6 ms·

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

by shabda 15y ago

I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. Sam had the option of taking the gift card and selling the card and keeping the iPad. He exposed the vulnerability. If he hadnt you would have paid in for the card, but someone would have abused the system, and not disclosed it. Here is a though experiment. There is a widely used piece of software which has a vulnerability. There are bad guys who are going to abuse it. A guy comes and abuse the system, to prove the vulnerability and expose the vulnerability. I s he good or bad? full disclosure vs responsible disclosure

ahlatimer 15y ago
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."
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > "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.
ltamake 15y ago
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.
- bandushrew 15y ago
  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.
  - mayanksinghal 15y ago
    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.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    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.
    - lurker19 15y ago
      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
defen 15y ago
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.
BasDirks 15y ago
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?
- savrajsingh 15y ago
  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.
  - BasDirks 15y ago
    Don't rape my analogy. He's not building (in the relevant sense).
davidw 15y ago
> I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. His surname, in Italian, means "hate" or "hatred".
- jrockway 15y ago
  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 http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp
  - davidw 15y ago
    The word "odio" in Italian means "hate" or "hatred".
    - davidw 15y ago
      Just to be clear, I didn't even follow this whole saga, and don't know Sam Odio at all. His name just kind of jumps out at you if you speak Italian (Spanish too, I think).
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    And let's not talk about the meaning accruing to "jrockway".
- ajays 15y ago
  ... and is a prefix of "odious", a word which describes his behavior to the T.
megablast 15y ago
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.
FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
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.
dmn001 15y ago
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.
ahoyhere 15y ago
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.
EponymousCoward 15y ago
Exposed the vulnerability? Can I kick you in the nuts to demonstrate the importance of wearing a cup?
ajays 15y ago
"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.

by shabda 15y ago

ahlatimer 15y ago

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."

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
lotharbot 15y ago
> "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.

ltamake 15y ago

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.

bandushrew 15y ago
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.
- mayanksinghal 15y ago
  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.
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  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.
  - lurker19 15y ago
    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

defen 15y ago

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.

BasDirks 15y ago

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?

savrajsingh 15y ago
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.
- BasDirks 15y ago
  Don't rape my analogy. He's not building (in the relevant sense).

davidw 15y ago

> I am surprised at the hate against Sam Odio. His surname, in Italian, means "hate" or "hatred".

jrockway 15y ago
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 http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp
- davidw 15y ago
  The word "odio" in Italian means "hate" or "hatred".
  - davidw 15y ago
    Just to be clear, I didn't even follow this whole saga, and don't know Sam Odio at all. His name just kind of jumps out at you if you speak Italian (Spanish too, I think).
- Vivtek 15y ago
  And let's not talk about the meaning accruing to "jrockway".
ajays 15y ago
... and is a prefix of "odious", a word which describes his behavior to the T.

megablast 15y ago

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.

FuzzyDunlop 15y ago

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.

dmn001 15y ago

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.

ahoyhere 15y ago

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.

EponymousCoward 15y ago

Exposed the vulnerability? Can I kick you in the nuts to demonstrate the importance of wearing a cup?

ajays 15y ago

"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.