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

201–210 of 281 posts

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

#201

Post by 8note »

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.

I don't know if it's employers that have to pay for them. Society needs available bathrooms; they don't need to be gated behind employment or being a customer

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

#202

Post by rideontime »

ksm1717 wrote: post #27

Someone needs to do lexical style analysis against this Dave Clark’s tweets. It seems evident (same exact wordings and Bernie Sanders whataboutisms) and hilarious that he is responding to criticism of his personal account’s tweets from amazonnews https://twitter.com/davehclark/status/1375045409542823939?s=... https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1375509172549132289?s=...

Not sure why this is buried. Dave Clark comes directly from the warehouse business and has himself used the "people wouldn't work here if this were true" angle. Really tries to portray the warehouses as something they should be proud of, reality notwithstanding.

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

#203

Post by arcturus17 »

stickfigure wrote: post #156
AlwaysRock wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um... I do not agree that there will always be drivers who prefer to pee in a bottle. I do not believe that there are office/home workers who always prefer to pee in bottles. The alternative is access to bathrooms. There are a lot of solutions to this problem. The same type of solutions any company that employees drivers have had for years.

> I do not agree that there will always be drivers who prefer to pee in a bottle Nonsense. I know people who would rather pee in a bottle than wait for the next gas station on the I5. I personally have pissed on the sides of roads in lots of places on long car trips. Dumping urine in an urban environment is pretty rude. But if I could save myself 10 mins a day by pissing in a bottle rather than some creepy gas statio…

If I was a driver constantly on the move I'd probably pee in a bottle on occasion too. I can be lazy and I don't believe that peeing in places outside of a toilet is necessarily gross, so I could see it happening if I was working in a residential suburban area with no proper restrooms at hand. If work conditions were otherwise good I wouldn't feel dehumanized or exploited for it.

I'm not saying Amazon's practices don't incentivize this or that they shouldn't be examined, but as is common these days many people take a paternalistic and dogmatic view that will not accept under any circumstance that some people may be doing this freely.

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

#204

Post by ummonk »

ehaughee wrote: post #150
SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it surprising that the Intercept would be so cavalier about the source material, given that it is likely to have a highly restricted distribution list inside Amazon. Reminds me of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/business/media/the-interc... > The Intercept scrambled to publish a story on the report, ignoring the most basic security precautions. The lead reporter on the story sent a copy of the documen…

This ticket wasn't an encrypted ticket (and thus was not locked down). I'm looking at it right now and I have nothing to do with security nor PR. I don't find this surprising as it contains no proprietary, classified, or customer information.

There is potentially traceable information there including laptop browser extensions as well as phone camera specs. I'm not sure how doxxable it is but if the Intercept were exercising appropriate caution they wouldn't have published the photo.

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

#205

Post by z3c0 »

tclancy wrote: post #193
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,…

I am so confused by the set of responses based on the idea "Well, lots of other people have awful working conditions, why are we picking on this particular billion dollar corporation?"

It's very much "whataboutism". Best case, it's tonedeaf and overly-dismissive. Worst case, it's a deliberate distraction.

I try to follow Hanlon's Razor, so I'll go with the best case and just assume these people are unempathtic contrarians, instead of corporate shills.

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

#206

Post by throwawaysea »

Tostino wrote: post #187
throwawaysea wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know they are setting “unrealistic targets”? What if only some employees pee in bottles because they’re bad at their job/unproductive? Why would it be Amazon’s fault if a driver who’s falling behind uses this as a hack to appear productive when they really should just get a different job?

We have reports from the workers stating so. We also have a denial from Amazon saying they don't have workers peeing in bottles. Seems that denial hasn't held up too well.

We have anecdotal reports from a few workers saying so. We also have leaked documents saying that Amazon does not allow peeing in bottles as policy. If a random employee does not follow the policy and pees in a bottle, that seems like the employee's fault. If the employee is doing so to make up lost time so they can appear more productive, it seems like that's an issue of under performance that they're hiding by peeing in a bottle. Either way, it isn't clear to me that this is either widespread among Amazon's employees or the fault of the company instead of the individual.

As for the denial - I am unclear on if they're talking about employees as a separate group from their drivers (who may be contractors according to other comments here?). Either way, I think it's reasonable for a company to make such a statement if peeing in a bottle is not a standard practice that is allowed by their policy and if it is only done rarely or by very few people (not reflective of general practice). If the delivery targets are such that most drivers have to do this, I might think differently, but so far I haven't seen evidence of this.

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

#207

Post by ziddoap »

Rule35 wrote: post #97
notJim wrote: 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…

Finding your viewpoint disagreeable does not make one dishonest or a "unionist".

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

#208

Post by gkoberger »

danso wrote: post #68
gkoberger wrote: post #33

My read on this was that it was a snarky report done in protest. Ken Klippenstein is a troll who does things with a straight face, and likely so are people who leak to him. I don't think anyone really believed it was hacked, but rather it was a way to criticize it with plausible deniability.

The article includes a screenshot: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20532639/amazon-t... Seems like a lot of detail (e.g. going back through the past 2 months of tweets to check the source label) for just a "hey this sucks!" protest. Also, seems risky to send a screenshot of your own ticket while logged into the ticket system, though maybe all the login template info is just outside of the cropped screensho…

"There have been several news articles... [links]" seems like a clever way to get in negative articles about it into the system, while acting innocent.

Unless you think this person actually believed nobody noticed these articles or the tweets? They were trending on Twitter long before this was posted, and I knew about them. Of course Amazon PR did.

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

#209

Post by misterkrabs »

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…

> This was a tough call

Dude...

Post reply on HN