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

Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#91

Post by alistairSH »

ahelwer wrote: post #82
alistairSH wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peeing in a bottle wasn't the thing that was reported. Emptying a bottle of urine in front of the customer's home was the problem. The driver should have emptied the bottle into a toilet on his next break (or after his shift). Or, failing that, dump it in the woods out of the way.

Perhaps he had to urinate again, and did not have an additional bottle? What then should he have done? If you'll notice, we're now heading down the path of playing out ever-more-elaborate strategies for individual delivery drivers to maintain homeostasis without offending the delicate sensibilities of the people they serve, instead of questioning why this is a problem in the first place.

Oh, I agree. Everybody deserves regular breaks during the workday. People have to eat, drink, pee, etc. Lack of such breaks doesn't, IMO, excuse peeing in my yard.

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#92

Post by maxerickson »

andonisus wrote: post #75

I am of the opinion that all truckers (or people in the delivery profession) pee in bottles to save time, not just Amazon drivers. Why is Amazon being singled out here? I suppose the argument is that it is caused by their aggressive delivery metrics and policies, but would t this be true of any shipping company? If drivers are incentivized to by the number of packages they deliver to meet bonuses or certain payouts,…

Amazon lied about it very publicly. They lied and said they didn't even know about it, and then an avalanche of evidence showing they knew about it was released.

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#93

Post by sokoloff »

foobiekr wrote: post #72
bluedino wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you just pee into the water into which you are fishing?

Because you are contaminating the water. Don’t do this.

Every acre-foot of lake is over 325K gallons or well over a million liters. A typical destination lake will have over half-trillion (0.5 x 10¹²) gallons of water in it.

Your and your 1000 friends' pint/500mL of urine isn't going to do anything meaningful to the lake.

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#94

Post by ahelwer »

SR2Z wrote: post #88
ahelwer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps he had to urinate again, and did not have an additional bottle? What then should he have done? If you'll notice, we're now heading down the path of playing out ever-more-elaborate strategies for individual delivery drivers to maintain homeostasis without offending the delicate sensibilities of the people they serve, instead of questioning why this is a problem in the first place.

The solution to this problem is not "dump a bottle of piss out on someone's lawn," it's "expand labor laws to cover this very obvious human rights issue and then hammer Amazon with it until they shape up." Workers need bathrooms, and employers have to pay for them.

We agree on the best outcome. What should workers do in the meantime?

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#95

Post by sumtechguy »

codezero wrote: post #37
bredren wrote: post #20

We had a driver pour out a bottle of pee directly onto the street in front of our place from his open driver’s side van window on Saturday afternoon. My wife got a photo and then immediately after they delivered packages and left I went and took a photo because I couldn’t believe it. I had not heard about the controversy until then, but my wife had been following it. I read these tweets and I also didn’t believe they…

I 100% believe that drivers pee in containers - heck, my grandfather and I used to do the same when fishing - they make containers with handles specifically made for this. That said, given that the firestorm has become very public, I would expect disgruntled (or any driver, they are wage slaves) drivers to be acting more conspicuous to draw more attention to the problem, which may temporarily inflate its visibility,…

Drivers break the rules all the time for various reasons. At one point I loved messing with drivers and would say 'so how many log books do you have'. My record is 6 (not sure how he kept that all straight). But usually they do whatever they can to have extra time to do other things. Lets say your trip takes 12 hours. If you push it all the way and do not stop maybe you can make it in 9. That gives you 3 hours to do 'other' things and get paid for 12 (harder to do these days with automated logs).

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#96

Post by chewmieser »

suprfsat wrote: post #32
ericmay wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I do mind them lying while they do it Sure, I sympathize with this. But one person's lies are another person's truth in this day and age, unfortunately.

You don’t really believe the peeing in bottles thing, do you?

This isn't new - Amazon workers have had to pee in bottles for years. From 2018: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouse-workers-hav...

This is just the same old Amazon - they optimize everything to the point that humans can't keep pace with their metrics without cutting corners.

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#97

Post by Rule35 »

notJim wrote: post #35
bredren wrote: post #20

We had a driver pour out a bottle of pee directly onto the street in front of our place from his open driver’s side van window on Saturday afternoon. My wife got a photo and then immediately after they delivered packages and left I went and took a photo because I couldn’t believe it. I had not heard about the controversy until then, but my wife had been following it. I read these tweets and I also didn’t believe they…

A bit surprised you sent the photos to Amazon. That person is likely to be fired. A bit of pee on the street is not going to harm anything or anyone (otherwise the streets around bars would be an enormous biohazard), although it's obviously gross.

> That person is likely to be fired.

Umm, yeah. They dumped a bottle of piss outside a customers house.

That's bad advertising. Or, possibly, it's intended to be good union advertising.

But either way, that person has got to go.

So many dishonest people downvoting. Probably unionists. We know that this case hangs on the difference between contractors and employees, and that even if employees unionize the contractors will choose to keep peeing in bottles.

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#98

Post by ahelwer »

alistairSH wrote: post #91
ahelwer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps he had to urinate again, and did not have an additional bottle? What then should he have done? If you'll notice, we're now heading down the path of playing out ever-more-elaborate strategies for individual delivery drivers to maintain homeostasis without offending the delicate sensibilities of the people they serve, instead of questioning why this is a problem in the first place.

Oh, I agree. Everybody deserves regular breaks during the workday. People have to eat, drink, pee, etc. Lack of such breaks doesn't, IMO, excuse peeing in my yard.

Well, this is where we are. Delivery drivers are being crunched to make deliveries. Having someone pee in your yard just comes with the territory. Don't try to get them fired if they do that. I assure you many dogs pee in your yard any given day.

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#99

Post by nullc »

AlexandrB wrote: post #53
fotta wrote: post #25

> According to Recode, the suspicious tweets in fact came at the behest of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who had recently conveyed disappointment to Amazon officials that the company was not pushing back against criticisms that he considered misleading. > But company personnel think Amazon’s aggressive actions on Twitter are “embarrassing.” It's amazing how tone-deaf Bezos sounds.

It's not surprising. The biggest danger of having tremendous wealth and/or power seems to be that you can no longer accept and integrate valid criticism from others.

There is so much criticism-- especially towards anything/anyone high profile-- including outright invalid criticism that there is potentially a selection effect: Everyone who listens to criticism gives up and we're left with people who are substantially immune to it.

Re: Amazon security staff reported its own tweets as “suspicious,” fearing hack

#100

Post by throwaway0a5e »

andonisus wrote: post #75

I am of the opinion that all truckers (or people in the delivery profession) pee in bottles to save time, not just Amazon drivers. Why is Amazon being singled out here? I suppose the argument is that it is caused by their aggressive delivery metrics and policies, but would t this be true of any shipping company? If drivers are incentivized to by the number of packages they deliver to meet bonuses or certain payouts,…

>Why is Amazon being singled out here

Because Amazon is a brand upper middle class white collar types interact with. Swift and Schneider are not. Everyone thought they were at least a couple intermediaries removed from the trucker jugs.

Just wait until they discover what construction site porta-johns are like.

Post reply on HN