[HN Gopher] A Tale of Unwanted Disruption: My Week Without Amazon
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A Tale of Unwanted Disruption: My Week Without Amazon
        
       Author : josephcsible
       Score  : 79 points
       Date   : 2023-06-12 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (medium.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (medium.com)
        
       | scrum-treats wrote:
       | I hope that customer sues Amazon. Because in that info discovery
       | phase, there will be sooo much that is revealed about
       | surveillance mechanisms linked to "smarthome" tech (e.g., eufy,
       | ring, alexa, roomba, thermostats) and Amazon. The world needs to
       | know, beyond inference.
        
         | Fernicia wrote:
         | I'm not sure how/if you're inferring that from this incident.
         | The ban was caused by a delivery driver reporting a racist
         | doorbell interaction.
         | 
         | It would have been better for Amazon if they reviewed that
         | footage before acting, but it seems like they weren't able
         | (especially because they asked to be sent it by the accused).
        
           | scrum-treats wrote:
           | This is "according to Amazon," akin to "trust me bro." We
           | know Amazon will make up anything. Hence, lawsuit to discover
           | the facts beyond Amazon's random email.
           | 
           | Edit: not sure why this is downvoted as there is much
           | evidence to confirm this position of Amazon willful omission
           | of truth, and downright lying (e.g., "our employees don't pee
           | in bottles" for warehouse and delivery employees, "this
           | account registered too many returns" for accounts that show
           | under 10 returns over multiple years).
        
             | Fernicia wrote:
             | Fine, you may have strong priors against Amazon, but don't
             | act like evidence to the contrary is supporting your
             | position.
        
               | scrum-treats wrote:
               | > Fine, you may have strong priors against Amazon, but
               | don't act like evidence to the contrary is supporting
               | your position.
               | 
               | Apologies, however I don't understand your position. To
               | me this reads as word salad.
               | 
               | (1) There is no evidence to the contrary. (2) You've made
               | a blanket assumption that I have strong priors against
               | Amazon.
               | 
               | If you could reword your statement I am happy to try and
               | understand what your point (assuming there is one).
        
               | interroboink wrote:
               | This is just a drive-by comment from an outsider, but in
               | case it helps you:
               | 
               | When you say "We know Amazon will make up anything.", it
               | comes across (to me, at least) as an over-broad
               | statement. The sort of statement someone with strong
               | priors against Amazon would make. We _don't_ know that.
               | You cite some valid examples of Amazon being sleazy, but
               | even if you listed 100 examples, we still don't know
               | that. Examples just mean they have made up some things,
               | at some times -- not everything, all the time.
               | 
               | I imagine you were just using hyperbolic language for
               | effect, but that's just my 2C/ POV, in case it helps you
               | avoid being misinterpreted in the future (:
        
           | PeterisP wrote:
           | IMHO it absolutely does not matter what the internal
           | investigation determined and how the doorbell interaction
           | went, it is unacceptable to disable the purchased equipment
           | no matter what - even if they were literally convicted of a
           | felony. If a company wants to stop future sales to a certain
           | customer, that's fine, but all past purchases should still
           | work.
        
         | Croftengea wrote:
         | I don't think the customer would be able to stand against
         | Amazon's legal machinery on their own. But EFF could be
         | interested to take this case.
        
         | bagels wrote:
         | What cause of action?
        
       | francisduvivier wrote:
       | Interesting here how the HN rules seem to be a limitation. I'd
       | say the fact that Amazon is using it's power in a very unexpected
       | way should be highlighted somehow in the title.
       | 
       | But because the original blog writer doesn't do that, current HN
       | rules say you should not do that either. Instead, HN rules say
       | you should post the original article and keep the original title.
       | But in this case, by doing that you are effectively hiding what
       | actually happened. This original title sounds so uninteresting
       | that I'd say it would be warranted here to post the article with
       | the title of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36294748
        
         | lolinder wrote:
         | I strongly disagree. That rule exists specifically to remove
         | any ambiguity about when it's "warranted" to change the title
         | and when it's not. The author's title accurately reflects the
         | author's perspective on the incident and the overall tone of
         | the piece.
         | 
         | Changing the title to be more inflammatory would color the
         | perspective of readers in a way that the author didn't intend,
         | and would make the conversation on here considerably worse. HN
         | is intended for curious discussion, not outrage brigading, and
         | the headline rule is one of several defense mechanisms that
         | attempt to keep it that way.
        
       | boneitis wrote:
       | > the Eufy doorbell had issued an automated response: "Excuse me,
       | can I help you?"
       | 
       | (No intent to discredit or argue against TFA's primary points)
       | 
       | Maybe I'm misreading the.. tone? I think I'd be pretty (as in,
       | very) mortified if my smart doorbell spoke this, let alone even
       | have an automated response at all? (Although, I don't really use
       | smart appliances, if that's relevant.)
       | 
       | Or, when employing the automated response, I'd probably care to
       | make sure it's fairly apparent that it's a machine, on a quick
       | second-pass thought.
        
       | desireco42 wrote:
       | I had similar thing over something more sinister... I disputed a
       | charge I didn't recognize on Amazon Store Card and Synchrony sent
       | me a new card. I can explain about the charge but not super
       | relevant.
       | 
       | I thought all is good...
       | 
       | Then I got an email weeks later asking me to pay this amount to
       | Amazon, around $500. I told them this was squared away, I already
       | paid using other means and thing is resolved.
       | 
       | This dude from chargebacks demanded that I submit card they can
       | use to charge and resolve this "order". Since I already bought
       | the thing, I explained once and didn't want to respond more.
       | 
       | Then everything stopped working like described in this post. I
       | could log into Amazon but I couldn't access any of the pages.
       | Kindle stopped working... that was the thing that I thought is
       | too much.
       | 
       | After few days back and forth, they restored my access, I had to
       | call bank few times as this guy would disable and unlink my new
       | Amazon Store card from the account.
       | 
       | After that, all my books, endless purchases not being
       | accessible... I decided to take a break for a little bit. Amazon
       | Prime was due for renewal, so I didn't renew. I cancelled all
       | subscriptions through Prime, once I was able to access it. I
       | cancelled everything but Kindle Unlimited (sorry I just can't do
       | this).
       | 
       | So this is where we are. I am not shopping nearly as much, I use
       | alternative stores, Chinese retailers get way more direct
       | business from me.
       | 
       | I am sure I will enable it, but I just don't have to do it
       | anytime soon.
        
       | peppermint_gum wrote:
       | >Let me be clear: I fully support Amazon taking measures to
       | ensure the safety of their drivers. However, I question why my
       | entire smart home system had to be rendered unusable during their
       | internal investigation.
       | 
       | This attitude is the reason why this keeps happening. I don't
       | agree that it's Amazon's job to police how I use my own device.
        
         | marcod wrote:
         | > I don't agree that it's Amazon's job to police how I use my
         | own device.
         | 
         | That's not what the ban was about. His account was banned
         | because they wanted to protect their drivers from future racist
         | encounters.
         | 
         | Obviously, they should be very sure that something actually
         | happened, before taking such a drastic measure. The minimum
         | would be to at least hear both sides.
        
         | OkayPhysicist wrote:
         | That's exactly what the author wrote: They would have
         | understood if Amazon had refused to deliver packages to a house
         | where the owner threw racial slurs at the delivery people, but
         | think that barring them from using their smart home devices was
         | inappropriate.
        
           | peppermint_gum wrote:
           | The author said it's inappropriate "during their internal
           | investigation". The way I understand it, he supports the
           | actions of Amazon, but he wishes there was a presumption of
           | innocence.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | _a_a_a_ wrote:
       | > This wasn't just a simple inconvenience, though. I have a smart
       | home, and my primary means of interfacing with all the devices
       | and automations is through Amazon Echo devices via Alexa. This
       | incident left me with a house full of unresponsive devices
       | 
       | @Author: If I put it to you that you made a bad decision a while
       | back and this is the predictable consequence, what would your
       | response be?
        
         | plagiarist wrote:
         | Seems to be along the lines of, "I am seriously considering
         | discontinuing my use of the Echo device." I do not get this
         | mindset at all.
        
           | throwway120385 wrote:
           | I would've ripped it all out after I got that email from the
           | executive.
        
         | hospitalJail wrote:
         | I know code supposedly needs to be maintained... but I have so
         | many FOSS devices around my house that I havent touched in
         | years. (admittedly I do hobbyist embedded, so its not like you
         | can get much of this stuff off the shelf)
         | 
         | Meanwhile my $20 Wyze security camera has gotten worse over the
         | years with all the updates, fees, reduction in features, etc...
         | 
         | On a similar note, it seems my Nest continues to lie about the
         | temperature, seemingly worse than ever.
         | 
         | Its interesting how often buying the mainstream product gets
         | punished, but DIY is robust.
        
       | teddyh wrote:
       | > _This incident has led me to question my relationship with
       | Amazon. After nearly a decade of loyalty, I've been given a harsh
       | reminder that a misunderstanding can lead to such drastic
       | measures._
       | 
       | "'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who
       | voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."
       | 
       | --
       | <https://twitter.com/cavalorn/status/654934442549620736?lang=...>
        
         | namaria wrote:
         | Seriously, automating your home around a single point of
         | failure that depends on servers you don't control is a very
         | brittle approach.
        
           | teachrdan wrote:
           | To be fair, Amazon's servers have better uptime than mine.
        
           | marcod wrote:
           | It's really not that bad.
           | 
           | I use Amazon Echo to turn on/off my lights. If my home
           | automation doesn't work, I can still just use the light
           | switch to turn them off and then they will come on.
           | 
           | Or if there is an Amazon issue, I can use the app of the bulb
           | manufacturer instead. It's a convenience feature and if it
           | doesn't work, it's a minor inconvenience.
           | 
           | Many of us would be much more screwed if something happened
           | to our Google or Apple account... and that same story of
           | erroneous bans have happened to many people.
        
           | JohnFen wrote:
           | Deeply relying on any service provider for anything puts you
           | in a very vulnerable position regardless of how excellent
           | that provider is. Things change, company priorities shift,
           | companies get acquired by other companies, go out of
           | business, etc. Current performance is not a guarantee of
           | future performance.
           | 
           | Sometimes, you have to accept that vulnerability. I have
           | exactly one option for getting electrical service, for
           | example. But in general, people should avoid this sort of
           | arrangement to the greatest degree possible.
           | 
           | Especially for something where there are tons of other
           | options, like home automation.
        
       | dec0dedab0de wrote:
       | @dang this should be merged with
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36294748 which was flagged
       | for being vlog spam to this article. Or maybe just change the
       | link on that one.
        
         | richardboegli wrote:
         | Hi dec0dedab0de,
         | 
         | @ don't work on this site.
         | 
         | If you need to get dang's attention, email hn@ycombinator.com
         | 
         | When I saw your comment that's what I did.
         | 
         | Thanks.
        
       | jstarfish wrote:
       | > However, I question why my entire smart home system had to be
       | rendered unusable during their internal investigation. It seems
       | more sensible to impose a temporary delivery restriction or
       | purchasing ban on my account.
       | 
       | Ah, Amazon: the paragon of social justice. Racist dollars are
       | still green.
       | 
       | This is up there with the FLDS hating the federal government
       | sooooo much, they signed everybody they could up for food stamps.
       | To "bleed the beast," of course.
        
       | AJ007 wrote:
       | I wouldn't touch any of that Amazon smart home stuff after how
       | many employees had access to Ring and Alexa data.
        
         | shever73 wrote:
         | I am happy to be completely Amazon-free (apart from using web
         | services hosted on AWS). I can't express in strong enough terms
         | how much of a privacy nightmare and how utterly invasive Echo
         | devices are.
        
       | dec0dedab0de wrote:
       | This is awful, I'm glad that the victim wasn't actually saying
       | something racist, because it would be too risky to defend them.
       | 
       | But companies should not be allowed to arbitrarily cut off access
       | to purchased products like this. Especially when they are
       | designed to be integral to day to day life. I think this practice
       | should be illegal, even if they did say horrible things, attacked
       | the driver, and set fire to amazons headquarters. It is simply
       | unacceptable under any circumstance.
        
         | 40yearoldman wrote:
         | At a minimum, If somebody invest in such an ecosystem and is
         | banned from it, the company should have you buy back the
         | equipment at original retail value. This is just a start. There
         | has to be some monetary penalty for the company to nudge them
         | into less flipped reactions.
         | 
         | I also think there maybe should be blowback for false
         | accusations on people who report them. Basically. You better
         | damn well be sure you head what you heard. It's becoming to
         | easy to yell racist run away and ruin somebody's life.
         | 
         | A secondary of this is the media. We keep saying there are
         | racist everywhere. Even Biden said the biggest problem America
         | has is white supremacy. People are going to find a racisim with
         | out without it one actually existing.
        
           | civilitty wrote:
           | _> Even Biden said the biggest problem America has is white
           | supremacy._
           | 
           | That was in the context of domestic terrorism:
           | https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/14/biden-
           | whi...
           | 
           | The FBI has been warning about the growing threat since at
           | least Trump's term.
        
             | no_wizard wrote:
             | Even before Trump, the FBI was publishing warnings about
             | white supremicists[0] in law enforcement being a great
             | domestic threat. I wish I could find the full report, but
             | they've been talking about it for decades.
             | 
             | The run up to Trump, his presidency, and now his decline
             | are definitely adding enormous fuel to the fire. Doesn't
             | help Republicans now see white supremacists as a voting
             | bloc they can manipulate.
             | 
             | [0]: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/document
             | s/qxf5...
        
           | plagiarist wrote:
           | It is not normal, well adjusted people who are online writing
           | that we need a "bloodier Waco" simply because a criminal is
           | being indicted, it is white supremacists. Biden was right.
           | 
           | Whose life has been ruined by a single false accusation of
           | racism? Racism absolutely does exist, unfortunately.
           | 
           | That weird digression aside, yeah. People are spending money
           | on content that can be taken away on a whim, or basing much
           | of their lives around email platforms that can deactivate
           | their accounts at any moment. There should be stronger legal
           | protections.
        
           | mym1990 wrote:
           | Racism IS everywhere, and most of it happens subconsciously.
           | No one wants to look in the mirror and admit that an action
           | they took was racist, and the prevalence of false positives
           | are probably very much outweighed by false negatives.
        
             | atleastoptimal wrote:
             | It's still worse in my opinion to accuse an innocent person
             | falsely of racism than to fail to catch a non-violent act
             | of racism, especially when the definition of what is
             | "racist" seems to change depending on the person you ask.
        
           | jstarfish wrote:
           | > I also think there maybe should be blowback for false
           | accusations on people who report them. Basically. You better
           | damn well be sure you head what you heard. It's becoming to
           | easy to yell racist run away and ruin somebody's life.
           | 
           | You can't punish "false" accusations without silencing people
           | from making _any_ accusation out of fear lack of
           | substantiation will be interpreted as _false_. We can 't say
           | that the driver did this maliciously; he may well have heard
           | what he thought he did. The driver isn't the problem; he was
           | aggrieved and reported it, as he was entitled to.
           | 
           | Tampering with someone's thermostat because you were
           | entrusted with access to it and later decided you don't like
           | them is sociopathic, and every bit as monstrous as deploying
           | ransomware in a fucking hospital. I guarantee you no
           | diligence was done to prevent collateral damage. More than
           | the driver (blameless) or Amazon itself, this particular
           | executive needs to be taken to task for such recklessness.
           | Interfering with life support or communications systems is
           | just fucked; we do that shit as acts of sabotage during _war_
           | , and it's domestic violence when it occurs between spouses.
           | Even your utility company needs to give advance notice of
           | termination.
           | 
           | Yahoos acting on bad intel one too many times and punishing
           | the innocent is literally what instigated Black Lives Matter.
           | The irony is lost on Unnamed Amazon Executive.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-12 23:01 UTC)