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

221–230 of 281 posts

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

#221

Post by freeone3000 »

vineyardmike wrote: post #178
swyx wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a big difference between "hey guys Amazon isn't pushing back against criticism enough" and "lets start tweeting snarky shit at US Senators from Amazon official accounts". have a little cynicism; Recode doesn't have proof it came from Bezos or it would show it.

I am sympathetic to labor issues at amazon and other places, but a lot of tech criticism seems out of place and undue. Amazon warehouses don't seem fun (i've never done that job) but they do pay fairly well above min wage, which they deserve some credit for. If anything it validates the Senators' pushes for better wages proving it won't bankrupt businesses. It seems obvious that amazon would want this to be the focus…

They denied it, though, instead of posting more truthfully that this is not an exceptional working condition for delivery drivers. My friend works at UPS, is a teamsters member, and said: "Every single male delivery driver ever has peed in a bottle at some point". Which makes this particular criticism of Amazon lose its sting. Instead of simply telling the truth, they decided to lie?

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

#222

Post by amznthrwaway »

BikiniPrince wrote: post #142
bstar77 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So politicians can just along garbage and lies with no recourse? I wouldn’t roll over for a politician using tweets to garner favor. AOC cost NY tons of money and jobs because no one pushed back on her rhetoric.

[dead]

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

#223

Post by scotu »

throwawaysea wrote: post #131
scotu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

She said it herself. See https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1375529101931520007 - in there, Warren says "And fight to break up Big Tech so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets." That's a direct threat to break up a private entity because it criticized her (a sitting Senator and representative of the federal government).

I see. Agreed that's, not great. I'm still more worried about amazon behavior and power currently tbh. Plus she is replaceable by somebody else that is willing to break up big tech, I don't care if it's her or someone else :)

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

#224

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#225

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by whimsicalism »

alistairSH wrote: post #73
ahelwer wrote: 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?

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.

Drunk tech workers pee on the street in front of my house near Dolores park all day long, should I be calling the cops on them?

I could probably snap a few photos and call the employer based on their backpacks too.

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

#227

Post by Rule35 »

ziddoap wrote: post #212
throwawaysea wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peei…

> it seems like that's an issue of under performance that they're hiding by peeing in a bottle. It seems equally as likely that it is an issue of over-expecting what a worker can reasonably perform. Why is under performance the more likely scenario in your mind? >it isn't clear to me that this is either widespread If this were the only occurrence of "Amazon Contractor" and some combination of "pee", "bottle", "no tim…

> It seems equally as likely that it is an issue of over-expecting what a worker can reasonably perform. Why is under performance the more likely scenario in your mind?

If other employees can meet the quota but you can't, why would you assume that the quota is wrong? Maybe it's the wrong job for you.

> I would be more inclined to take the route of "a few bad workers". However, these stories have consistently made news since at least 2018

Perhaps it has something to do with the attempts to unionize?

> like 74% of respondents to a survey conducted by Organise reporting that they avoid using the washroom for fear

Is there a cost for saying that? If this didn't rise to the level of fear, but only apprehension, would they be censured for overreaching rhetoric? If not, how trustworthy is it? And it still leaves 25% comfortably hitting quota showing that the quota itself is fine.

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

#228

Post by Rule35 »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #107
Rule35 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is driver flexibility. They choose the amount of deliveries they take. The drivers do this because they want more money.

People generally courier as an in-between job, like construction laborer, and they appreciate the ability to earn more, quickly. As a laborer I used to put in 14h days with cleanup. But that kept me from losing income during a career switch so it was a choice I was happy to make.

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

#229

Post by Rule35 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #158
Rule35 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If they’re driving an Amazon branded truck, they’re Amazon for all I care. When an ISP contractor shows up at your house and is rude, you don’t go “well, they’re a contractor, so I can’t blame Spectrum for this.” No, they have Spectrum’s branding on, so they represent Spectrum. It doesn’t matter if they’re a contractor or not.

Right, that's why they need to be terminated regardless of their specific style of employment.

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

#230

Post by rainyMammoth »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #163
rainyMammoth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sure hope that you cut all ties with Facebook and Google before that.

Do those places make you pee in a bottle? Or do they have restrooms like civilized businesses?

Do you have any proof of pee in a bottle? Or are you blindly believing the narrative that the New York times put out to drive clicks? Not saying it's not true but please be more critical.

Google and Facebook on the other hand are directly destroying democracy and spying on you.

Post reply on HN