451–460 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plausible deniability and more lawyers than God helps.
God probably doesn't have a lot of lawyers, but Amazon has more lawyers than Satan, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real reason is mentioned I the article: it’s absurdly easy to sell bulk stolen goods online. As long as that’s possible, there will always be someone stealing it, no matter how many people you lock up.
Why is it specifically a problem here in New York then, but wherever else I go in the country I don't see things nearly as locked up? Geography presumably shouldn't be a factor if shoplifters are only selling their loot online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the chain: (thief) -> (fence) -> (Amazon) -> (customer)? If a fence sells his wares in a bazaar, the bazaar is the fence? No, the fence is the fence the bazaar is the marketplace.
If Amazon is commingling inventory and Fulfilled By Amazon, it's not a bazaar, it is the fence.
A fence is providing a few semiseparate services:
1. They will buy stolen goods. You get a lower price, but you don't have to face nasty questions like "how did you get this?"
2. They may assume the risk of policing. If you stole something surprisingly important and it gets thoroughly investigated, the fence goes to jail, and you don't.
3. They locate people who want to buy stolen goods. It's easy to conceive of this as a service they provide for their own benefit, after buying your stuff (#1), but in reality you can't really do either without the other one.
Amazon commingling inventory lets it provide service #2. The police can establish that a stolen object was delivered to an Amazon customer, but if it came from a commingled pool, they can't establish who sold it.
But Amazon's whole concept is to provide service(s) 1 and 3. This would make it fairly strongly parallel to a fence who, when the police show up, lets them know where to find you. But even then Amazon is still doing the largest part of fencing; usually the police don't show up. The hard part is locating the customers, and that's what Amazon does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, barbaric. In fact, that's truly awful. I wish it surprised me that human beings could think or say such things.
Letting people engaging in violent antisocial behavior is barbaric. I wish it surprised me that human beings could think or say such things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further underline your point, if the chain is (thief)→(amazon)→(end user) then the fence isn't "anyone with an Amazon" account: the fence is amazon .
Amazon would say it is merely the credit card processor, the web store provider and provides ad space. Same as if stripe, google ads and shopify were used. They don’t take possession of the items at any time. Even if they warehouse has them, they are in the same boat as uhaul or a storage company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To further underline your point, if the chain is (thief)→(amazon)→(end user) then the fence isn't "anyone with an Amazon" account: the fence is amazon .
Isn't the chain: (thief) -> (fence) -> (Amazon) -> (customer)? If a fence sells his wares in a bazaar, the bazaar is the fence? No, the fence is the fence the bazaar is the marketplace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm not putting all the pieces together correctly. What is the significance of her wearing a hijab? Why is that worthy of mention, or the fact that the owner family was from Turkey? And also the Thanksgiving eve bit?
Op is explaining why this particular interaction was "worthwhile" enough to justify the inconvenience of pressing the assistance button. If this had been Gary whose worked at CVS for 17 years and hates his job i'm sure the detail would have been left out.
OP is doing that thing in which immigrants aren’t people, but rather a cute special needy class of virtuous go-getters.
As an immigrant, I don’t like it. We’re approximately as nice and as lousy as anybody else.
Target’s cameras have facial recognition. They can even identity people by gait. When these people return to the store, they can probably tell with some level of confidence they previously robbed a target. Why not stop them from entering? Or try to inconvenience them significantly? Drop a bag of slime on them as they exit? Make the floor slippery as they try to run out? There are smart people working at target; they…
They still need a cop to show up and actually trespass the individual. Cops refuse to show up, take hours if they do and perhaps even then still not be convinced to spend their time doing to report. The cops know the person will be back, the company knows the person will be back, and even the person knows they'll be back. Unfortunately there's nothing the owner of the store can do except attempt to reduce all liability of said person being on property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then you have to buy 4... So not exactly an apples to apples comparison if you only want one.
What a nonsensical argument. Deodorant is a consumable good. In scenarios like this, 40$ for 4 == 10$ for 1, because you consume it at a steady rate, and what you don't buy now you will pay for later
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real reason is mentioned I the article: it’s absurdly easy to sell bulk stolen goods online. As long as that’s possible, there will always be someone stealing it, no matter how many people you lock up.
That sounds like we're pointing to an external force (the ease of selling stolen goods online), as if it were some sort of magnetic draw, an irresistible temptation. What's tempting is that there's a lack of punishment. Do you propose we lecture to thieves to dissuade them? It's like arguing people run red lights because they get distracted due to phone notifications and so maybe we shouldn't punish them with points…
Don’t give them any ideas!