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

121–130 of 281 posts

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

#121

Post by xmprt »

Rule35 wrote: post #104
bredren wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The issue with blaming contractors in this case is that they can't afford to lose the job. It probably pays well enough but their options are 1. get fired because they couldn't meet target deadlines, 2. pee in a bottle and risk getting caught.

Given those two options, it's no surprise they pick option 2. Amazon knows this yet they continue to set unrealistic targets.

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

#122

Post by scotu »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #80
bpodgursky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I thought it was really refreshing to see a corporation not trying to kowtow to politicians. If Warren is saying stuff they find objectionable, call it out. If a business can't safely criticize a legislator on Twitter, that's pretty much giving up on free speech.

Regardless of whether Amazon is in the right or wrong on this particular issue, I find it far more disturbing that Warren apparently thinks she should be immune to criticism (whether that criticism is justified or not ). For the record: Amazon, you, me, or anyone else is absolutely entitled to send Elizabeth Warren snotty tweets. Or send her snotty emails. Or make snotty phone calls to her office. She is a public ser…

what did she say in response? I only saw her tweet and amazon's petty (and misleading) response. Who said she cannot be criticized? I think mostly people are saying that they are cringey liars...

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

#123

Post by px43 »

maxerickson wrote: post #92
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.

Did they? The tweet I saw was specifically talking about Amazon employees, and last I checked, none of the people driving delivery trucks are in any way employed by Amazon.

My understanding was that someone had made the accusation that this was happening in fulfillment centers, which are employees, and Amazon was officially denying it.

Amazon DSP drivers are hired and managed completely by third party companies.

https://logistics.amazon.com/marketing/faq

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

#124

Post by munk-a »

InitialLastName wrote: post #56
weaksauce wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched my ikea delivery driver pee on the hill across from my place right before delivering the package to me. it's probably not a solely amazon thing even though they are well known for it.

There are certain places near my house where some rideshare drivers like to idle, where the gutter always has soda bottles full of urine in it. I don't want to disparage the people doing those jobs, but the rideshare companies have pretty clearly added quite a lot of oversupply relative to what the infrastructure can handle; cab companies have facilities and cab stands etc where drivers can relieve themselves, where…

Not paying for proper facilities for maintenance and breaks is just what we in the biz call "disrupting". You might be able to undercut an entrenched business a bit by using fancy tech stuff - but using fancy tech stuff and ignoring the laws everyone else has to follow? That's where the money is.

Also, that isn't to say that cab companies are a great example here - that industry was ripe for a good shaking up and had a lot of really weird entrenched components, but, at the end of the day, neither side is good - we only get labour rights with laws and enforcement that actually has teeth.

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

#125

Post by napoleond »

whoknew1122 wrote: post #115
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…

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

Out of those two groups, Occam's razor implicates the one with a vested interest in currying favor with reporters.

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

#126

Post by Rule35 »

chewmieser wrote: post #96
suprfsat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> have had to pee in bottles for years

Contractors can choose to pee where they want. But employees can sue so easily over this sort of thing. It's a specific OSHA violation.

This story depends on confusing the issue about who is and isn't a contractor, doing this to themselves.

The contractor should be let go. As the response notes, they represent the company and represent it badly.

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

#127

Post by dyeje »

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…

> If the driver had knocked on our door and asked to use our bathroom, I'd have absolutely invited him in. This happened with a Fedex driver once before.

They don't have time to use a proper restroom. That's why they're peeing in bottles.

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

#128

Post by toast0 »

sangnoir wrote: post #106
bredren wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 like…

> the answer will be it was a rogue employee and he has been let go (or disciplined, if he's lucky

Rogue contractor.

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

#129

Post by tpmoney »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #48
suprfsat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We know from internal amazon communications it's happening. It's comical for them to deny it, except for the human misery they are making by having work expectations that make it almost impossible to take bathroom breaks and meet their expectations. The memos that say "please don't leave pee in the trucks, please don't leave poop, we can figure out who you are".

Just because something happens and there are memos about it doesn’t mean it happens because of corporate policy. I’ve worked jobs that had memos that said “please don’t pee all over the floor and seat of the bathroom” and “please don’t throw poop covered toilet paper in the trash”. In neither case was the job or corporate policy so unbearable as to not allow enough time for proper bathroom use. It just seems there are some people that don’t understand normal / acceptable human bathroom behavior.

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

#130

Post by Aunche »

sangnoir wrote: post #106
bredren wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 like…

> Had the driver asked to use your bathroom, he likely would have lost precious time and have been indirectly penalized for it.

What's the alternative? No matter how reasonable the expectations are, there will always be drivers who would rather pee in a bottle and end their shift 10 minutes early than spend 10 minutes finding a bathroom.

Post reply on HN