Live data from Hacker News

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

theintercept.com

101–110 of 281 posts

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

#101
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is human pee any more gross than dog pee? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely asking.

Human pee transmits human diseases.

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

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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

The same reason that there's the "no alcoholic beverages" rule right above the "no pissing" rule. Once upon a time someone either did it in poor taste or complained in poor taste and now it's against the rules and there's yet another entry on the big sign by the boat launch saying so. So everyone keeps doing it but they have to hide it for plausible deniability.

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

#103
post #70
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another option was sending it to media, which I presumed would have gotten attention. I thought the person had a better chance of holding on to the job if it was handled without publicity. I don't have a lab, so I can't determine if it was pee. And I can't imagine you'd get to hold on to a job at Target if you poured pee out in the parking lot in front of customers. Our friend with the USPS said "[at USPS] we’re allo…

Can you share the email you sent them? Almost certain you got them fired in a pandemic.

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

#104
post #70
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another option was sending it to media, which I presumed would have gotten attention. I thought the person had a better chance of holding on to the job if it was handled without publicity. I don't have a lab, so I can't determine if it was pee. And I can't imagine you'd get to hold on to a job at Target if you poured pee out in the parking lot in front of customers. Our friend with the USPS said "[at USPS] we’re allo…

Amazon's drivers are contractors if anyone is pushing them to pee in bottles, it's themselves. So there's no actual answer to this issue. Are they not being paid enough, such that they can't pee, or are they making an reasonable decision to pee in a bottle in order to save 15 minutes and make more money. Considering they keep taking the contracts one has to assume that they're profitable, at least usually.

> I can't imagine you'd get to hold on to a job at Target if you poured pee out in the parking lot in front of customers.

No, nor should anyone want you to. Even beyond any hygiene and smell issues, it's bad PR and that's not what you're paid for.

There's a rash of blaming companies for being reasonable. Including one of a CVS manager being threatened with doxxing for calling the police on a thief. This concern for the driver seems more like a larger narrative of pro-unionism.

Most people in this thread are intentionally misrepresenting the issue, using the words 'job', and 'living wage'. These are contractors and if they don't make money today they can courier for another company tomorrow. If they don't it's because they voted with their wallets.

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

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I enjoy public lands quite a bit; people really should adhere to Leave No Trace[0] principles quite strictly - which says to urinate at least 200 feet from water sources. People always want to be a lawyer about why each rule does or doesn't apply to their specific situation. And we all suffer for it.

[0] https://www.outdoors.org/articles/amc-outdoors/leave-no-trac...

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

#106
post #70
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another option was sending it to media, which I presumed would have gotten attention. I thought the person had a better chance of holding on to the job if it was handled without publicity. I don't have a lab, so I can't determine if it was pee. And I can't imagine you'd get to hold on to a job at Target if you poured pee out in the parking lot in front of customers. Our friend with the USPS said "[at USPS] we’re allo…

> Another option was sending it to media, which I presumed would have gotten attention. I thought the person had a better chance of holding on to the job if it was handled without publicity.

Your faith in Amazon to do right is impressive - perhaps even naive. Amazon official policy is not for drivers to pee in bottles, however, it strongly incentivizes this behavior. Had the driver asked to use your bathroom, he likely would have lost precious time and have been indirectly penalized for it.

Considering all this, you took a photo that embarrasses Amazon and sent it to Amazon and asked them to "do something"? Amazon's will already assume you sent it to the press and will circle the wagons - the answer will be it was a rogue employee and he has been let go (or disciplined, if he's lucky).

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

#107
post #97
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or maybe that person and all his colleagues should have enough flexibility that they don't have to do this.

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

#108
post #4

For me, the recent (petty) twitter activity of @amazonnews was the final push I needed to cut all ties with Amazon.

Wow, I just checked that out and I don't know what to say. Bold move to troll politicians so brazenly.

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

#109
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You... ratted out the guy who delivers your packages to his corporate masters for doing the very human homeostatic requirement of urination? Seriously?

At least now Amazon cannot say they know nothing about it.

You're underestimating the determination of willful ignorance - also, they can always claim this incident was just some weirdo that they then fired for acting inappropriately and then point to some BS statistics about driver job satisfaction.

That all assumes this person's report isn't just blackholed by front-line communication folks at Amazon, which they could always ascribe to another "out of SOP action" or just wait a news cycle or two for people to forget if a stink was raised.

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

#110
post #70
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another option was sending it to media, which I presumed would have gotten attention. I thought the person had a better chance of holding on to the job if it was handled without publicity. I don't have a lab, so I can't determine if it was pee. And I can't imagine you'd get to hold on to a job at Target if you poured pee out in the parking lot in front of customers. Our friend with the USPS said "[at USPS] we’re allo…

Jeff Bezos is always saying things that are obviously not the facts on the ground. He didn't know this, Amazon couldn't have known that, meanwhile they're always caught covering something up or responding to the same complaints internally.
Post reply on HN