Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#51

Post by StavrosK »

cm3 wrote: post #41
nostromo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a US citizen, you would be a bit better off if it was a US server, because the records from the server would be available to the US court system. This is helpful if a customer ends up suing the company, or if there is a security breach that is investigated by US-based law enforcement. I agree, the inclusion does hint at Sinophobia. But it's also a valid detail for security conscious customers to consider.

It's the opposite. As a US citizen you have to be afraid of DC while Chinese citizens need to make sure they don't get on Beijing's radar and so on for each nation. It's a matter of under which jurisdiction you are and therefore which governing body has the most freedom-limiting power over you. These devices are developed in China and hence have Chinese IPs for some call-home feature. As much as I want to be skeptica…

Conversely, if you get hacked by someone in the US, you have more recourse than if you get hacked by someone in China. Hence the word "Chinese" in the sentence.

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#52

Post by ikeboy »

mannykannot wrote: post #25

The threat of being reported to Amazon isn't very threatening, and I was going to chide Techcrunch for being alarmist, but as I began to compose my post, I realized I couldn't come up with a good alternative word in this case, and skimming some online thesauri hasn't helped. Any suggestions? The thing is, if the company had followed through on its threat, the resulting headline would be much less attention-grabbing.…

Harrassed?

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#53

Post by cm3 »

StavrosK wrote: post #51
cm3 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the opposite. As a US citizen you have to be afraid of DC while Chinese citizens need to make sure they don't get on Beijing's radar and so on for each nation. It's a matter of under which jurisdiction you are and therefore which governing body has the most freedom-limiting power over you. These devices are developed in China and hence have Chinese IPs for some call-home feature. As much as I want to be skeptica…

Conversely, if you get hacked by someone in the US, you have more recourse than if you get hacked by someone in China. Hence the word "Chinese" in the sentence.

That's true for a company with money for lawyers but not random private person. They will be mostly covered by their bank in case of fraud, but other than that, there's not much you can do. It's like burglary. I know first hand that you go report it to the police and a month later you get a letter that they stopped investigating the crime.

I don't live in the US or China and I find it naive to single out Chinese ip address as bad addresses while not thinking twice about IPs in the US. There is no basis to trust a random ip address in the US more than one in Russia or China. And again, these devices are developed in China so it's natural for them to have a call-home ip that's in China. Instead of reading too much into it, let's first consider the most likely explanation.

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#54

Post by int_handler »

DanBC wrote: post #46
int_handler wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am replying to your other comment here since it is not possible to reply to that comment for some reason. I do not think that is a valid comparison. The author did not go out of her way to point out that the server was located in China. There is no mention of China in the title, and the only place where the author mentions China is several paragraphs in explaining how and where the data is transmitted. There are mo…

> I am replying to your other comment here since it is not possible to reply to that comment for some reason. I think HN applies a rate limiter to comment threads, to help reduce flame wars. > Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote. Accounts get the downvote when they reach a karma threshold. I think that's currently 500, or ma…

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#55

Post by jsjohnst »

mmanfrin wrote: post #35
int_handler wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it coerced? The author reports the facts exactly as they are. If the author had instead attempted to tie this to, say, past security breaches caused by hackers operating out of China, then that would be framing the situation in a coerced way.

Consider the following: Man kills man. Man kills black man. White man kills black man. Assuming the facts are all the same, do you understand how the selective informing of facts frames the readers understanding or impression of the issue? Thanks for the downvote though.

Consider the following:

Human kills human.

Life form kills life form.

At what point does it end? You are splitting hairs and I think you know it.

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#56

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

Magnets wrote: post #43

Sounds like the classic excuses you get from chinese sellers, they say their boss will punish them if you've left a bad review, aliexpress will punish their store, company will close etc. It's no problem though, they can just keep sending out free review units to get their 4 and 5 star reviews. 2 verified purchases from 11 reviews, and one of those got it for free or heavily discounted "The AuYou Power Socket arrived…

What is interesting is that Amazon had the "Amazon Vine" Program which clearly listed that people received the product for free (or at a discount). But for whatever reason that has fallen out of fashion, and now manufacturers recruit outside to get unmarked reviews which sometimes don't list the potential conflict of interests.

I wonder if this behaviour violates FTC's rules[0], I know it was a big thing on YouTube (YT channels failing to disclose financial incentives/conflicts of interests).

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#57

Post by phasmantistes »

pmiller2 wrote: post #29
phasmantistes wrote: post #5

I'm not sure if I'm more scared of a company that makes horridly insecure devices and then tells its employees "do everything you can, be as manipulative as you can, but get this review taken down", or if I'm more scared of a company that actually tells its employees "I will fire you if you don't get this review taken down".

Aren't those things roughly equivalent to the average worker?

I guess I meant the former in terms of it simply being the worker's job to get the review taken down. No actual threat of being fired at all, but the company has given their implicit (or worse, explicit) 'ok' for using that threat as a manipulation tactic.

Both are forms of moral bankruptcy, I was just curious whether the seemingly-desperate employee was a victim or a player.

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#58

Post by mmanfrin »

jsjohnst wrote: post #55
mmanfrin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the following: Man kills man. Man kills black man. White man kills black man. Assuming the facts are all the same, do you understand how the selective informing of facts frames the readers understanding or impression of the issue? Thanks for the downvote though.

Consider the following: Human kills human. Life form kills life form. At what point does it end? You are splitting hairs and I think you know it.

  You are splitting hairs and I think you know it.
No, not really. I'm explaining how a fact can impart bias. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#59

Post by mannykannot »

ikeboy wrote: post #52
mannykannot wrote: post #25

The threat of being reported to Amazon isn't very threatening, and I was going to chide Techcrunch for being alarmist, but as I began to compose my post, I realized I couldn't come up with a good alternative word in this case, and skimming some online thesauri hasn't helped. Any suggestions? The thing is, if the company had followed through on its threat, the resulting headline would be much less attention-grabbing.…

Harrassed?

Definitely an improvement. I also like Stavrosk's 'hassled'.

Re: Security researcher gets threats over Amazon review

#60

Post by wai1234 »

mannykannot wrote: post #25

The threat of being reported to Amazon isn't very threatening, and I was going to chide Techcrunch for being alarmist, but as I began to compose my post, I realized I couldn't come up with a good alternative word in this case, and skimming some online thesauri hasn't helped. Any suggestions? The thing is, if the company had followed through on its threat, the resulting headline would be much less attention-grabbing.…

The employee fired threat is a threat to the employee, not the reviewer (unless you consider a guilt trip a threat). The whole payload reads more like a tantrum than a 'threat'. Given the state of the world, this headline is more than a bit overblown. I would agree with 'harassed'.
Post reply on HN