13 ms·

Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad

• 100k 15y ago
  I'm Starbucks illiterate. How did they transfer the value from Jonathan's card to theirs?
  • mrcharles 15y ago
    I assume they bought physical gift cards in store.
    • carbonica 15y ago
      Close - they bought one gift card, and then used Starbucks' website to transfer the money from Jonathan's card to their own.
      • bluelu 15y ago
        So they hacked his account and stole money. I guess that's illegal... and will put you in front of a judge.
      • woof 15y ago
        And how did he get the Card Security Code (PIN)?
        • true_religion 15y ago
          They either guessed or brute forced it. Both of which are essentially illegal computer hacking. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to do business with someone (here the Founder of Freshplum) if they enjoy hacking credit accounts in their free time. His reason for doing so is so poor that I worry about his ethics in other affairs.
          • aforty 15y ago
            But he specifically mentioned having to physically be at the Starbucks. Why would he do that if he had cracked the PIN? I think there's a way for them to transfer from one card to another, physically at the stores POS system. Can't think of anything else.
            • true_religion 15y ago
              He went to the starbucks, first, to buy another gift card. Then he used the website to transfer funds.
        • kennywinker 15y ago
          As he states here in the google plus comment thread: https://plus.google.com/u/0/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NBAp1 https://plus.google.com/u/0/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqh... "to transfer the money off the card I had to do it IRL, at a Starbucks location"
  • rickyc091 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      "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/MAqht3NBAp1 https://plus.google.com/u/0/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqh...
• rrival 15y ago
  Thought this was already revealed as a viral marketing campaign by starbucks: http://www.coffeestrategies.com/2011/08/08/starbucks-and-the-starkbucks-jonathan-card-viral-marketing-campaign http://www.coffeestrategies.com/2011/08/08/starbucks-and-the... Not sure if that means there's more of a reason to exploit it or not, at least Sam's doing it for good =)
  • ximeng 15y ago
    Did you read the article? It mentions that.
    • JHCDigital 15y ago
      What our little hacker here did amounts to a cut and dry case of wire fraud - here's the wikipedia in layman's terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud. With all the press on Jonathanscard, it is more than likely this guy will be prosecuted because it is an open and shut case. Good luck kid...
  • raganwald 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      I kind of agree with your point, but saying that the Starbucks brand takes a "huge" hit is a bit of an overstatement.
• nhangen 15y ago
  Yeah, it's cool, but also nefarious, charity or not.
  • sequoia 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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 15y ago
          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.
• sequoia 15y ago
  "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!
  • philfreo 15y ago
    Did you read the article? He is donating to a charity focused on world hunger...
    • gareim 15y ago
      Did you read his comment? His point was that the OP seems to think we can't indulge ourselves occasionally and must always work towards solving those big problems. We're human. We should allow ourselves to have some fun once in a while.
      • sp332 15y ago
        That's not the context of the quote. He's wondering if people will bid over the face value of the card, or if no one thinks that charity is more important than caffeine. He's not dissing on Jonathan's Card, he's wondering about his auction.
        • burgerbrain 15y ago
          He should do that with his own money. Not stolen funds.
        • mikeash 15y ago
• aneth 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        agreed and sharing the code ensures that others with more devious ambitions will pretty much ruin this experiment.
        • sequoia 15y ago
          "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
• cssndrx 15y ago
  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 $100 at a time, most people thought it was an uninformed, karma-less nobody stealing from the card. It is incredible that the transactions are due to some educated do-gooder imposing his beliefs onto the donors of Jonathan's card. I've read many of Sam's comments before, and respect them as thoughtful and intelligent. However, just because you don't like the idea of "yuppies buying yuppies coffee", doesn't mean that you should try to destroy Jonathan's card. Some people feel good and more connected with others by adding to and taking from Jonathan's card. By taking money out of the system, you are in effect going against donors wishes and imposing your own beliefs on them. It is almost like taking from the vault of a charity that you dislike and giving the proceeds to your charity of choice. Its less atrocious than pocketing the money and buying an iPad, but obviously still bad. EDIT: I feel sorry for Jonathan and his good intentions.
  • Karhan 15y ago
    I agree with you except on one point. Sam is exactly the kind of person I thought was taking the money and I think most people probably suspected the same thing. I thought it was someone sitting around watching the twitter feed stealing money 150$ 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.
• Udo 15y ago
  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).
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • sequoia 15y ago
    >On the plus side, I suppose now we know who kept on abusing the card (people were wondering in other threads). I'm betting most of the people abusing the card aren't sending the proceeds to charity...
    • Udo 15y ago
      Well, if he stole enough to buy an iPad, that's a large chunk of the missing money from the card right there. I'm willing to bet most of the other people stealing from the card aren't rich and successful YC graduate entrepreneurs either but somehow that makes what he did much worse in my opinion. He's also a rich guy lecturing people on how they should be donating every little bit of their excess money to charity. I'm sorry but something about this whole constellation is making my blood boil.
      • randallsquared 15y ago
        You aren't the only one. Stomping on other people's fun because you'd prefer they donate is deeply irritating. I haven't been able to read the article, yet, due to a 500 error, but whatever charity is receiving this should be upset that they're being associated with this asininity.
• huhtenberg 15y ago
  Another lesson here is to be careful with @font-face styling - http://i55.tinypic.com/1z342ee.png http://i55.tinypic.com/1z342ee.png - the whole thing is barely readable on Windows.
  • NumberFiveAlive 15y ago
    It's not even that readable on my box.
  • nollidge 15y ago
    Agreed, I had to zoom in to read it.
• djchung 15y ago
  Sam hacked Jonathan's card and is doing good with it. But his hack defeats the original purpose of Jonathan's social experiment. Jonathan's card can probably only work as it was intended to with restricted access among a select group. But as the pool grows larger and more anonymous, it'll most likely be abused. Solve Jonathan's card and you'll solve Tragedy of the Commons.
• epenn 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Robin Hood is all about stealing to the rich to give to the poor and in that respect, I think Sam is right on.
    • lotharbot 15y ago
      Robin Hood is actually all about robbing from corrupt oppressors and protecting the oppressed. There are tales where the people he protects are fairly well off, and he regularly interacts with people of medium to high status without any intent of robbing them. Nothing in the tales of Robin Hood suggests he would rob an honest rich man.
    • zacharycohn 15y ago
      Okay, but I'm not rich and Sam stole from me.
      • kennywinker 15y ago
        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 15y ago
          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.
• napierzaza 15y ago
  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.
• zipstudio 15y ago
  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.
• Triumvark 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Coffee-laundering. Interesting thought.
• kcurtin 15y ago
  meh. don't care who you are donating too, its still shitty. get down of your high horse.
  • kennywinker 15y ago
    Meh. I don't care who you are donating too, it's still shitty. Get down off your high horse. FTFY
• pmsaue0 15y ago
  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.
• oflannabhra 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    If I were that charity, I would immediately stand up, return the money, and chastise him for his illegal and unethical actions.
• AndrewWarner 15y ago
  Cached copy of the page: http://bit.ly/pKIoGi http://bit.ly/pKIoGi
  • beaumartinez 15y ago
    Whoa, a bit.ly link? Was that really necessary?
    • mkopinsky 15y ago
      Excuse my ignorance, but what's wrong with bit.ly? Or are you simply objecting to the need to shorten the URL?
      • iqster 15y ago
        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.
      • lotharbot 15y ago
        link shorteners are generally frowned upon here on HN. They're unnecessary (if there is a character limit on posts, I've never reached it) and they have some downsides. So just post the whole link.
      • beaumartinez 15y ago
        With shortened links you have no idea where the link leads, and you can also be tracked (to varying extents—at least my following the link is registered). They also act as an additional potential point of failure.
      • SeoxyS 15y ago
        Makes it hard to combat spam, because you don't know where the link goes.
• byrneseyeview 15y ago
  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.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00... 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.
• kingofspain 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.
• pavel_lishin 15y ago
  I like the message that replaced 500: "too. much. traffic. Please wait while I install memcache."
  • jules 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      Maybe he wants to preserve commenting, or maybe getting memcached up and running is faster than generating a static copy. /me shrugs
• lotharbot 15y ago
  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 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 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.
• flocial 15y ago
  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.
• jt2190 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      Why don't you ask him?
      • jt2190 15y ago
        He was responding to posts on the original thread. I asked this same question there.
  • glenra 15y ago
    > the first question I has was: How would he prevent unintended use of the card's funds? The fact that most people aren't assholes was sufficient to let the system work for a while. A few people being assholes occasionally is survivable but somebody who makes a system out of it and publicizes it probably isn't. In short: "this is why we can't have nice things." Think about it another way: right now, McDonalds doesn't charge you for napkins, straws, ketchup packets, salt packets, or toilet paper. All that stuff is just FREE - anybody could take however much they want! A sufficiently motivated asshole could figure out a way to break that convenient social phenomenon too and it wouldn't take any more cleverness than this did. It's not a cool hack, it's taking something other people find useful and ruining it for everyone. Suppose you systematically stole all the toilet paper and paper towels from Starbucks bathrooms. To sell on eBay or whatever. Eventually they'd have to install pay toilets, hire washroom attendants, or just remove access entirely. One motivated jerk can easily make life a little less convenient for everybody in a great many ways, but that doesn't mean he should.
• sondh 15y ago
  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?
• ck2 15y ago
  cache http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fsam.odio.com%2F2011%2F08%2F12%2Fi-took-625-jonathans-card%2F http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fsa... 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
• random42 15y ago
  > "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.
• yaaqmon 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
  Awesome. What a hack. Can everyone please shutup with their dumb subjective value judgements already? Grow up, these were both fun, benign, experiments.
• gregschlom 15y ago
  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.
• blhack 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    >but are you doing anything fun or interesting by it?// 140 comments here would imply that it is at least interesting.
    • blhack 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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).
• rickdale 15y ago
  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
• z0r 15y ago
  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.
• niels_olson 15y ago
  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.
  • burgerbrain 15y ago
    To those who want to slam on those "slamming" on Sam Odio's (reprehensible) moral code: You're seriously arguing that that we should re-evaluate our outlook by slinging around childish insults?
    • niels_olson 15y ago
      Could you please cite the childish insult?
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        You have got to be fucking kidding me. Grow up.
  • filmgirlcw 15y ago
    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.
• EGreg 15y ago
  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 http://magarshak.com/contact
• sequoia 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• rjett 15y ago
  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=2858120 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2858226 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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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://besoci.al/q2I0QE http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875
      • dmn001 15y ago
        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?
    • burgerbrain 15y ago
      Even if Daniel has given as much money as Sam Odio took from it, a net damage has still been dealt to the card. People (for instance, myself) will be less likely to give money as a result of the publicity Sam Odio has generated for himself. To say nothing of the condescension and insults Sam Odio has heaped upon people who thought it was a pretty neat idea. He would still have a large amount of apologizing to do, assuming added what he took.
• esmevane 15y ago
  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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    > 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.
• AlfaWolph 15y ago
  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.
• beatpanda 15y ago
  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.
• aforty 15y ago
  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.
• tobtoh 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Agree ... There is no honor in his acts, just shame ... Please never say to your kids about u doind this.
• johndoe12 15y ago
  This is the same Sam Odio that had a scam Iraqi Dinar exchange... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcq2LXSAn_U 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/ 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 15y ago
    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.
• danielodio 15y ago
  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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875
• jokermatt999 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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"
• mcantor 15y ago
  Mr. Odio lives up to his name. This is a truly odious act.
• Cushman 15y ago
  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.
• Pointsly 15y ago
  I love how his site is now down... I'm sure some one in the HN community is responsible... thank you.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• ltamake 15y ago
  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.
• jaekwon 15y ago
  wtf
• trdlo 15y ago
  odious indeed
• brosephius 15y ago
  how does this work? is he using stark's card balance to buy a new starbucks card?
• thehotdon 15y ago
  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.
• Tutorialzine 15y ago
  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?
• ether 15y ago
  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 :)
• tobtoh 15y ago
  Sam has posted on Google+ (https://plus.google.com/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NBAp1 https://plus.google.com/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NB...) ... 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 15y ago
    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.
• TranceaddicT 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    No, because a bunch of assholes were threatening him with bodily harm
    • woof 15y ago
      So his social experiment didn't work out they great? Bummer...
    • TranceaddicT 15y ago
      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.
• mebesilly 15y ago
  Stealing cleverly does not stop this from being theft. :-(
• heelhook 15y ago
  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!
• ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  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...
• mattdeboard 15y ago
  gasp Rich people toying with the emotions of the proletariat? I am truly shocked that such a thing happens in America!
• dreamdu5t 15y ago
  But I thought everybody giving according to their ability, and taking according to their need would work out just great?
• davidandgoliath 15y ago
  This Sam Odio guy sounds like an absolute douche.
• usedtolurk 15y ago
  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).