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

News

23305 readers
3881 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 248 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Receiving free gas is a function of the gas card. Responsibility lies with the company and team who designed the card, not with the woman who used the card as designed.

[–] fustigation769curtain@lemmy.world 51 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

I totally agree and share this sentiment among MMOs.

If you design your game or product like shit and there are exploits, it's YOUR FAULT for designing it with exploits, not the customer's fault for actually using them.

If they don't like it, then they can do better.

Please put me on this jury. Fastest not-guilty verdict ever.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (13 children)

It's not a gas card though, it's a reward card.

Those are designed to give back at most some small % of your purchase if you use enough money.

If a security van crashed in front of you and spilled out gold, would you be allowed to take it because "it's their responsibility to not crash"?

I'm all for fucking corporations, but your rhetoric seems flawed.

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 50 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Bad analogy, on multiple fronts. Better:

A truck is on its way to deliver gold to you (you have been told this is happening). When it gets to you, the driver hands you a gold bar. You say, "Thanks! Can I have another?" The driver hands you a second bar. Then you are charged with theft of the second bar, presumably because it was illegal to ask for it.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Right, I just had this happen with a stove. I ordered one, guy came to deliver it, then said we have another in your name, do you want it? LoL

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

“I mean sure, why not, I’ll take it”

FBI chopper rips into view with multiple black unmarked SUVs following suite, surrounding you. FBI raid team begins to zip line down from the chopper. Guy takes his “J&J delivery” nylon jacket off only to reveal a nylon FBI jacket underneath.

“Nice try, punk”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] deeferg@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago (5 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 44razorsedge@lemmy.world 183 points 7 months ago

Bullshit. Corpo's build a system that users figure out and use? Sounds like they got caught with their pants down and have to make an example. Fucking trolls.

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 119 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you do it once, good for you. If you do it repeatedly, also good for you. But if you "used 510 times, and more than 7,400 gallons of gas were pumped for free"( in only a 7 month period), I don't know what you expect. You're going 2-3 times a day getting 14gal every time.

[–] zenharbinger@lemmy.world 101 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The article says she let another person use her card for a fee.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 123 points 7 months ago (2 children)

That should be the illegal part. Taking advantage of a loophole should not be illegal. Charging other people so that you can take advantage of the loophole, on the other hand, is a scam.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Pretty sure that was the illegal part and the title left that step out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] the_frumious_bandersnatch@programming.dev 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, charging other people so that you can take advantage of a loophole is called Tax Preparation

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

It's still a scam though. Just, unfortunately, a legal scam.

[–] JCreazy@midwest.social 66 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

There it is. She got greedy. If she would have just minded her own business and not told anyone and kept it on the down low it would have probably never been figured out. Regardless, this is 100%. The business is responsibility and should not be blamed on anyone else.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago (11 children)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] solarvector@lemmy.zip 112 points 7 months ago (3 children)

If she was rich, the response would be, "congratulations!", and if she was an LLC it would be a fine of... 5 percent?

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 58 points 7 months ago

And if there had been an error that charged people more rather than made gas free, it would have required a multiple-year-long class action lawsuit to resolve whereupon affected individuals would have received a few cents in compensation and a few lawyers would have come away much richer.

[–] TubeTalkerX@kbin.social 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

0.05 percent of net income.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 102 points 7 months ago (11 children)

If you're poor and you exploit a loophole you receive a felony theft charge. If you're rich enough you receive no repercussions and possibly a bonus.

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 40 points 7 months ago (10 children)

No, this isn't a loophole. She found a way to put the pump into maintence mode and set the price to zero. "The computer let me do it" isn't much of an excuse. The self checkout at the grocery store lets me tare a steak like it's bananas, but I'd definitely expect shopplifting charges if I got caught tricking the machine to charge me $0.40/lb for steak so I could fill my bag with steaks. There would be plenty of evidence that what I did was intentional and dishonest.

She exploited this glitch for $28k worth of gas in just 7 months, presumably for profit. That's way more gas than a single vehicle would consume in that time.

This wasn't a case of just paying what the screen said she owed. This was a case of gaining unauthorized access to the computer and adjusting the price to zero so she could steal at scale.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yet when 2008 happened they got a bail out and a pat on the back. Trick a machine? Felony theft charge. Trick the American people? Bail out.

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (12 children)

Two things can be true, and you can agree with one and disagree with the other.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

Did the computer let those mortgage backed securities get sold to pension funds? Yes? Guess it isn't an excuse

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 8 points 7 months ago

Not "presumably for profit", definitely for profit. The article mentions one person that paid her $500 for about $700 worth of fuel in that 6 months because she was told it was a discount card. She was literally charging other people for the gas directly. And 7400 gallons of gas in 6 months, that's well over 100k miles with a low ball estimate for fuel economy. She probably pocketed nearly 20k cash in that time.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

At first I was with you but I was curious how she used $28,000 worth of gas and I'm kinda not with you anymore. I mean, has is expensive but let's be realistic, no poor person is buying a year's wages on gas over 6 months lol

"All told, the card was used 510 times, and more than 7,400 gallons of gas were pumped for free, the probable cause statement said." The article also says she was letting other people pay her to use her card to get gas - so the gas pumped out free and they paid her a portion of what the gas would have been if they had paid the actual pump. That's actually not the kind of thing I can really defend as just putting the poor people down.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Maybe they should fix their shitty ass software instead of arresting her?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 73 points 7 months ago (23 children)

Sorry but how is this not on the system, let alone a crime?

This slope is slick, if she is guilty of theft due to a system error then whats to stop them from saying the price you bought something at was an "error" later?

And lets face it, swiping a card 2 times breaking your system tells me that you should get better QA not charge someone.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean if the pump is set up not to force you to pay before pumping gas and you just pump gas and leave that's obviously theft.

They'll prove that she knew what she was doing. They'll prove she knew that she was supposed to pay for the gas. They'll prove that she did the double swipe to get the gas. But probably more damning, if that $28,000 figure is right in 6 months she wasn't just getting herself free gas.

It'll be interesting to hear more details like do they know that it was her every time and not other people. If she told other people how to double swipe and get the gas that's probably fine. Maybe she was giving other people her card and instructions on how to do it that'll be interesting to see how it plays out in court if she doesn't settle.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 13 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Settle? this is a criminal case not a civil one. Maybe they will plead to something lesser, but ether way it is very bad precedent.

The issue here, is that someone took advantage of a broken pos system and now they are being charged. If this stands you now have the base to potentially charge anyone who uses a broken piece of tech, and tech is getting crappier and crappier by the day.

It does not matter if she took advantage or what the motive was. The underling issue is that now users can be on the hook for bad products. That is terrifying.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This is why we have jury trials.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 68 points 7 months ago (1 children)

$28,000 of gas in a few months? Yeah no shit. Find something like this and keep it to personal use if you must. Probably could've kept it under the radar or an amount small enough to settle without criminal charges if caught.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (9 children)

Yeah no shit. Find something like this and keep it to personal use if you must

Nah.

Figure out how it works, don't use personal card, get a new one (getting a rewards card to someone who doesn't actually exist shouldn't be too hard), then exploit the fuck out of it.

Remember to use balaclava at the pump, and don't use your own car.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (8 children)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say wouldn't work anyway.

Stations have cameras.

Cars have plates.

They'd track the car to the owner and the owner would point fingers at who borrowed the car.

The camera would show the face of who was pumping the gas.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (3 children)

If you don't use your own car, how are you profiting

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think the folks of Always Sunny had a solution for this a while back.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] fustigation769curtain@lemmy.world 63 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Please put me on that jury so I can vote not guilty.

"Stealing" from the ruling class is always okay because it's not stealing, it's reclamation.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (5 children)

How are gas station owners ruling class

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] HowlinMadSnake@lemmy.world 59 points 7 months ago (2 children)

When I was a kid, I used a vending machine that had a busted coin return button; it counted the coins I put in, but also spat them back out, so I got some free snacks.

Come and get me, cops.

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

There was a vending machine at my university that glitched out one day and spat out the whole stock of sunchips. Told my friends and they ran to the machine and came back with backpacks full of snacks. It was awesome.

load more comments (1 replies)

Corporate needs you to find the difference between this woman and TurboTax.

load more comments
view more: next ›