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 thread.
View all comments
73 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If it was a once or twice or even occasional thing, you have a point - but if she keeps going back and doing it constantly, rather than alerting the owner/management of the issue, and ends up making off with $20k+ that’s when it crosses the line into theft.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What about the reverse? Exploiting a security vulnerability and getting access to sensitive data that you then use for financial gain shouldn’t be a crime? Going into a house with poor quality locks and stealing things?

I’m not trying to side with big corporations here but I think you’re getting the precedent issue the wrong way around. If the actions of that person weren’t a crime, it’d be a bigger problem.

The underlying issue, that people are pushed into theft out of desperation, is far worse. I make no moral judgement of this person because I don’t know their circumstances. But I don’t think whether it is a crime or not can really be debated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

This is why we have jury trials.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I would love to hear about the pool selection in this case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Look into municipal sites. Try to find the arrest date to find her case. Check back regularly. I’d assume Voa Dire isn’t on the record but IDK.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

“You didn’t stop me stealing from you, how is that my problem.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

-Every banker in 2007.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If I make a self serve machine and tell everyone to use it who’s responsibility is it to ensure it’s functionality? The customer?

This would be I think more like if a staff member was not charging for gas to turn all the blame on the customers who benefited.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

There’s no change to the expectation in this transaction… “I swiped my card twice, it broke the process that is supposed to happen, the proprietor does not know that this is happening, I’m not going to tell them, I guess I can just exploit this forever with no ramifications”. What’s that? The security barrier in this shop is broken? I guess everything is free now.

This happens once, that’s an oopsie freebie, you do this every time for months then that is a pattern of criminal behave. You don’t just get to take stuff because the process has broken down, and any company has the explicit right to seek recompense from you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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?

It comes down to intent. The reality is that she probably knew that what she was doing was wrong. I mean, come on, do you really think she thought she was supposed to get 7000 gallons of free gas? We aren’t talking about her doing it once and not realizing it.

We can debate whether she should be held accountable, but there’s no slippery slope here and let’s not pretend that she is some innocent victim getting swept up in the whims of some evil corporations trying to trick people so they can send them to jail. She stole gas and she knew it, and probably thought that she could get away with it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Where did anyone say this person was an innocent victim? No one is debating she took advantage here, the issue is no one seems to be putting any culpability on the company who made the pump. The issue here is a slippery slope as it expects a duty to report the error from her that should not be there legally. I could see some other charge like fraud be appropriate maybe, but theft is such a bad thing to charge her with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Where did anyone say this person was an innocent victim?

Explicitly? Nowhere. But for this to be a slippery slope to innocent victims being held criminally accountable for malfunctioning technology, she has to be.

no one seems to be putting any culpability on the company who made the pump.

Is this a joke? This comment section is awash with people saying they fucked up, so she had the right to take advantage of it. I sidestepped this question intentionally, and specifically addressed the claim that punishing her for this would almost inevitably lead to actual innocent people being punished.

The issue here is a slippery slope as it expects a duty to report the error from her that should not be there legally.

She’s not being held legally responsible for not reporting it, she is being held responsible for it for exploiting it to steal tens of thousands of dollars worth of gas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

god, what a softy pathetic serf they’ve trained you to be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The poster made the claim that it’s some slippery slope from her intentionally exploiting a system to fraudulently get free gas, to people being held criminally responsible when a piece software glitches. I pointed out this makes no sense…and this makes me trained to be a pathetic self?

Lol you are truly one of the great thinkers of our time.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 523K

    Comments