51–60 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean I also have a morbid curiosity, but is there anything that could have been there that would have made it ok? This isn't lock picks were a lot of people buy them to mess around with and to get back into their own property
Maybe some dude who likes to watch themselves shit?
[flagged]
> Perhaps most alarming to the plaintiff, Amazon's Product Safety Team specifically inspected the camera to "ensure" that Amazon wasn't platforming a product being used to “infringe privacy,” “surreptitiously record others for sexual purposes,” or “create and store child sex abuse material.” This is the key bit that makes it different from your examples.
Someone should be in prison, but it isn't Sony, hitachi's or AT&T's fault when their products are used in this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a pretty new thing to have online market places with the kind of scale that exists today while claiming no duty to know about the things being sold. If Walmart or your neighborhood mom and pop tried to sell this everyone would be up in arms so it's weird that some people think it's a good idea to structure society in a way where we strip any responsibility away. On the gun shop we do actually require some duty o…
I don’t think it’s new at all. Fb marketplace takes inspiration from Craigslist which takes inspiration from newspaper classified ads. If you went to a classified ad and bought a toaster or something and it was bunk, would you think about holding the newspaper accountable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon doesn't need, or, rather, shouldn't need laws in order to do the right thing.
and what is the "right" thing with regards to a coat hook camera? I know someone who put a spy camera in their kitchen to catch a person drugging their beverages. Could've just as easily been a coat hook spy camera. To go at it from another angle, how about those snake cameras that bomb detection units sometimes use. You can use that for illicit purposes and good purposes. I'm not saying the wrong thing is to ban the…
That's what's great about the case. They can't claim that they're not liable because it is meant for legitimate use because they advertise specifically for an illegal use.
By their own admission, they have to find a legitimate use of a bathroom spy cam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That part is confusing to me because it specifically calls out items that are for violating privacy. Any defense from "we are not responsible for how a product is used as long as it's legal" or "our safety team inspects products that could hurt people" (AC appliance without a properly grounded case) would have sounded much more reasonable to me. The reality of it is probably that reviewers can only spend ~1 minute pe…
You cannot possibly review this in one minute. You need a team of different experts and they need time to think. If you saw this for one minute before looking at this article you probably wouldn't think about this use case - even though it is obvious once someone points it out. So Amazon needs to show they gave the review team enough time to think about this type of thing. Amazon might be able to get out of this if t…
I didn't mean to imply that you can. It's more that at Amazon's scale, they are surely constrained by how many new items are put up for sale every second. If even just 1/100 needs to be reviewed, then that's a considerable amount of work. Once the pipeline is setup their workforce probably got progressively better so they increase the review/day targets to match. That loop does not have a lot of feedback so they probably raised it too high at some point and this is the result.
All of that to say, it's much more likely to be a process failure than anything else. They probably tried to optimize that process but cut too close to the bone and this is the result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon doesn't need, or, rather, shouldn't need laws in order to do the right thing.
and what is the "right" thing with regards to a coat hook camera? I know someone who put a spy camera in their kitchen to catch a person drugging their beverages. Could've just as easily been a coat hook spy camera. To go at it from another angle, how about those snake cameras that bomb detection units sometimes use. You can use that for illicit purposes and good purposes. I'm not saying the wrong thing is to ban the…
Good. Amazon has been happy to rake in commissions for years from dodgy products sold by third party sellers (uncertified electrical equipment, scam flash drives/SSDs, spycams, etc) and then turn around and blame the marketplace sellers when the inevitable happens. Unlike eBay, Amazon goes to great lengths to sow confusion about what it sells versus its marketplace participants. The average user thinks that when they…
[flagged]
If Facebook showed illegal images on its platform and didn't do anything to counter that the I think most people would argue that it was Facebook's fault. Why is it so hard to imagine holding corporations to higher standards? And for all the examples you gave: Facebook marketplace has safety features to try to prevent robberies. Gun shops do background checks to avoid selling to murderers.
The plaintiff didn't had any kind of interaction with amazon
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean I also have a morbid curiosity, but is there anything that could have been there that would have made it ok? This isn't lock picks were a lot of people buy them to mess around with and to get back into their own property
Another commenter posted the archive page. No comment on whether this "made it ok," but some of the other photos show the hooks being used in a different context, more like a nanny cam. This one ( https://web.archive.org/web/20231204210803/https://m.media-a... ) shows hooks in what looks like a mudroom catching an image of a person in black clothing in a ski-mask, indicating a use case of the hook would be to surrept…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty easy actually: If a product has more creepy usages than that it has contrived good usages you should probably err on the side of caution.
No, this is a pretty poor argument. Simply put anyone coming after your product can submit a completely unrealistic set of abuses they could do with your product whereas your products normal uses may only cover a few particular tasks. If you (the state) doesn't want a product on Amazon, you should be required to show meaningful evidence the product can both be harmful and is against the law to sell in your jurisdicti…
normal use of spycam -> spying.
normal use of beer bottle -> holding beer.