Its interesting how most of the commentary here is about Amazon, not about being denied status under a public program for “having a violation of customs laws on your record” when not only were you never convicted or found civilly liable for any such violation, and not only were you never actually even charged with such a violation, but you also never had any notice or knowledge of a customs violation having occurred, and the actual violation was a hostile party attempting to defraud you.
Amazon is certainly at fault for the process which enable their platform to be used for fraud, but the core of this story is the government punishing people for offenses they not only didn't commit, but didn't know about and of which they were the intended victim.
Exactly right. The constitution declares that due process is a right, and in my (IANAL) mind, this is a violation: "you can't travel because you bought an off-brand bag" (a trademark issue!). The reality is that the real harm to this individual is small, and the normal individual has an outsized cost to fight this injustice.
The unfortunate consequence: more erosion of rights at the margin. Not to be hyperbolic, but it really is just one more microstep along the slope toward fascism.
We laugh at them when online videos surface, but the people who are willing to inconvenience themselves in order to peacefully oppose these kinds of actions are everyday heroes.
We may not be quite at that point with air travel yet, but each year the TSA finds new and innovative ways to slow down the process and increase all-around misery.
Exactly, Personally I believe the "Trusted Traveler" program should be unconstitutional on is face, every citizen should be a "trust traveler" until such time the government as a clear and articulable reason to consider them a safety risk, at which point it should enter into some kind of Administrative or Court process where I person can defend themselves against set accusations
Treating everyone as a Terrorist, then "clearing" some people that choose to pay the government money, and go through their privacy invading process should be Unconstitutional and abhorrent to all free people
The typical screening does not treat everyone as a terrorist. After all, the US has a no-fly list. That list, of course, comes with its own host of issues, but let’s be more precise.
Airport screening sucks and is theater. Global Entry is extortion. No doubt. But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
>But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
That really depends on what nine partisans in fancy robes think, a group whose makeup changes over time and who can change their minds.
I think what GP was getting at is that it seems so fundamentally unjust that it should be unconstitutional (which is what anyone who is not a constitutional law scholar means when they say unconstitutional), not a claim about legal opinions of powerful judges.
There isn't much of an articulable case for these rules to be unconstitutional. It's not analogous to freedoms people have in their personal life.
They're using the Federal aviation system, public property airports, being routed by the FAA, and so on. It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing.
The government can't mandate the color of your shirt in your own home, but they can mandate the exact shade of your turn signals when you're on public roads.
I'm not a fan of our current security state, it's insane. But air travel isn't a private act, it's important to calibrate the conversation to the issue actually at hand.
I’ll jump in here. I believe the constitution does provide a right to travel both domestically and internationally.
When I choose flight as my mode of transport, and I choose to do business with a private company, (entering into a private contract with that company to convey my body from one location to another), I believe the government demanding that I be searched and inspected and scanned in order to allow the private company and I to conduct our private business of providing me with transportation is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have an affirmative grant of power over my right to travel, and two because I have the right to travel. All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.
I feel like this fallacy that travel is a privilege comes from the whole “driving is a privilege” concept. But keep in mind, while driving is a privilege (under STATE law), riding isn’t a privilege, it’s a right. I may need the blessing of a STATE government to drive a car across state lines, but I don’t need the blessing of state or federal government to ride as a passenger in a vehicle across state lines. In the case of the flight, I’m not engaged in a regulated activity of flying a plane, I’m merely a citizen exercising their right to travel.
Sure there is, I'll articulate one: the federal government is giving preferential treatment to people who waive their constitutional privacy rights (and pay money) and going out of its way to intentionally inconvenience those who don't pay up and give up their rights. The government giving explicit preferential treatment to people who waive their constitutional rights and punishing those who don't is a clear violation of citizens' constitutional rights: if the government can do whatever it wants to make you miserable until you waive your rights, you don't really have them.
It's analogous to a state government monitoring citizens' speech, picking out anyone who criticizes the governor's political party, and banning them from using the freeway.
Would my argument pass legal muster? No, I'm not a lawyer and I thought of it in 3 minutes on a Friday afternoon. Is it articulable? Yes. Could the court rule in my favor if it were explained better by someone with esquire at the end of their name? Sure. Judges often accept or make any argument they like no matter how bad so long as it fits in with their political ideology.
>> It's much more analogous to requirements for auto safety and licensing.
There are clear constitutional Bounders here, a Police Officer can not simply pull you over, search you, question you, and detain you with out a clear articuable reason to believe you have or are about to violate the law in some way.
We have no destroyed the 4th amendment to that point yet, but I know people like you continue to try.
>> But air travel isn't a private act,
People like me believe it should be, No Public Airports, not Public anything. It should be a private transaction where me a Private citizen contract with a Private company to transport me from A to B,
Using high Intensity EM Waves to peer under my clothes, invasive pat Downs, Making me remove Clothing, limiting my ability to carry liquids, and about 100 other policies feels like I am being treated like a Terrorist or Safety Risk or Criminal.
Certainly does not feel like I am treated with Respect, Dignity, and civility that a Free Society should offer its inhabitants as they peacefully travel from point a to point b
I shutter to think what you believe would be unacceptable or "being treated like a terrorist"
>>>> But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.
Only if you skip over and do not read the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th , 10th, 14th Amendments, and Article 1 Section 8
Not sure why you believe that distinction matters, the fact that is not harmful is irrelevant to my statement. I am more concerned about the Privacy implications, and the precedent it sets than I am health effects
The Government going through my underwear drawer does not physically harm me that does not mean I want to consent or be forced to allow them to search it.
As a former resident and frequent visitor to the US, I find it a disturbing trend that more and more government services are segregated into an unpleasant "basic" level of service and a "premium" level of services charging extra fees. This happens for airport screenings, for passport applications, for visas.
Subjectively, it feels to me like in most other countries I live or visit, if a government service is bad, the go to strategy is to try to improve it for everybody. In the US, the go to strategy is to create a separate line for "premium" customers so they get reasonable service instead of having to wait in line with hoi polloi.
I'm not sure I agree. The fact that there is a fee applied to Nexus (when you're a citizen) and other things is the issue. I have no problem that if people want expedited routing through customs they have to get background checks and do additional paperwork. It's just bullshit that we charge for it. I had to do FBI and local police BG checks as part of my emigration to Canada. It wasn't like it was onerous or hard. In fact, the medical check was far more expensive and inconvenient.
In my mind expedited screening is sufficient for everyone. In general, I dislike the idea of creating a privileged class of citizen. Dangling global entry status, or revoking it arbitrarily issue one more way a government can inconvenience or threaten people they dislike.
The entire point of "optional" programs such as "Global Entry" is to create a privileged status that is subject to the mere whims of bureaucracy rather than bedrock legal protections. Then the pain of the "Free" option can be increased without inconveniencing the privileged decisionmakers (eg congresscritters and corporate executives), creating a de facto punishment for not "opting in" to the purportedly optional rules.
Nah. The entire point of "optional" programs is for the agency to collect the money from taxpayers that Congress won't allocate them in the budget. Everything else you mention are just happy side-effects.
I think most folks make this about Amazon because Amazon is enabling these counterfeit vendors to sell in the US. Amazon has built itself as a 'credible marketplace', and these types of stories are in direct contradiction to the image that Amazon is trying to build.
I agree, this is the impression I had too. Why is this story about Amazon? Far more interesting and ominous is the control our gov't is increasingly exercising over citizens with very little transparency.
Not having Global Entry doesn't prevent you from traveling anywhere, you just don't get to use the fast lane going through Customs or TSA lines. Global Entry is elective, not a requirement.
In other words, you just have normal status.
The appeal process should work better in this case than it did.
How long does the regular security process have to be before the 'privilege' of the express lane becomes more like the minimum requirement to travel? This is absolutely a form of control.
Since Rimowa was selling through Amazon, they had the name of the customer. Why aren't people up in arms about Rimowa's action? It seems to me they're the one we should all be upset at! They're the one, according to the article, that reported Reed.
Amazon has become an extremely unpleasant place to shop in the past two years. The proliferation of garbage sellers makes it hard to find anything.
It used to be that you could avoid most of them by just ignoring anything with less than 10 reviews, but with Amazon's latest change to factor in number of reviews for their "sort by average review" list has let the genie out of the bottle. Now you'll see literally THOUSANDS of 5-star reviews on their garbage, completely drowning out the real stuff :/
It's to the point now where I'll only purchase known brand-name items from the manufacturer, and hope to god it's not a scammer using their name, or some typosquatter, or their supply chain hasn't been polluted by counterfeits.
And it's only getting worse. Now I try to buy direct from individual websites like it's 1999.
This is exactly why I no longer buy from Amazon unless it's something that's pretty much already junk.
I was shopping for a Hario coffee grinder on Amazon and noticed about 10% of the reviews were 1-star as opposed to the usual 5-star reviews. Turns out about 10% of people who bought this item on Amazon received a counterfeit even though it was apparently the manufacturer's own page and listing (if it wasn't I couldn't tell nor figure out how to determine that).
So after researching on Amazon I went to the manufacturer's site, found their list of authorized resellers, and bought it from Williams-Sonoma. I've since bought more items from WS. They should send a thank you card to Jeff Bezos.
I'm a new father now too. Guess where we don't buy any baby stuff from.
The problem with Amazon listings is that any seller (official reseller or not) can put a product up for sale. Amazon defaults to the cheapest seller listed as new (if you have Prime, sellers that offer Prime shipping will chosen over a cheaper seller that charges separately for shipping).
The problem here is that when you buy from Amazon, you expect that you're buying it from Amazon. But with they way they have it set up, it's also very likely that you'll buy from another seller that's a few pennies cheaper than Amazon, with Amazon facilitating the sale.
From what I understand, Amazon also commingles its own "Sold by Amazon" inventory with other sellers who use the Fulfilled By Amazon programme, without checking for counterfeits. [1][2][3][4]
Right. It's this commingling that makes the whole exercise futile. I can check and double check that I am buying from Amazon directly, but if fake goods are mixed in the same bin as real ones it becomes a game of roulette to see what I'll actually receive.
Yep. I note that the LifeHacker article here gives tips on avoiding fakes, but none of those tips apply to the very guy in the article!
I'm plenty willing to be a diligent buyer, it's not much different than avoiding phishing attacks, but at this point any item with Amazon as the seller may be compromised, and there's no way to tell in advance.
This is so obviously problematic and yet Amazon fails to correct it -- leaves me feeling very suspicious of their motivations and erodes the goodwill i had for them.
If someone really didn’t like amazon (Walmart) they would spend a lot of money testing products for dangerous materials and chemicals. Anyone want to bet counterfeit products and food from China has no lead or other contaminants in them? I don’t.
I went into a Decathlon for the first time the other day, after long assuming Amazon would always be cheaper for outdoor+active wear...so wrong. Totally surprised at a high street store having a huge range of better quality merchandise, at lower prices, and no need to shop around amongst all the clones with very similar appearance, but varying quality. My faith in the bricks-and-mortar stores has been partially restored.
And for safety-critical purchases...no way am I risking buying something like angle grinder discs or fire extinguishers off Amazon. Fake headphones mean a bit of distortion, fake discs might mean a lost eye.
So now its just low-cost, low-risk purchases where I don't care too much if the item is junk.
On that note, where do people buy electronic hardware if not Amazon/PC World? E.g. for SD cards - Amazon carries the risk of counterfeits, and PC World carries the high street premium.
Yep, I avoid anything that's going to need a wall-wart power supply, I really don't need to wake up in the middle of the night to find out it's burned the house down. Some of the PSU's Big Clive[0] has dismantled and studied are downright scary.
There's an interesting middle ground forming, though: First-Quality Third-Party.
I would not want to buy a first-party charger because I think they're way too expensive. However, I'm also not going to just buy the least expensive one, because as Clive has shown, they're unreliable at best and downright dangerous at worst.
But I've bought dozens of items from Monoprice and Anker. They have made a brand for themselves as being high quality and low cost.
Of course, the whole house of cards comes tumbling right down once the counterfeiters stop bothering to make 'App1e' chargers and start making 'Ankeer' and 'Moonprice' models.
> Of course, the whole house of cards comes tumbling right down once the counterfeiters stop bothering to make 'App1e' chargers and start making 'Ankeer' and 'Moonprice' models.
Reminded model servos Tower Pro, who were sort of knock off Blue Birds (copy of their distinct blue colour). Cue few years later someone started making Toward Pro...
I've consolidated most of the 12V gadgets in my office to run off my PC's power supply, through a PCIe power to barrel connector cable that was made for bitcoin mining rigs. I've replaced several wall warts with a $10 cable that can be visually inspected for safety, and I'm probably saving a few watts in the process.
And what's worrysome for Amazon is that in this case it is just a small step to go a bit further: If you don't care too much whether the item is junk, you can just buy it on AliExpress. Most likely it will be cheaper than Amazon and at least you know that you have opted for the "cheap and often junk" route.
In my experience, AliExpress is usually better than expected. Unless you go for the absolute cheapest the general quality is actually very high.
I bought some socks for example: for the price of cheap socks in a brick-and-mortar store I got some of the best socks I have ever owned.
I think AliExpress could do some really good bussiness if they were to add a QA person in the loop and would start selling 'premium' products under a different name. So far the median price/quality ratio of the things I bought has been very good (with a few duds, all gimicky electronic crap).
I shop microcenter in person (massachusetts USA but they have other locations) for sd cards/ external hard drives etc. They seem to have good selection of computer hardware and decent prices, and have a lot of embedded stuff (pi/ arduino/ some ada fruit kits). Kits for kids (of various quality).
Surprisingly, the CPU+mobo combo I just bought for a new build was cheaper from a local Microcenter than Amazon. Plus, I could get it the same day (ordering it on Saturday night, I'd get the mobo Sunday and CPU Tuesday if I did Amazon -- went next day and got both from Microcenter for about $50-60 less).
This has typically been the case for probably close to a decade now. At some point around the P4 extreme days (iirc) they made a business decision to stop getting utterly killed by Newegg and Tigerdirect. There was a lot of talking on the various enthusiast boards about it at the time whether or not it was going to be a good long-term move.
The loss-leader strategy appears to have worked! I typically try to buy from Microcenter now when possible, and I almost always give back that $50 cpu/mobo combo savings in margin on the rest of the build (and then some) simply due to convenience.
This is interesting - my experience is that outdoor gear is one of Amazon's absolute weakest markets. I can't remember the last time they beat out my alternatives for backpacks, tents, etc.
There seem to be a bunch of factors in that. One is that buying offbrand is rarely a good idea (since you end up stress-testing everything), so people go for less-famous branded stuff instead. Two is that close equivalents aren't - I can buy any charger with the right voltage and plugs, but not any equal-size backpack. Three is that outdoor gear already has a lot of tiny-margin sellers; between REI, Campmor, MooseJaw, and ActiveJunky rebates there's very little room to undercut.
Yes, my understanding is, at least in some cases, the fulfillment centers mingle items from different sellers. So, if you're buying "Band X Widget Y", and there are multiple "Fulfilled by Amazon" sellers, and one of those sellers introduces counterfeits, then the whole pool of Widgets is now suspect.
However, you would probably avoid what happened to this guy in the story since it would be coming from their fulfillment centers. You more than likely wouldn't be tagged as importing counterfeit goods.
Thanks, that's what I thought. Because there's no way Amazon are going to have separate bins for SKU's they sell, and those in the co-mingled "seller" bins; it'd be a huge waste of space, and they'd have a much less wider range of SKU's to punt.
It's not a matter of it being a waste of space, even, but a waste of time. The first person in a FC to even see an item after the boxes get offloaded from the trucks is probably a stower who is being paid as little as possible to do nothing but scan whatever ASINs are in front of them and shove things into the bins as fast as possible.
Any random bin can contain books, food, electronics, jewelry, anything from anywhere as it gets picked from, restowed into, counted and recounted, etc. There's little room for quality control before items are available for purchase, because the system is optimized to get as many things listed on the site as quickly as possible. There are many ways in which the process could be made more robust, but it won't be because doing so would cost precious seconds.
If you inspect the account/brand listed as the seller, it is much harder to get fooled by a counterfeit. Amazon-brand items sold by Amazon are pretty hard to mistake, in my experience.
I wanted to buy something yesterday, but their direct non-3rd-party offer was "This offer is reserved exclusively for Prime members." It looks like I'll buy somewhere else then...
Even than you can find counterfeit in your purchase or get ripped off another way. I got tired of them when 30% of my packages got lost and finally I could identify that it was their own delivery service that stole the packages. I called the manager about it, nothing changed.
I tried to but couldn't figure out what was actually third party or not. Even reviews on items that looked to be first party listings warned of fakes. Then I decided to stop wasting my time and wait for Amazon to figure their shit out.
And incredible (in-store) after sales customer experience, in my experience. If you're visiting NYC, anyone interested in technology, photography or just wants to see an incredible retail/sales operation in action should visit.
NB - As they observe religious calendar/holidays both in store and online, make sure they're open before you visit.
I still buy from NewEgg. Their marketplace has the same problems as Amazon's, but the stuff they sell themselves is generally legit as far as I can tell.
Every time I see a comment like this I think to myself we must either be using a different Amazon or just buying totally different categories of items. I buy lots of things from Amazon. I probably get a package from them at least twice a week (I hate going to stores). In all that time I've never gotten something that was straight up garbage. So how is it so many vocal people are getting a significantly different experience?
I have the same experience. I tend to try to buy stuff that Amazon sells directly and I regularly pay a bit more for items that seem to have better reviews or, at least, less reviews that give me pause. And I do buy a fair bit of electronics and so forth. I wonder how many of the people who seem to have such bad experiences buy solely on price even when the price seems too good to be true.
Case in point. I just bought a couple of Samsung Qi wireless chargers. There were certainly cheaper ones listed but this one won Wirecutter recommendation so it's what I got. Are there counterfeits? Probably. But they probably aren't packaged like the legit item.
My household probably gets 4-5 packages from Amazon a week. Over the past half decade, I've received maybe 2 obviously counterfeit products.
If I've gotten anything else that was counterfeit, it was a good enough reproduction for me not to notice.
But some people might be buying items exclusively in categories where the rate is higher? I don't know. I buy a lot of electronics and electronic accessories off of Amazon, and that seems to be what others complain about being bad.
I was looking for a Mophie battery case for the iPhone SE. Go there now and look. You’ll find a bunch of cases “by Mophie”, which are all counterfeits, no exceptions. Mophie doesn’t sell on Amazon.
Amazon is great for common household items that I don't want to make a trip to the store for (cleaning supplies, loofahs, notebooks, pens and paper, etc.). If I want to buy, for example, a Samsung or Apple phone charger, I'm going to buy it from the manufacturer's website.
Something I’ve learned recently is that Target price matches amazon (and a number of other sites). It’s basically turned Target into a same day pickup Amazon warehouse for me. Yes, I’ve got to get to Target; but sometimes I want something the same day anyway, and even more crucial, I have a lot more confidence stuff isn’t counterfeit. (In this case though I’m sure they don’t sell this luggage brand :/)
Same as BestBuy. Actually, they price match plus 10% of the price difference. Which is awesome because I get to go pick it up, but don't have to fear the amazon knock-offs.
There have been a lot of rumors about Amazon buying Target and although I do like Amazon, I hope it never happens. IMHO Target was the only online/b&m business that was competitive with Amazon prices and deals over the holidays.
How does that actually work? Do you just tell the cashier during checkout that Amazon offers a better price and they give you the discount no questions asked? Or is it more involved than that?
I don't get why they don't fix it. It's a huge problem and it's eroding confidence in Amazon.
It's not even hard: just require anyone selling on Amazon to wire a large enough deposit before they are allowed to sell (magnitude depending on the price, volume of their items and possibly their assumed trustworthiness); then, if they are found selling counterfeits or otherwise misrepresenting their products or their company, Amazon pockets a third of it, rewards another third to the person reporting it to Amazon and distributes the remaining third to affected shoppers.
It seems to me that the gains would far outweigh any possible reduction in the number of legitimate sellers and products.
They have started to implement a prototype form of this. You can only be labeled as a verified sale, if they have received at least $50 from you in the past. Though that's still not enough to weed out all of the paid reviews written by professional reviewers.
And another questionable thing that is starting to happen more and more is that you get something for free from the seller if you leave a review. It's very difficult for Amazon to guard against this, because the offer is made in the parcel you receive.
> And another questionable thing that is starting to happen more and more is that you get something for free from the seller if you leave a review.
This doesn't seem to be that hard to guard against. Amazon could offer a large bounty to report sellers that do this, and since Amazon has direct access to seller funds they could debit their account to pay for the bounty.
This is actually a great idea and somewhat obvious come to think of it. Having outsized penalties to compensate for the probability of getting caught and deterring others considering partaking in the same type of fraud would be much like what many regulatory bodies have found to be a very effective way of curbing unwanted market behaviour.
> It's a huge problem and it's eroding confidence in Amazon.
Personal opinion: They have consumer confidence to burn, and selling these products is almost pure profit. Amazon doesn't have to source or pay up front for these materials, and only has to pay a minimal storage/shipping fee on them (where they even store the items themselves).
It's hard to turn that kind of profit down, or to slim down the profit by adding more checks and balances.
Agree. I've cancelled prime. I'm lucky to live in London, so local UK retailers are actually pretty good in terms of delivery and click and collect options - I tend to find it easier to buy something online on Argos, then just walk down the road and collect it straight away. I don't really miss prime that much tbh. It certainly is easier sometimes, but the variability of the merch is just not worth it.
I don't use Prime and have noticed Amazon keep increasing the time taken for 'free delivery' to a point where i'll just buy it from eBay now, or direct from the retailer.
I cancelled my Prime subscription, but the last time I ordered from Amazon, I chose the free option which was estimated to take 5 days, and it got to me overnight, which was nice.
My current complaint about Amazon is that when I order a grocery item, it's because I can't find it in a local store and Amazon charges double or triple the normal price.
Oddly enough, I ordered something once in bulk for an exorbitant price, and immediately it appeared in my local grocery store for the normal price (50% less). I'm not sure what's going on, but it feels like algorithms run amuck.
I buy plenty of content from Amazon (video, kindle, audible) but I'm increasingly reluctant to use Amazon for physical products - I rarely buy paper books and when I do its usually from an actual bookshop (maybe 4 physical books last year compared to about 30 from audible and maybe 20 on kindle). I certainly wouldn't use them for anything over £50 or so - I'd go straight to a dedicated retailer that I have more confidence in.
I have great success getting second hand books through amazon. My wish list is up on camelcamelcamel and then every so often someone comes along and puts up a book I want for dirt cheap. I get a notification and if I am quick enough get the book ordered straight away. I've managed to get some books that normally go for £40 for £5 + postage before.
I used to use Amazon for second hand books, and then I noticed some sellers were not accurate in their description ("like new" had food stuck in the pages). Amazon was great at refunds, but I'd prefer to avoid the need to refund things. I noticed I was buying all my books from Wordery via Amazon, so I just went direct to Wordery.
UK based here as well and I'm not renewing Prime this year.
Apropos fake stuff and fake reviews, I won't buy anything of value from Amazon now, I can't be sure any more that I'm not going to receive a counterfeit. I'm in the market right now for a couple of new electronic gadgets, but I'll just get them from Halfords and PC World, their prices aren't that different from Amazon's.
My other annoyances...
Over the past few months I've noticed their so called "Next Day" delivery randomly isn't really that. For example this week I ordered a thing that was eligible for Prime next day. It was on Tuesday and I was well within the cut off time (by 7 hours or so). Oddly that item then showed as "Get it by Thursday" which is not Next Day. I thought it was specifically that seller or product that perhaps had ran out of stock. But no, every Prime eligible SKU was showing as "Get it by Thursday".
Upon querying this with Amazon they said: "One day delivery starts as soon as the item is marked as dispatched. We will aim to have your item with you in One day."I didn't have the energy to point out that the previous Tuesday all their Prime eligible SKU's were showing as "Get it by Wednesday" i.e actually and really next day.
They seem to vary this throughout the year to suit themselves. I did order the product though and on Wednesday I got notification that the item was dispatched and out for delivery. Sadly it didn't turn up and when I checked the parcel tracking sure enough it'd been bounced back to an expected delivery of Thursday again.
Another annoyance are these "Add On" SKU's (for example cleaning products) where there is simply no way to order these products without spending say a minimum of 20 quid on other stuff. Some marketplace resellers seem to game this by stocking these SKU's but the delivery price is almost as much as the SKU itself. No thanks, I'll just get these from the supermarket next week when I drive into town (I live in a rural area so having stuff delivered makes sense to me).
I also have an ethical problem with the seemingly ridiculous workloads, hours and low pay their delivery drivers have put upon them, I'd rather not fund these abuses. I know for a fact the that the usual fella that delivers to me is doing at least a 10-11 hour day, and that's screwed up.
So anyway, I don't really order enough "new" stuff to make the Prime next day worthwhile, and tbh I can easily wait a couple of days for an order to arrive. I also tend to only order books these days, and will hold out until I can get a decent used copy at a fraction of the new price.
The other thing that's deeply annoying are these add-on channels where you need to pay a monthly subscription for, on top of Prime. Films/TV that you could previously pay for are being silo'd into these channels with no option to just pay for the film itself. Sure I could run with the 10-14 day free trial, but that soon gets old.
Finally there simply isn't enough compelling "included with prime" video that interests me.
Nobody is checking. They're in private cars and small vans, so they aren't on a tachograph. They're technically self-employed subcontractors, so Amazon has no statutory duty to monitor driving hours. IIRC they're paid per drop rather than per hour. I have no doubt that a significant proportion of couriers are habitually working unsafe hours. In my neck of the woods at least, couriers working for Amazon or Hermes are overwhelmingly a) Eastern Europeans who look chronically sleep deprived or b) semi-retired Brits doing it for a bit of extra cash.
This seems like something, in the EU, that will come back and bite Amazon. They surely know the length of work hours and whether "adequate breaks" are being provided - or don't they manage the final mile logistics? Also the legislation about claiming people aren't working for you seems much tighter now.
There are no EU level regulations on drivers hours for vans, bikes etc, only for lorries (and those have enforcement problems in parts of Eastern Europe which means rogue operators are effectively free to operate across the EU with individual countries unable to take action).
There are GB regulations (which stipulate among other things max 10 hrs per day) but these are not practically enforcable on self employed drivers as there are no tachograph requirements etc.
Oh sure, but it's the wage earned for those hours worked after expenses I have a problem with. And aren't there penalties if the drivers simply cannot complete their delivery runs?
> Now I try to buy direct from individual websites like it's 1999.
Oddly, Amazon has reversed roles with the brick and mortars for me. Instead of using a physical store as a showroom and then buying online, I use Amazon's user reviews and algorithms* to see what to buy and then I go to a physical store to get it. I buy from the physical store with confidence I have a reasonable product and price and can return/exchange it easily if I'm still not happy with it.
* the "Frequently bought together" and "Customers also bought" sections.
There's a site I use to sift through counterfeit items and fake reviews on Amazon (and other sites I believe). [0] It's made the headache of finding legitimate products on Amazon a lot easier to manage for me.If you actually look at a lot of the fake 5-star products and analyse the reviews, the majority are really obviously fake. They're chock-full-of buzzwords and they almost always come from verified purchasers with absolutely nonsensical names. I agree - it's gotten really difficult to find real things. However, I haven't found it to be very difficult to spot the fakes in the markets current form. You would think Amazon could internally flag the name patterns for review, but I guess that would take moderating human-power.
> but I guess that would take moderating human-power.
Maybe they could use mturk?
Or maybe give you a button to set up an mturk job on a product to weed out the fake reviews for you, then you could pay only a few cents to get a 'real' review...
I'm actively wondering whether it would be possible to build an external ranking-by-review system, since Amazon's <Sort By Best Avg Review> system has been fully gamed, and I use a completely different algorithm.
Meanwhile entire categories are completely full of fraudulent junk -- start with LiPo 18650 batteries. One seller was even using Tesla's brand and logo claiming to sell their batteries. It disappeared a few days after I reported them, so Amazon does appear to be doing something, but it's completely inadequate.
I've had good luck with Amazon personally, but I do avoid entire categories of stuff (anything with an Apple logo, to start with) and largely stick to single-seller things anyway by the nature of what I buy there.
If they did start sending me junk I'd return it, and complain loudly. So far I've only had to engage their customer service about a few delivery-related screwups, but they've been extremely helpful for that stuff, so I'm curious what their threshold is for actually addressing stuff like this.
Punishing consumers for ordering a product for which the supplier/supply chain sent a counterfeit which was flagged by customs is just dumb.
Importing and selling counterfeit products is already illegal. If the person has a 20' shipping container full of counterfeit product, maybe investigate it and level penalties.
But to disqualify someone from an entry program because of one counterfeit product, when clearly no one from Amazon, CBP, or the manufacturer put in any effort whatsoever to investigate, is just wrong IMHO. The article states the manufacturer took the lazy route and punished the innocent customer because going after Amazon and someone in China would be more effort/expense.
I just confirmed with a professional IP attorney who has handled merchandise counterfeiting cases before: the buyer is NOT responsible if they were not aware that the goods were counterfit.
(Disclaimer: this post is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer even though I asked one, etc)
Amazon's distribution centers reside in many states.
In Indiana, since they have a presence, they are legally obligated in collecting sales tax.
My bank statement shows "AMAZON", not 3rd party importer.
I find your claim of "technically an importer" to be completely bunkum. The importer here is Amazon, and full blame on import fraud should be levied against them. I have no issue in giving a grace period to get "shit in order", but they've known about this for quite some time. Enough's enough. (Claiming that I buy stuff from Amazon makes me an importer would also make me an importer buying crap from Walmart.... And yet we don't see that, do we?)
> I find your claim of "technically an importer" to be completely bunkum
You may well find his claim to be bunkum, but he's correct. If you purchase something from a third party seller in a different country on Amazon's platform, and the seller ships it from their country to your country and it passes through customs, you are the importer.
Walmart imports goods from China and gets them through customs and then sells them, so you are not importing things when you buy them from Walmart, unless you purchase something from a foreign country from a third party seller on their marketplace platform, just like Amazon.
The sale is made to Amazon, The product goes through Amazon's warehouses, and Taxes are paid to Amazon...It's an Amazon Sale and they are acting as the importer for these goods.
Now, Alibaba/Aliexpress on the other hand, I do agree wholeheartedly with you. Because you are ordering from a Chinese company, ordering Chinese goods with no regard to US copyright/patent/trademark law.
You can have it fulfilled by Amazon and pay $392. It's already past customs and ready to ship to you.
You can order it from a third party seller, where the description says 'Ships from Japan' and warns you about customs fees for $370. You are purchasing the item directly from someone in Japan via Amazon's platform and any customs or importing fees are on you. They explicitly state it, I'm not sure how you're still confused.
What you're saying is only true for items fulfilled by Amazon. Not all Marketplace items sold on Amazon are fulfilled by Amazon. On those items, especially on items sold by Chinese sellers, you won't be charged taxes, and the item is shipped directly to you. It's a lot like using eBay + Paypal. The packaging will have the seller's name (not Amazon) and your name.
I've purchased stuff from Chinese sellers on Amazon, and it's been sent directly to me from China. Actually, I didn't even realize that the seller was Chinese, until I saw the three-week delivery estimate. And there was no indication that Amazon was involved after I ordered the stuff.
On the Amazon product page, you'll usually see a "Ships from and sold by" line for products not fulfilled by Amazon. If it's fulfilled by Amazon, the line is usually "Sold by [seller name] and Fulfilled By Amazon".
I don't know whether they are embargoed or not, but on Amazon.ca and Amazon.uk it's very easy to find Android Kodi boxes pre-loaded with sketchy apps and Kodi plug-ins that are also fulfilled by Amazon. I'm pretty sure in Canada and the UK, that those products have been heavily targeted by the government for piracy. Several local sellers of those boxes in Canada have been prosecuted/shut down, yet they are still so easily available on Amazon.
If I understood correctly, this was actually Rimowa who flagged him? Ie not Amazon, not the US customs? Hell if I'd ever purchase anything from them again if I was affected by something like this; the news should really be "Beware when purchasing Rimowa products, you're exposing yourself to unnecessary risk".
I was also surprised, and then read again more carefully. The article says: "Rimowa likely had an opportunity to take some kind of action [...] they chose the easier target: Reed"
which for me sounds like this conclusion is only speculation.
Typically, the company will get involved when they know who is importing or exporting the product and they will notify CBP so the shipment can be seized.
We don't know if they were involved, but it's possible Rimowa knew who the exporter was (from seeing the fakes online and ordering one themselves) and CBP then seized the package when it was imported. The article says, "Reed never received the suitcase" which indicates that the shipment could have been seized upon entry (because they were tipped off by Rimowa to look for packages from that exporter). Now they knew who the importer was (Reed) and they added his name to a database of illegal importers.
Since it was just one suitcase, it probably wasn't worthwhile going after him, but now his name was in the database (likely because they think it will help them catch more illegal imports). The tricky problem arises because there is likely no distinction in the database between one guy who didn't know he was ordering one counterfeit product for himself versus someone who imports container after container of counterfeits for resale. CBP enforces the law by seizing the product and it's up to the company to sue the importer. It's clearly a broken system with nasty ramifications for the people who got scammed.
>... making every trip you take during that time a frustrating experience.
Well, actually the "normal" experience that everyone but the ones that were granted the "privilege" have.
I mean, the decision (provided that the reason is actually the counterfeit suitcase) seems silly, but it is not like they took away his driving license or passport, or however limited his freedom.
I have no data, how many people are in the "Global Entry" thing?
And how many international travels per year would justify applying (and the background check and the in-person interview)?
From my experience entering the country from LAX and BOS, passing through security at many airports around the country, Global entry is extremely convenient if the airport is large and busy (LAX) but not that much more convenient if there isn't a large crowd. (BOS)
TSA-Precheck on the other hand is a godsend for almost any average-large city airport.
>As a US citizen returning to SFO I have spent anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours in line.
So, given the procedure (and the non reimboursable fee of US$ 100)and depending how distant you are from an "interview center" (and how long does the interview take):
I would say that a "make even" point could be around 3-4 international travels planned per year (given that the program needs to be renewed after 5 years).
Everybody's situation is different, but American Express paid the Global Entry fee for me as part of the annual fee I already pay them. I believe Chase Sapphire does something similar. They actually now do the Global Entry interviews on arrival in the US at select airports, so you can just integrate it into your next international trip.
For me ... well, I'm an American but I live in Colombia, which generally meant lots of questions and highly suspicious treatment before I got Global Entry. Now I don't have to say anything more than mornin' when entering the country. Totally worth it to me. :-)
>They actually now do the Global Entry interviews on arrival in the US at select airports, so you can just integrate it into your next international trip.
Yes, that would probably be the most convenient way.
Mine took 5 minutes at most. The real inconvenience was the closest place to do the interview was a 3 hour drive. YMMV but anything I can do to spend less time in an airport is worth it to me.
Also, Global Entry includes the same benefits as TSA Precheck - so when you get Global Entry, you're also automatically allowed to use the expedited security lines as long as your airline supports it. (Most, not all do.)
As mentioned below, Automated Passport/Mobile Passport allows US citizens returning to skip the long immigration queue without paying money/being interviewed for Global Entry. But it does not provide Trusted Traveler/TSA Precheck.
So, some time ago, I was looking to buy lemongrass seeds. The lemongrass that is sold on either supermarkets or farmers markets usually has the leaves cut. And that’s precisely the leaves my wife looks for, to make tea.
Okay fine, let’s grow our own. We had little success growing from existing lemongrass, so why not try from seeds them.
Couldn’t find seeds on Home Depot. Found a seller on, guess what, Amazon.
There was no indication that the seller wasn’t in the US (but in retrospect, no indication he was) so I ordered without thinking much about it.
Fast forward a couple of months, I received the open packet (sans seeds) and a document indicating that import was not allowed. They also had lab test results attached, which indicated lemongrass seeds (by their scientific name) and some other seeds I can’t remember mixed in.
Now, all of this was legal, it’s just a customs rule violation(given the right paperwork, one should be able to import seeds, as I undestand it). Imagine what would have happened if the seller also had planted pot in the field, and got some of those mixed in...
>Imagine what would have happened if the seller also had planted pot in the field, and got some of those mixed in...
Your story would be completely unchanged. Customs would seize the package and you would receive a letter saying that they seized contraband and that would be the end of it.
People have packages of drugs seized at customs without any consequences. Unless it's a massive amount or it happens frequently, nothing would happen to you.
I sometimes buy things on amazon assuming it is coming from amazon directly and only later realize it was being drop shipped from overseas.
I used to think that wasn't a big deal since I really only check the estimated arrival date if I need something in a hurry. But, as of this article, it is a big deal no matter what because it changes who the importer is...
If something ships from Amazon then it was Amazon or a third party who imported the goods. If it ships directly to me from another country then I am the importer and I am on the hook for customs issues that I am not in control of (ex. is it OEM or is it counterfeit).
Amazon needs to make it very clear who and where each item is being imported from when it's not shipping from a warehouse in the same country as the delivery address. They have to stop pretending they are walmart or target in the cloud and that every purchase is a safe purchase.
I re-read the article. It's unclear to me that CBP explicitly told him that he was being denied renewal because he had tried to import a counterfeit good. It may be the case but he doesn't come right out and say "they told me..." As opposed to him just assuming that this must have been the issue.
IMHO, amazon is guilty. Amazon has imported a counterfeit merchandise without checks on the seller. Putting the blame on the final client is unacceptable. We have a similar issue when banks are stolen and call it identity theft. The bank is guilty of not checking correctly the identity before giving money.
The client should never have to endure bad consequences because of bad behavior of Amazon or banks.
Amazon didn't handle any of the merchandise. It's Amazon Marketplace so it works like ebay, they just host the listing and process payments while the seller does all the shipment and the buyer is the one actually importing the counterfeit goods (this is what is illegal in the US). I don't think Amazon is the one at fault for the crime necessarily but they should be proactive in taking down counterfeit listings to prevent this. I've bought things on ebay before for what seemed like a fair price and it turned out to be counterfeit. I don't blame ebay for that but I wouldn't be happy if the same post was still up after I reported it for counterfeiting.
> I don't think Amazon is the one at fault for the crime
Responsibility for a wrongdoing is not always restricted to one party; in this case there is one party active trying to commit a fraud involving counterfeit goods, and one profiting from a system which is structured so as to enable that fraud and make it difficult for the target to detect or avoid (which may initially have been innocent, but has been maintained that way long after the operator had information on which they reasonably should have known that was a recurring and significant issue.)
So you are saying any marketplace (e.g. Ebay) is actually responsible for a merchant using them to facilitate fraud? Why stop there? Let's find the merchant processor complicit and the shipping company and the ISPs. Heck, I'm sure we could extend the net further if we wanted. Point being, unless the marketplace is actively courting merchants they know are perpetuating fraud, then how are they at fault? If they get a report of a seller that is selling counterfeit goods, they take them down. What more do you expect of them?
> So you are saying any marketplace (e.g. Ebay) is actually responsible for a merchant using them to facilitate fraud?
No, I'm saying a marketplace that knows, or reasonably should know of an ongoing pattern of fraud enabled and protected by features of its marketplace that does not take reasonable steps to mitigate that fraud but instead chooses to continue to allow and profit from it bears responsibility for it.
How is Amazon guilty of anything here? This seems entirely the work of our gov't, not Amazon. The headline makes good clickbait by including Amazon but the frustration should be with the gov't for implementing an arbitrary and opaque restriction on citizen travel.
> so it’s more important than ever for you to pay close attention to the items you’re buying—especially if they’re being shipped to you from overseas. Watch out for massive discounts, learn how to spot fake reviews, double check who you’re buying from, and don’t hesitate to reach out to Amazon customer service if something seems amiss.
So it's my responsibility now to go into the minute details of these things? Why isn't CBP doing its job? Shouldn't they be looking carefully before denying TT status? Shouldn't they be paying attention to what they are doing?
I feel like more and more these government agencies just shrug and do the most expedient thing possible, even if it means screwing others over.
Also, remember to never search for pressure cookers and backpacks led if you want to save yourself some troubles and prevent being listed on the watchlist another time (you're already there, yes you, you Linux user!)
> Suffolk County criminal intelligence detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore-based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee.
So I guess don't do that if you work for someone who's going to send the police to your house over it after they fire you? Not sure there's really a larger point to be made here about watchlists, surveillance, or indeed anything, considering the only element of that story which couldn't happen in 1930 is the part about Google.
Was 2013 before all Google searches were secure? Unless your workspace is doing MITM they wouldn't see the search now. Though, obviously you'd have to trust that Google wouldn't dob you in either.
I thought it's standard practice to MITM at the workplace. How else can you flag exfiltration of sensitive information and stop incoming malware? Add a certificate to browsers on employee's computers, encrypt on proxy after inspection.
Computers owned by the firm have extra CAs installed. All browsers allow admins to add CAs. Unsophisticated users will never know that e.g. BlueCoat shitboxes (and everyone who has pwned those shitboxes) are reading all their TLS traffic.
But the web servers on the other side of the TLS connection are not managed by those same system administrators and therefore they will not accept certificates provided by such proxies, breaking TLS.
To the external server, the shitbox is the user. To the user, the shitbox is the external server. Talk to IT/Networking people at any large firm; this is how it has worked for years.
Client certs are a different thing entirely, and unrelated to this discussion.
How are client certificates, a mandatory feature of TLS and specifically what I mentioned, and what you are replying to, unrelated to this discussion ?
What is this "mandatory feature" stuff? We're talking [0] about employees on websites "protected" by TLS, and expecting privacy while doing so. If they order hemorrhoid cream on Amazon, their browser talks to the shitbox, the shitbox talks to Amazon, and client certs have nothing to do with that. The browser verifies that it trusts the shitbox, and nobody else verifies anything.
One supposes there might be some banks or B2B sites that might use client certs, but they're such a minority that no one ever heard of them.
Client certificates are a mandatory feature of TLS that any TLS server could request and the proxy would be unable to handle the request, as it (and ideally the client) has no access to the private key. Therefore, these types of proxies break TLS by being unable to support mandatory features.
Separate from that, client certificates are certainly common, being used for authentication, in the US Federal Government, which issues tens of millions of certificates for this purpose as well as smartcards, since George W. Bush banned passwords with HSPD-12.
The shitboxes definitely "break" TLS. That's why firms buy them in the first place. A firm that was using smartcards with the characteristics you describe would presumably figure out something other way to pretend to prevent data exfil.
Amazon allowed an influx of shoddy Indian/Chinese sellers that sell counterfeits like crazy, and then started treating honest 3rd parties as guilty-by-default, and being very nazi about it - you talk to ML bot all the time, they won't tell you what the problem is, you just have to figure it out on your own what got you banned for no reason. Now they are increasing Prime for fun...
Making "legitimate" purchases on Amazon gets more difficult every day. The obvious solution is to buy directly from brands, but I keep using Amazon because it's less risky than spreading personal and credit card details across many sites. There's also Amazon prime... Hopefully better e-commerce solutions can eventually take over this trust, and more brands choose to sell direct. This would really help with the growing counterfeit problem.
One-time-use credit card numbers also help. I used this feature all the time when Discover offered it, but unfortunately they stopped. Now companies like privacy.com now offer it as a service, but adoption is probably slowed down by needing to trade-off rewards for privacy.
It's yet another reason why I hope cryptocurrencies succeed. In the future I want to pay for anything without the seller having access to my personal information. Even if you trust the merchant, it's too tempting for thieves.
Maybe someday someone will also solve the issue around shipping details. Like a DNS for shipping addresses. That would be awesome.
I’m shocked there’s 59 comments on this and almost nobody is saying the obvious, “what proof of any kind exists that this is the reason he was denied?”. This is pure speculation and I’m predicting it’s totally wrong.
It must have been a market place order then because otherwise you wouldn’t be listed on the customs form. That changes the story portrayed in the article and should’ve been noted (not your fault there of course unless you didn’t mention it to the person writing it). The article still has a ton of conjecture otherwise (for example, that the baggage company had any involvement in your outcome) that is suspect at best.
Surely this only applies to amazon market place? Any sold or fullfilled by amazon would have already cleared customs by the time your name appear on the package? Not that it protects against being sold counterfeit goods but at least you are not involved on the step where it crosses the border.
I've been offered free access to the 'Global Entry' program as part of my job, but I've been wary because don't want the side-effects of the "rigorous background check".
As a green-card holder I'm already pretty wary of them being able to search my devices or deny me entry, and I'd rather that the CBP hadn't enriched all my identifiers and got a fat-little-file on me beforehand.
Given an interest in debating politics online, I wouldn't be surprised if GE membership would increase the chances that I get stopped regularly.
Does anyone on HN have any knowledge or experiences about what kind of thing goes into the GE "rigorous background check"?
We need to start sanctioning the people who come up with this stuff. Lock the people associated with the CBP out of flying on any US airline, or purchasing anything from an online merchant.
This seems ripe for a class action lawsuit against either amazon or the USCBP (are you even able to sue them). Obviously suing each brand wouldn't work because there just wouldn't be enough litigants for a class action, but maybe we can hold amazon responsible for this and make them change somethings?
Wow the government being inefficient and dumb, color me surprised. Sadly this is the world we live in though. I wish we could trust government agencies to be more competent but so far my experience has been really subpar.
I wonder if you could order counterfeit goods in someone else's name (eg celebrity or politician) and get them disqualified from the trusted traveler program. It's not hard to get a CC with an arbitrary name.
Alternatives to trusted traveler -- no-longer trusted travelers (no Global Entry) can now use Automated Passport Control, an App for your smart phone, which at Dulles last week, was faster than Global Entry.
I'm not sure if this is the same as "Mobile Passport", but Mobile Passport allows you to complete the kiosk information on your phone and in most airports (IAD/BWI tested) if you tell the usher (non-CBP employee with the airport) that you're doing Mobile Passport, they let you skip to the immigration counter bypassing several long lines.
Did they simply take the name/address from the label or did they actually go to Amazon for billing information? You could just have all your packages shipped under a different name.
Hm... So does that mean you have a good shot at barring someone else from using trusted traveler programs by just ordering some counterfeit goods for them?
You could change Amazon. It seems to me that this person has an articulable case against Amazon for damages, and filing suit would certainly be a way to get higher level attention. Though if I were him I wouldn't do it either do the hassle.
If you do a serious amount of travel each year there's no substitute for a good quality piece of luggage. I know this from personal experience from years back where cheap stuff just falls apart.
Red Oxx bags are ludicrously over-built and cost under $300. Most leisure travellers would be better off with a cheap, lightweight MLC like the Rick Steves Back Door Bag.
You can get a Samsonite piece of luggage for less than half that amount, though. And it's decent quality - definitely not the kind of cheap stuff that falls apart.
Sure, but some people are happy to pay extra, maybe it's the brand, or the style, or that one unique feature not available from another less expensive brand.
If you're on the move a lot then you and your luggage become engaged in a deeply personal relationship :)
I have a Delsey suitcase (with Samsonite they’re in similar price range). I was never too careful about handling it, rolled far on various uneven surfaces outdoors, and usually filled it up in excess of 30 kg with books and equipment—it was quite reliable, I’m sure it would’ve served me for years to come.
One time at baggage claim it came out without a wheel. I suppose it doesn’t matter how tough your piece of luggage is if your baggage handler happens to be having a bad day.
To replace the wheel a Delsey store asked me to give it up for three weeks in Hong Kong, which I couldn’t do. Some pricier brands’s policies promise 1–3 day turnarounds, which makes a difference if you’re moving around frequently.
Nothing like Briggs and Riley! Not a lot of their competitors offer lifetime warranties, but they do. They have replacement components, so you can fix a broken wheel instead of tossing the bag and starting from scratch.
Amazon is certainly at fault for the process which enable their platform to be used for fraud, but the core of this story is the government punishing people for offenses they not only didn't commit, but didn't know about and of which they were the intended victim.