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

111–120 of 281 posts

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

#111

Post by ullevaal »

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,…

The incentives leads to dangerous driving, careless handling of packages and unsanitary work conditions that highly likely contribute to higher employee turnover.

Amazon does not pay for the externalities of more dangerous driving in your neighbourhood, other than their subcontractors might increase their prices if their insurance starts getting more expensive. They do not pay [edit: you] for the time and effort when they have to redeliver a broken package.

You change the compensation by setting goals that are actually reachable, and then having the workers iterate together with the employer to find and fix inefficiencies. The antagonism of unreachable goals is bound to lead to public relations issues. This of course assume that you see this article or articles like it as a public relations issue, so if that view is negligible then Amazon will see no harm.

Amazon's response to dangerous driving: [1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/amazon-plans-ai-powe... [2] https://vimeo.com/504570835/e80ee265bc

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

#112

Post by WalterSear »

slickrick216 wrote: post #87
WalterSear wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it, though? It strikes me as a sarcastic joke by burnt out security staff. Which would explain why we are hearing about it.

This is why I said somewhat off topic as it could be like you said or it could a valid concern. I can’t really tell the intent. Irregardless I think it’s a good call to open a ticket. The amount of times I’ve seen something come from an innocuous user report is frightening. Actually rereading it again I would say the source is the person that opened the ticket and not a member of the security team.

Yes, I would argue that this supports my thesis - that the ticket was, at least partially created for humorous effect.

If they were taking the matter completely seriously, I would not expect them to consider publicizing it, or discussing the ticket publicly after the fact.

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

#113

Post by Rule35 »

Jiejeing wrote: post #65
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…

And what do you expect them to do with their piss? Drink it? How jaded to human suffering must one be to report something as minor as this to a company known for having awful labor practices…

That driver was a contractor, deciding to pee in his own bottle. He chose to take more packages than he could deliver and is rushing to cut corners.

As well as conspicuously dumping piss outside customer houses he probably speeds through school zones.

Contractors don't get a wage, that's key to this whole discussion. And if contractors don't make a profit they shouldn't take the contract. This kerfuffle is in the middle of big cities, not some tiny company town in the outback. They have all the same options anyone else does, it's not like they're forced to drive for Amazon.

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

#114

Post by tanderson11 »

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…

You are a sick and fucked up person

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

#115

Post by whoknew1122 »

slickrick216 wrote: post #3

Somewhat off topic but this is actually pretty positive proactive approach to security in the finest spirt of due diligence. It should be ok for people to open tickets to look into curious things no matter how trivial. Tickets don’t have to become incidents. This is what triage is for. The real security incident here is how did the intercept learn of that ticket as that should really be classified.

At Amazon you're encouraged (and expected) to escalate early and escalate often. Amazon security did its job very well.

>"The real security incident here is how did the intercept learn of that ticket as that should really be classified."

Looks like someone from the security or PR departments took a picture of the ticket with their cellphone and sent them to the reporter.

Security tickets are immediately encrypted and locked down. Only a few members have access typically: The person who opened the ticket, anyone with a need-to-know, and people on the IR team. Even director-level employees need to be manually added to security-related tickets to have view permissions.

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

#116

Post by munk-a »

alistairSH wrote: post #74
Jiejeing wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what do you expect them to do with their piss? Drink it? How jaded to human suffering must one be to report something as minor as this to a company known for having awful labor practices…

Keep it in the bottle until the shift ends? Dump it in the woods? Lots of choices that don't include dumping directly in front of a customer's home.

If they take a detour maybe they'll end up with a demerit for deviating from the optimal driving route and be docked pay - if they come back to distribution with a bottle of pee the company may also dock them for something like... I dunno "storing human waste in a vehicle used for transporting food stuffs" then dock their pay or fire them. Amazon is strongly motivated to discourage drivers from coming back to their shipping centers with bottles full of pee since either labour organizers or reporters might jump on that to use against the corporation.

All this could just be communicated through pretty innocuous sounding employee guidelines (maybe, "there can be no open bottles of liquid of any kind when a vehicle is in motion") or just word of mouth. A manager mentions to a senior driver that there will be some bonuses if nobody gets caught with a bottle of pee and that causes the initiative to disseminate through all the drivers.

There may be far fewer choices here than it appears and the best choice is probably to get OSHA involved and maybe get some new worker safety and rights legislation through congress.

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

#118

Post by WalterSear »

Twirrim wrote: post #86
WalterSear wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it, though? It strikes me as a sarcastic joke by burnt out security staff. Which would explain why we are hearing about it.

No, it's very much in line with the way Amazon Security staff operated when I worked there. They very much favour proactive reports, and heavily emphasised that they'd rather have a ticket and resolve it as nothing, than not be ticketed at all because you're not sure. Unusual behaviour on a twitter account are most definitely things they'd expect to have reported to them for evaluation, or expect to report themselves…

Everyone, everywhere, favours proactive security reports, or should do so.

This however, makes it possible to make security reports for political effect - after all, if your guidelines are to report anything suspicious, nobody can fault you for doing just that.

Is it also standard policy at Amazon to leak security reports to the media, or discuss them with journalists after the fact? We both know that's not the case.

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

#119

Post by munk-a »

Rule35 wrote: post #113
Jiejeing wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what do you expect them to do with their piss? Drink it? How jaded to human suffering must one be to report something as minor as this to a company known for having awful labor practices…

That driver was a contractor, deciding to pee in his own bottle. He chose to take more packages than he could deliver and is rushing to cut corners. As well as conspicuously dumping piss outside customer houses he probably speeds through school zones. Contractors don't get a wage, that's key to this whole discussion. And if contractors don't make a profit they shouldn't take the contract. This kerfuffle is in the mid…

What if that level of "too many packages" is the only way the driver could avoid getting a demerit for under performance?

What if a livable wage is only possible if you quote more packages than is reasonable due to the intense pressure amazon has on the contract delivery market?

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

#120

Post by munk-a »

libria wrote: post #83
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…

Off topic, but I'm curious. Say a human empties a pee bottle on a public sewer drain and a dog pees on that same drain. I don't see much difference except one of them urinated in public. Chemically they're the same, but I'm more repulsed by the human waste, why is that?

Probably because we hold humans to a higher standard than animals - we've all been raised to hold it until it's appropriate which is when we're inside and on a toilet. Some animals can be potty trained, it's a bit weird but good for them - most animals are just trained to not wee on the couch and outdoors is left wide open for them as they need. It's pretty socially acceptable for dogs to pee in public and, if you found it offensive, I am afraid I have some bad news for you about the miniature public outhouses they build for squirrels.
Post reply on HN