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.

7 points
*

lots of people could still be doing this if this lady hadn’t been such an entrepeneur about it. If you ever discover something like this don’t tell anyone about and don’t abuse it too much; plausible deniability is far better a shield than a small pile of money - saying “oh I didnt realize” is far easier if you don’t set up some kind of pyramid scheme around it.

permalink
report
reply
-7 points

Gas Pumps are calibrated for the flow that comes from fully opening the valve by pressing handle all the way down.

Do with that information what you will.

permalink
report
reply
4 points
*

Whether you pump gas fast or slow does not impact the measurement/amount of fuel being delivered and/or the cost. If you pump 10 gallons fast or slow, you should get 10 gallons of gas and be charged for the amount. Fuel is metered at the pump without any aeration.

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/06/fact-check-squeezing-the-gas-pump-at-top-speed-will-not-put-more-air-in-your-tank.html

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I got a variance of roughly 0.5kg when pumping two containers of 15 liters each. I know their weight is less than 0.1kg apart when empty.

One filled normal. The other one with the handle half squeezed.

Not going to say every gas-station has the same technology. Just telling you my actual experience when trying.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Ok I’m just a moron. I can’t quite figure this one out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s false.

permalink
report
parent
reply
103 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

This is what I thought at first too. But after thinking about it more, it kind of falls into cybercrime. I can imagine hearing something like this on darknet diaries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

While you’re right, also still sounds like schemes rich business leaders get a wag of a finger over. So it’s not so much about it being too harsh on her, but instead how malicious rich person schemes earn too much leniency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Surely you don’t actually believe that the police officers that does the arresting are working a secondary job as software developers?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

They didn’t arrest her. The cops did. If she didn’t want to be arrested, she probably shouldn’t have stolen tens of thousands of dollars worth of gas. She’s a thief, plain and simple. We can rail against a justice system that allows the rich to get away with crimes, while also recognizing that this woman is just a thief and there is no need to defend her.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

She got greedy. Back when a buddy and I administered our SWIFT platform there were a couple of well publicized exploits of the system for millions. We discussed how easy it would be to write a script to randomly skim a fraction of a cent off of transactions over a long period of time, just don’t get greedy. No one cares about rounding errors.

If this lady stuck to random fillups for free once every couple of months she probably could have flew under the radar for years and more importantly had a better claim to ignorance if caught.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This is just the plot of office space

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

They do this fun thing in the US for that its called “fucking shoot you”. I agree its all fucked up, but if you go an riot and respond with violence you just die dude. I don’t want somebody else raising my children because I got shot by the sheriffs patrol

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m giggling at the idea of anyone rioting at this woman’s trial over skimming free gas and charging her friends for it. It’d be this one dude running around punching the air and screaming something about our corporate overlords.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-17 points
*

if you can’t organize well enough to handle a local sheriff’s department, you’re pathetic. give me 5 well-armed and coordinated individuals and i’ll show you how to make the bastards scared of us.

EDIT: Lemmy is full of little bitch cowards and i’m not going to lose any sleep over the dystopia you limp-wristed fucks inherit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

To all the people defending her, how is this different than just pumping and driving away? You could always pump first and pay inside later, and it works on the honour system. In this case she clearly intentionally circumvented paying.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Where the fuck can you get gas without paying first

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Used to be the norm in the US until about 15 years ago . Before cards took over and many people were paying cash, it allowed customers to fill their tank. It’s still common in Europe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

i’ve never paid for gas before pumping only after, this is southern ontario

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Some places allow filling up and then paying inside the petrol station.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That may have worked in the past, but not recently, at least not around here. Pump won’t function until the attendant activates it. (Per the signs, “cash customers pay before dispensing gas.”)

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It’s different in that they gave her a card that says “here is a discount”.

If you go into a store, pay with a stack of coupons from that store and walk out with a free chicken, can the store come back and charge you with a felony because they made a mistake and claim they didn’t really mean to print the coupon?

How far can this go? Buy a car on sale and then get arrested for not paying the full price afterwards? “The customer should have known the deal was too good.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If she went to a gas station one time and swiped her card and it gave her free gas, it’s reasonable to think that she might have assumed the discount gave her free gas on the first use. This wouldn’t be an issue.

When she’s using it to get over $20,000 in gas, selling gas to others by using her double swipe technique, that falls well outside the reasonable bounds of an honest mistake.

So no, there is no slippery slope where you’re going to be locked up for a store misapplying a coupon or whatever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Swiping the card twice puts the machine into maintenance mode where she manually adjusted the price to zero. That’s pretty straightforward theft.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So was selling toxic assets to pension funds

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

If you’re putting maintenance mode behind 2 normal swipes I don’t understand how that isn’t your fault

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

how do these fuckin bootlickers find their way to lemmy?

permalink
report
parent
reply
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
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
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
8 points

-Every banker in 2007.

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
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

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