this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
318 points (98.2% liked)

News

23320 readers
4092 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Nebraska woman allegedly found a lucrative quirk at a gas station pump — double-swipe the rewards card and get free gas!

Unfortunately for her, you can’t do that, prosecutors said. The 45-year-old woman was arrested March 6 and faces felony theft charges accusing her of a crime that cost the gas station nearly $28,000.

Prosecutors say the woman exploited the system over a period of several months. Police learned of the problem in October when the loss-prevention manager at Bosselman Enterprises reported that the company’s Pump & Pantry in Lincoln had been scammed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deeferg@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Seems to me like the reward was free gas.

If you've developed your system that the rewards card can provide a bypass to free fuel, your system is the flawed one and it isn't on the customer to provide feedback. This isn't a user testing scenario, they should have solved this bug before it went to production.

People aren't responsible for cheaply built solutions.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If you’ve developed your system that the rewards card can provide a bypass to free fuel,

Why would any company design such an easy hack to give out free gas? It's obviously a malfunction, which happen all the time.

Hell, even game developers rarely leave in consoles for cheat commands anymore in videogames, and giving those out don't actually bankrupt the company they're making the game for.

[–] Pheonixdown@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not the customer's responsibility to try to figure out why and make some determination if the too good to be true deal is real. If it gave it out for a penny, is that too much of a deal? What about half price? 1 penny discount? Where's the line?

Regardless, I could see someone designing it as a feature because "nobody would ever swipe their card twice normally".

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Where's the line?

I hope you don't think that's a new observation by any means. If you're genuinely interested, why not look it up?

First off, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Secondly, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would. The term was introduced into English law during the Victorian era, and is still an important concept in British law. It is also used in other Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, sometimes with suitable modifications to the phrase as an aid to local comprehension.

The more general concept (the one in use in the US, for instance) is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

I'd like to see a lawyer who would argue that "any reasonable person living and functioning in society could conceivable construe that them taking 28 000 dollars worth of gas was definitely the system working as designed, and they were at no point aware that they were doing anything illlegal."

Regardless, I could see someone designing it as a feature because "nobody would ever swipe their card twice normally".

Ugh, really? In software development, or in developing anything that involves an end-user, such things are taken into consideration. Especially when there's payment cards involved.

Quote by a forest ranger at Yosemite National Park on why it is hard to design the perfect garbage bin to keep bears from breaking into it: “There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.”

[–] Pheonixdown@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'd like to see a lawyer who would argue that "any reasonable person living and functioning in society could conceivable construe that them taking 28 000 dollars worth of gas was definitely the system working as designed, and they were at no point aware that they were doing anything illlegal."

“There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.”

"I thought I'd won some kind of free gas contest, why else would my card give free gas?"

People can honestly be idiots as you pointed out.

The business holds all the cards when it comes to asking for and accepting payment. If they failed to do that in the way they wanted, it's on them.

Ugh, really? In software development, or in developing anything that involves an end-user, such things are taken into consideration. Especially when there's payment cards involved.

Thanks for the good laugh, this indicates way more faith in business side middle managers than is due. They ask for dumb shit all the time and make the devs do it. While I can't rule out it being some kind of coding defect, because those also happen all the time, there's definitely a non-zero probability that someone asked for it to work this way because it was convenient to operate or cheap to implement. Companies involved in payment processing are far from infallible, they just eat their mistakes and make the customer whole most of the time. I've worked at 2 different large banks, shit is held together with duct tape, prayers and throwing money at it some of the time.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

People are idiots.

For instance, if they don't understand law and refuse to look it up, they might still argue something ridiculous that's closer to how primary schoolers think law works.

"I thought I won a contest so I drained 28 000 dollars worth of gas"

You can say that in court, but it's not true and no-one would believe it. One, maaybe two times of tanking for free you could still do with that excuse and maybe get away with it.

28 000 dollars worth?

Nope.

Thanks for the good laugh, this indicates way more faith in business side middle managers than is due

You might have developed something, but you've clearly never worked with developing/coding actual payment systems. To even suggest someone would even think about putting in a "hack" like that is, no offense, quite silly indeed. And definitely criminal.

Fuck ups happen all the time. But no-one puts in a designed function which gives out gas. That's laughable. Ridiculous. Childish.