4 ms·

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

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.

Cushman 15y ago
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.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >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.
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    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.
uname_pword 15y ago
My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the credit on the gift card could only be transferred to another gift card using a PIN. If this is true, Sam Odio must have brute forced that PIN which was clearly not part of the experiment. I'd call that wire fraud. Even if there was no PIN Jonathan himself stated that he didn't want this to happen, that the experiment was in sharing change between Starbucks customers. At the end of the day I find it hard to defend Sam Odio's actions no matter the scope of the experiment. As is often the case, I think he had a potent mix of greed (for money) and ability (to siphon money out of the gift card). Ultimately he ended up with over $500 and gave himself a reality check - anyone in their right mind would feel they have been at least "very surreptitious" if they were in his shoes. Sam wanted an out, and donating the stolen money to charity is the easiest way to spin his actions in a selfless view. From the wording in his blog post you can see he's no better than the so called yuppies he's trying to teach a lesson. The first thing going through his mind was "This is enough money to buy an iPad". Spoken like a true materialist? Not a single mention of the people who contributed that money in the first place. And finally, just what lesson was he trying to teach here? That sharing spare change is greedy? Let's not forget that Sam treated himself to a coffee with his loot. I can't help but feel he's getting what he deserves by having his name plastered on CNN and other media. When we dig beneath the surface his actions are truly revealing of his shady character.
- sebkomianos 15y ago
  So I guess my comment made it sound like I am defending Sam Odio. I am not. What I am saying is that he (or, more precisely, "what he did") is part of Jonathan Stark's experiment.He never said he set the card up so poor people can drink coffee, he set it up to observe how people will "utilise" it and test if such a thing can actually work. It's not like it's the end of the world either, if all these people that LOVED the card can't live without it they can sure think of a way to replace it. Prepaid coffee is one.
  - uname_pword 15y ago
    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.hacked/ 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 15y ago
  [deleted]
andywood 15y ago
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?
recampbell 15y ago
Experiments have hypotheses and controls. This feels more like art.

Cushman 15y ago

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.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>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.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  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.

uname_pword 15y ago

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is the credit on the gift card could only be transferred to another gift card using a PIN. If this is true, Sam Odio must have brute forced that PIN which was clearly not part of the experiment. I'd call that wire fraud. Even if there was no PIN Jonathan himself stated that he didn't want this to happen, that the experiment was in sharing change between Starbucks customers. At the end of the day I find it hard to defend Sam Odio's actions no matter the scope of the experiment. As is often the case, I think he had a potent mix of greed (for money) and ability (to siphon money out of the gift card). Ultimately he ended up with over $500 and gave himself a reality check - anyone in their right mind would feel they have been at least "very surreptitious" if they were in his shoes. Sam wanted an out, and donating the stolen money to charity is the easiest way to spin his actions in a selfless view. From the wording in his blog post you can see he's no better than the so called yuppies he's trying to teach a lesson. The first thing going through his mind was "This is enough money to buy an iPad". Spoken like a true materialist? Not a single mention of the people who contributed that money in the first place. And finally, just what lesson was he trying to teach here? That sharing spare change is greedy? Let's not forget that Sam treated himself to a coffee with his loot. I can't help but feel he's getting what he deserves by having his name plastered on CNN and other media. When we dig beneath the surface his actions are truly revealing of his shady character.

sebkomianos 15y ago
So I guess my comment made it sound like I am defending Sam Odio. I am not. What I am saying is that he (or, more precisely, "what he did") is part of Jonathan Stark's experiment.He never said he set the card up so poor people can drink coffee, he set it up to observe how people will "utilise" it and test if such a thing can actually work. It's not like it's the end of the world either, if all these people that LOVED the card can't live without it they can sure think of a way to replace it. Prepaid coffee is one.
- uname_pword 15y ago
  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.hacked/ 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 15y ago
[deleted]

andywood 15y ago

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?

recampbell 15y ago

Experiments have hypotheses and controls. This feels more like art.