own advantage (probably mere self-satisfaction in this case, but one does wonder why he didn't do the donation first...), even when the spirit of the thing was otherwise. It seems possible that he has given up considerable future income in return for the personal satisfaction he derived from stepping on someone else's fun.
I'm not one of those willing to call what Odio did theft; it's merely rude and underhanded. But I do wonder if people who do business with him in the future will not pause to remember that he's proud of being someone who will exploit the exact letter of the rules to his own advantage (probably mere self-satisfaction in this case, but one does wonder why he didn't do the donation first...), even when the spirit of the thing was otherwise. It seems possible that he has given up considerable future income in return for the personal satisfaction he derived from stepping on someone else's fun.
From a business persepctive, Sam Odio's action was fantastic. He made one of the best answers ever seen for the YC application question "when have you hacked a system?"
He walked up to a pile of money just sitting their being used for a suboptimal purpose, and he took it and put it to good use.
He walked up to a pile of money just sitting their being used for a suboptimal purpose, and he took it and put it to good use.
I know I'll never buy anything from a business run by Sam Odio, unless he somehow were to redact all this douchery. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way. There are too many decent people out there to waste time and money with someone like this.
I hope this doesn't come off as callous, but giving the money to charity is irrelevant. That's the whole point of the analogy: candy isn't expensive. We could all have as much as we want. If you want to give candy to underprivileged children, you can go out and buy a big bag yourself for five bucks.
What Sam did (we presume) in giving $500 to charity is noble. It would be much nobler if he had used his own money. What you and others are doing by rationalizing it is essentially saying that none of us has a right to any frivolity so long as there are people starving in the world, and taking things is okay as long as you give them to someone who needs them more. I got pickpocketed on the subway— but you know what, I was just gonna spend that $70 on a new pair of sneakers anyway, and I bet the thief needs new shoes much more than I do.
Which, really, has some validity to it. But that's a way, way larger social issue than the one at hand. If we grant, as we must, that it is okay for an American to drink coffee, what Sam did is a dick move.
What Sam did (we presume) in giving $500 to charity is noble. It would be much nobler if he had used his own money. What you and others are doing by rationalizing it is essentially saying that none of us has a right to any frivolity so long as there are people starving in the world, and taking things is okay as long as you give them to someone who needs them more. I got pickpocketed on the subway— but you know what, I was just gonna spend that $70 on a new pair of sneakers anyway, and I bet the thief needs new shoes much more than I do.
Which, really, has some validity to it. But that's a way, way larger social issue than the one at hand. If we grant, as we must, that it is okay for an American to drink coffee, what Sam did is a dick move.
> 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.
I think this actually parallels how many entitlement programs work: they are set up for truly altruistic reasons, but bad actors enter the program and make it difficult for the program to remain sustainable. A subset of people will always manipulate a system where they can get something for nothing.
The problem is that usually that same subset of people are just doing it to prove that it can be done and therefor the programs "aren't sustainable".
They form a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
They form a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
If someone had not done it loudly and publicly, someone would have done it quietly and probably larger.
I mean, come on, what's the alternative? "There exist no exploitative jerks in the world"? We already know that's not true, just to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath as one (very large) example. Maybe Jonathon has learned some stuff from his experiment, it went exactly as I expected.
It works for a while, because at first people make grand gestures to show how cool they are to each other, and they outnumber the abusers, but as the fame wears off, so too does the benefits of making the grand gesture, whereas the benefits of sponging never go away. It doesn't mean life is hopeless nor does it mean the bad will always outweigh the good in the world, it just means you need some more structure to things before you can expect net positive outcomes, and that structure will take some experience, and reflections and refinements based on that experience, to best manifest.
I mean, come on, what's the alternative? "There exist no exploitative jerks in the world"? We already know that's not true, just to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath as one (very large) example. Maybe Jonathon has learned some stuff from his experiment, it went exactly as I expected.
It works for a while, because at first people make grand gestures to show how cool they are to each other, and they outnumber the abusers, but as the fame wears off, so too does the benefits of making the grand gesture, whereas the benefits of sponging never go away. It doesn't mean life is hopeless nor does it mean the bad will always outweigh the good in the world, it just means you need some more structure to things before you can expect net positive outcomes, and that structure will take some experience, and reflections and refinements based on that experience, to best manifest.
> The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive.
Although this is a whole other discussion, the experiment had a few more implications than that, and Odio pointed them out.
>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.
I should say I'm more surprised at the magnitude and nature of the outrage. There's lots of thoughtful commentary, but at the same time, I've read lots of blind hatred towards Sam. The community around Jonathan's Card appear to be outraged and are touting their moral superiority over Odio. He may have been a dick, but to me, it appears like so many were acting as if Jonathan's Card was their only act of goodwill - and many were acting like this was going to benefit those in need (debatable). Sam said it was about 'yuppies buying other yuppies coffee.' He was pointing out an issue that other people who were taking advantage of the cards were not doing. Unfortunately he chose to game the system.
The Jonathan's Card experiment is not over, and what people do next is the critical result of the experiment.
Although this is a whole other discussion, the experiment had a few more implications than that, and Odio pointed them out.
>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.
I should say I'm more surprised at the magnitude and nature of the outrage. There's lots of thoughtful commentary, but at the same time, I've read lots of blind hatred towards Sam. The community around Jonathan's Card appear to be outraged and are touting their moral superiority over Odio. He may have been a dick, but to me, it appears like so many were acting as if Jonathan's Card was their only act of goodwill - and many were acting like this was going to benefit those in need (debatable). Sam said it was about 'yuppies buying other yuppies coffee.' He was pointing out an issue that other people who were taking advantage of the cards were not doing. Unfortunately he chose to game the system.
The Jonathan's Card experiment is not over, and what people do next is the critical result of the experiment.
Don't you care? Think of the children!
The lesson I learned: if you're going to try doing something nice, don't make the mistake of calling it an "experiment" - apparently that's just an invitation for people to spoil it and call their actions "fair game".
There seems to be a habit to define the rules of the experiment - on the basis that there are no rules - and then use this to illustrate a particular point of view as "right" or otherwise justifiable.
By your definition it would have also been fine if Sam had actually gone out and bought himself and iPad. Technically fair game? Would that have been ok? Probably not to most people. Not because of the rules, but because we all have our own view of acceptable behaviour.
In this case, he gamed the system and in the process poured water on some people that were having fun. I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. So yeah. Fair game, but I can see why they're annoyed.
By your definition it would have also been fine if Sam had actually gone out and bought himself and iPad. Technically fair game? Would that have been ok? Probably not to most people. Not because of the rules, but because we all have our own view of acceptable behaviour.
In this case, he gamed the system and in the process poured water on some people that were having fun. I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. So yeah. Fair game, but I can see why they're annoyed.
> I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system.
That's fair. But would you be more inclined to think of it as a social experiment if it wasn't limited to Jonathan's physical gift card? To elaborate, what if you consider the Jonathan's Card spinoffs and broader reaction to Odio's actions?
That's fair. But would you be more inclined to think of it as a social experiment if it wasn't limited to Jonathan's physical gift card? To elaborate, what if you consider the Jonathan's Card spinoffs and broader reaction to Odio's actions?
All in all a brilliant experiment illustrating the possibilities and pitfalls of social gifting. This is something a company like Foursquare can improve on.
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
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.
The latter makes me feel happy, and makes me want to be generous, too.
If you read the post, he mentions examples where people buy someone else who can't afford coffee. That was what he encouraged from the initial post as well. Also I've seen many of my friends actually do something like that.
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.
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.
But i still like the idea in a symbolic sense.
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?
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.
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.
I don't buy your logic. If I, as a researcher, leave a car in a bad neighborhood overnight to see what happens, the guy who smashes the window to steal the radio is still a bad guy whether or not that's relevant to my results.
Science doesn't concern itself with morality, but that doesn't mean it exists in a moral vacuum.
Science doesn't concern itself with morality, but that doesn't mean it exists in a moral vacuum.
>as a researcher, leave a car in a bad neighborhood overnight //
I think you have to label the car "free car" leaving all the doors unlocked and with the keys in the ignition.
Then when someone sells the car and gives the money to charity everyone organises a lynch mob it seems because apparently selling the car wasn't part of the experiment you expected it to be driven.
Of course experiments are best when they have unexpected outcomes and it would be unexpected in a "bad neighbourhood" for someone to act altruistically in this way with a free car.
I think you have to label the car "free car" leaving all the doors unlocked and with the keys in the ignition.
Then when someone sells the car and gives the money to charity everyone organises a lynch mob it seems because apparently selling the car wasn't part of the experiment you expected it to be driven.
Of course experiments are best when they have unexpected outcomes and it would be unexpected in a "bad neighbourhood" for someone to act altruistically in this way with a free car.
I'd change your analogy to make the label 'free rides', as the intent of this was to get a cheap disposable cup of coffee. And rather than selling the car the guy drains most of the gas out of the tank and takes it.
So yes, it's an experiment but the guy was violating the stated rules.
So yes, it's an experiment but the guy was violating the stated rules.
Labeling it an experiment or a "hack" doesn't change the fact that there is a large group of cooperative participants on one side, who feel violated by one or a few non-cooperating rogues on the other.
Imagine something similar happening "in real life". Imagine a group of 1,000 people who have come up with a cooperative, good-faith system for some shared goal - say, setting up and decorating a fairground. The group is happy with how things are going. Now one person comes along and takes it on himself to subvert their system, in order to make a point about the frivolity of fairs, and in the process frustrates the goals of the group. What do your ordinary social instincts tell you about such a person?
Imagine something similar happening "in real life". Imagine a group of 1,000 people who have come up with a cooperative, good-faith system for some shared goal - say, setting up and decorating a fairground. The group is happy with how things are going. Now one person comes along and takes it on himself to subvert their system, in order to make a point about the frivolity of fairs, and in the process frustrates the goals of the group. What do your ordinary social instincts tell you about such a person?
Experiments have hypotheses and controls. This feels more like art.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
"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...
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.
[deleted]
My take-away: append moral statements with "unless you could get an ipad."
Comments have been pouring in for the last couple of hours on the Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/jonathanscard
Wonder if the 'iPad hack' had anything to do with this...
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
Am I the only person here who thought the whole "experiment" was "how much publicity can I buy for $100 initial investment?"
I really don't know why Starbucks shut down the Jonathan's Card, it was a free ads, Starbucks was still profiting...
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.
Thanks.
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?
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.
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.