In article <u6cp0h$3o2a7$1@dont-email.me>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2023-06-13 7:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
> > because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
> > he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
> > Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
> > of his home.
> >
> > Here's what the man accused of racism wrote on Medium:
> >
> > "When I connected with the executive, they asked if I knew why my account
> > had been locked. When I answered I was unsure, their tone turned somewhat
> > accusatory. I was told that the driver who had delivered my package
> > reported receiving racist remarks from my Ring doorbell."
> >
> > It turns out that a delivery driver (with headphones on) imagined he heard
> > something racist from the doorbell, but the owner of the house wasn't even
> > home when the event happened. He also had cameras all over the property
> > that showed that he was totally innocent.
> >
> > "I reviewed the footage and confirmed that no such comments had been made.
> > Instead, the Eufy doorbell had issued an automated response: 'Excuse me,
> > can I help you? M' The driver, who was walking away and wearing headphones,
> > must have misinterpreted the message. Nevertheless, by the following day,
> > my Amazon account was locked, and all my Echo devices were logged out,
> > leaving me no ability to unlock my doors and access my home."
> >
> > How insane is this? They locked the man out of his own home from Thursday,
> > May 25, to Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
> >
> > "In the end, my account was unlocked on Wednesday, with no follow-up email
> > to inform me of the resolution."
> >
> > It's 2023 y'all. Corporations can now lock you out of your home and
> > completely shut down your life if they think you're racist.
> >
> > https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-just-locked-a-man-out-of-his-smart-hous
> > e-because-a-delivery-driver-reported-him-as-a-racist-after-mishearing-someth
> > ing-from-the-doorbell--the-man-wasnt-even-at-home
>
> Worse than that, they can do it on the incredibly thin grounds that one
> of their delivery drivers, who was no doubt hurrying and distracted,
> THOUGHT he heard something despite wearing headphones at the time.

My point is that even if there had been no mistake and the delivery guy
*had* heard a racist comment, that's still nowhere near justification
for a corporation to assume control over whether you can access your own
home or not.

> bet is that if he/she really heard something racist, it was in whatever
> he/she heard over the headphones. Given that most delivery drivers are
> young and probably inclined to listen to rap, it wouldn't be surprising
> to hear something racist.)
>
> In any case, if I were this customer, I'd be removing all this Amazon
> tech IMMEDIATELY, telling everyone I could reach about it and suing
> Amazon for at least the costs of having to stay elsewhere for almost a
> week.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:59:23 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <u6cp0h$3o2a7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-06-13 7:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> > A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
>> > because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
>> > he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
>> > Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
>> > of his home.
>> >
>> > Here's what the man accused of racism wrote on Medium:
>> >
>> > "When I connected with the executive, they asked if I knew why my account
>> > had been locked. When I answered I was unsure, their tone turned somewhat
>> > accusatory. I was told that the driver who had delivered my package
>> > reported receiving racist remarks from my Ring doorbell."
>> >
>> > It turns out that a delivery driver (with headphones on) imagined he heard
>> > something racist from the doorbell, but the owner of the house wasn't even
>> > home when the event happened. He also had cameras all over the property
>> > that showed that he was totally innocent.
>> >
>> > "I reviewed the footage and confirmed that no such comments had been made.
>> > Instead, the Eufy doorbell had issued an automated response: 'Excuse me,
>> > can I help you? M' The driver, who was walking away and wearing headphones,
>> > must have misinterpreted the message. Nevertheless, by the following day,
>> > my Amazon account was locked, and all my Echo devices were logged out,
>> > leaving me no ability to unlock my doors and access my home."
>> >
>> > How insane is this? They locked the man out of his own home from Thursday,
>> > May 25, to Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
>> >
>> > "In the end, my account was unlocked on Wednesday, with no follow-up email
>> > to inform me of the resolution."
>> >
>> > It's 2023 y'all. Corporations can now lock you out of your home and
>> > completely shut down your life if they think you're racist.
>> >
>> > https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-just-locked-a-man-out-of-his-smart-hous
>> > e-because-a-delivery-driver-reported-him-as-a-racist-after-mishearing-someth
>> > ing-from-the-doorbell--the-man-wasnt-even-at-home
>>
>> Worse than that, they can do it on the incredibly thin grounds that one
>> of their delivery drivers, who was no doubt hurrying and distracted,
>> THOUGHT he heard something despite wearing headphones at the time.
>
>My point is that even if there had been no mistake and the delivery guy
>*had* heard a racist comment, that's still nowhere near justification
>for a corporation to assume control over whether you can access your own
>home or not.

To be clear he wasn't locked out of his house. He was locked out of
his Amazon Echo account which meant he couldn't control many of the
devices he had in his home like his lights. That said it's entirely
unreasonable what Amazon did in this situation. It might different if
the guy had been home and physically attacked the driver but that
isn't what happened.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189915/Amazon-shuts-customers-smart-home-week-driver-claimed-heard-racist-slur.html

Now some reports say he got locked out of his like the one in the
original post and this one from IGN:
https://sea.ign.com/amazon-3/200588/news/amazon-locks-man-out-of-his-smart-home-after-baseless-racism-accusation
but I think that's just a misunderstanding as the guy seems amazingly
calm if he had been locked out of his house. As that would have been a
much bigger issue.

At least the guy says he is considering moving over to Raspberry Pi
for controlling the smart devices which is the right move if you are
going to have smart devices in your home. With a Raspberry Pi unit
controlling them it's entirely under your control. So no big company
can decide that you've crossed a line so they are going to punish you.

This reminds me of the dangers of Google. Many people have accounts
with Google and Youtube. If you were to break Youtube's TOS then your
account could be suspended. No real surprise there, but if your
Youtube account gets suspended then your access to Gmail and Google
Docs and any other Google services are also suspended, and Google
customer support is so much worse than Amazon as it is difficult to
even get a response from Google.

>> bet is that if he/she really heard something racist, it was in whatever
>> he/she heard over the headphones. Given that most delivery drivers are
>> young and probably inclined to listen to rap, it wouldn't be surprising
>> to hear something racist.)
>>
>> In any case, if I were this customer, I'd be removing all this Amazon
>> tech IMMEDIATELY, telling everyone I could reach about it and suing
>> Amazon for at least the costs of having to stay elsewhere for almost a
>> week.

As I said above I don't think the guy was locked out of his home, just
prevented from accessing a bunch of his smart devices. What I don't
know is how the devices behaved in that situation. Do they just
continue on with whatever they were programmed to do (say have the
lights turn off at 11PM ) or do they not control the devices at all
when the account is suspended. Does that leave them under your control
so you can turn the lights on and off manually or something else?

I never liked the idea of letting someone else have access to
controlling your home, car or even your phone and this sort of thing
just convinces me I had the right idea.

Oh, and there's the other thing we see more companies doing which is
selling you features they control remotely. So you have BMW selling
you an expensive car and then letting you purchase heated seats by the
month or the year. Don't pay the subscription cost and the seats stop
heating up. Sell the car to someone else and they have to pay BMW if
they want those heated seats. There are other features they are
treating the same way but I can't recall what they are. There are also
a couple of other companies doing the same thing with their vehicles
like Tesla. Want the extra performance? Then pay Tesla more $$. Wonder
if the performance upgrade transfers between owners or not.

In article <u6c8hj$h5u$9@dont-email.me>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
> > Trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> >> So you're cool with Oath Keeper Twat trying to keep discussios away
> >
> >What's a discussios, Hutt?
>
> Apparently, he was unable to produce a counterexample

Hutt has spent the last six months relentlessly being the spelling and
grammar police for this newsgroup. It's only appropriate he should have
to explain his own fuckups.

In article <bd3k8ilg5lj2eb4f6vrusfeh0koskk9oh9@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> Oh, and there's the other thing we see more companies doing which is
> selling you features they control remotely. So you have BMW selling
> you an expensive car and then letting you purchase heated seats by the
> month or the year. Don't pay the subscription cost and the seats stop
> heating up. Sell the car to someone else and they have to pay BMW if
> they want those heated seats. There are other features they are
> treating the same way but I can't recall what they are. There are also
> a couple of other companies doing the same thing with their vehicles
> like Tesla. Want the extra performance? Then pay Tesla more $$. Wonder
> if the performance upgrade transfers between owners or not.

I imagine there's probably a thriving black market growing around
"jailbreaking" cars the same way there was for iPhones.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:59:23 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <u6cp0h$3o2a7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-06-13 7:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >> > A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
> >> > because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
> >> > he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
> >> > Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
> >> > of his home.

> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189915/Amazon-shuts-customers-smart-home-week-driver-claimed-heard-racist-slur.html
>
>
> Now some reports say he got locked out of his like the one in the
> original post and this one from IGN:
> https://sea.ign.com/amazon-3/200588/news/amazon-locks-man-out-of-his-smart-home-after-baseless-racism-accusation

> This reminds me of the dangers of Google. Many people have accounts
> with Google and Youtube. If you were to break Youtube's TOS then your
> account could be suspended. No real surprise there, but if your
> Youtube account gets suspended then your access to Gmail and Google
> Docs and any other Google services are also suspended, and Google
> customer support is so much worse than Amazon as it is difficult to
> even get a response from Google.

Google worse case scenario, just sign up for a new email account, reset iot devices and start over.

Worse case with AMAZON, you are forever and always locked out of your devices. Why?

Because Amazon devices are associated with your address, name and credit card number used to make Amazon online purchases. Amazon devices can NOT be reset like pressing a button, on the Google devices. Amazon devices will appear stolen and can't be registered, so they won't work.

Until I can get around to setting up and exploring Home Assistant (1) (2) I am glad for this reason and the reasons listed in an earlier post, I went with Google's ecosystem of internet of things, smart devices.

(1)
https://www.home-assistant.io/

(2) I have at least 3 computers in boxes in the backroom. A fanless commercial signage quad core celeron may be the one I use for my IOT personal cloud server. I don't want to clutter the i5 Dell, it already has the file server and PLEX server running on it. But even an old laptop would work, because they are using Raspberry Pi's to run Home Asst, which have LOW specs.

The fanless unit I have is small, tough, quiet and runs Microsoft's Win10 IOT embedded that NEVER updates or resets for like the next 10 years. OS is used in hospitals, medical devices, ATM machines, point-of-sale terminals, digital signage solutions, and kiosks, places where an unscheduled update could cause casualties. THAT OS is on the Internet archive web site, last I looked.
https://www.advantech.com/en/resources/industry-focus/understand-windows-10-iot-and-windows-11-iot-in-5-minutes

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 22:19:33 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>> If that story is independently verified that's amazing and ought to
>> cost them PLENTY since clearly their system was not fail-safe and
>> obviously failed to protect against human error
>
>Except the only error here was apparently the delivery guy mishearing
>something. Presumably if he actually *had* heard the homeowner make a
>racist comment, then the system would have functioned as intended and
>locked the guy out of his own home. Because that's something companies
>in 2023 presume to have authority to do if you commit wrongthink or hate
>speech.

Agreed - and I'm arguing that (1) anybody signing away the right to
have a third party do that to you needs a head examination and (2) any
corporation that would prevent peoples' access to their own property
(as opposed to those of others) should be sued till to the last nickel
and (3) that governments should pass legislation to make contracts
with clauses that would allow that to be null and void.

Whatever happened to 'a man's home is his castle'? There are plenty of
people in our society whose views I abhor but would never think I had
the right to evict them from their own homes.

For ANY reason. If I'm commiting a crime - which 'wrongthink' is NOT -
then that's the job of the police not a private company. And that is
the ONLY way (other than for non-payment of rent) that a person can be
legally locked out of their own homes.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:37:59 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>That's the crazy and dangerous thing that is being discussed here. The
>only argument that Amazon has is that the driver misheard. Not that
>they were in the wrong for disabling all of the Amazon connected
>equipment. So this could and will happen to someone again in the
>future so that all of their Amazon enabled equipment would stop
>working or at least be severely disabled without being able to use the
>Amazon enabled portion of their features.
>
>What isn't clear to me is if the local features still worked. So if he
>had Nest thermostat did it still work or was it disabled because of
>the Amazon disconnection.

My whole point is that EVEN IF THE DRIVER HEARD CORRECTLY Amazon was
completely in the wrong in using their "security system" to prevent
someone accessing their own home - even once never mind for 6 days.

A major corporation has the right to assume their customers range
between angelic and pond scum - but even so that doesn't give them the
right to interfere with access to property that is not owned by
Amazon.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
>because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
>he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
>Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
>of his home.

I was going to comment, as predicted by Better Off Ted, but this is much
much worse.

>Here's what the man accused of racism wrote on Medium:

I hope he files a lawsuit.

>. . .

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:14:09 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>In any case, if I were this customer, I'd be removing all this Amazon
>tech IMMEDIATELY, telling everyone I could reach about it and suing
>Amazon for at least the costs of having to stay elsewhere for almost a
>week.
>
Not to mention the cost of removing the Amazon equipment and finding
alternate security devices.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:01:58 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:37:59 -0400, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>That's the crazy and dangerous thing that is being discussed here. The
>>only argument that Amazon has is that the driver misheard. Not that
>>they were in the wrong for disabling all of the Amazon connected
>>equipment. So this could and will happen to someone again in the
>>future so that all of their Amazon enabled equipment would stop
>>working or at least be severely disabled without being able to use the
>>Amazon enabled portion of their features.
>>
>>What isn't clear to me is if the local features still worked. So if he
>>had Nest thermostat did it still work or was it disabled because of
>>the Amazon disconnection.
>
>My whole point is that EVEN IF THE DRIVER HEARD CORRECTLY Amazon was
>completely in the wrong in using their "security system" to prevent
>someone accessing their own home - even once never mind for 6 days.
>
>A major corporation has the right to assume their customers range
>between angelic and pond scum - but even so that doesn't give them the
>right to interfere with access to property that is not owned by
>Amazon.

The problem is that ownership becomes a hazy thing when Amazon is
running the service that controls the device. So Amazon didn't do
anything to the devices as the guy still had them in his home. They
just turned off his service so he couldn't control them remotely.
Something that is certainly within their rights, even if the reason
behind this action was wrong.

It's the same with companies selling devices that depend upon remote
servers that are going to be turned off at some point. I can't recall
if it is Amazon or someone else but there is a company that has
devices for sale today that depend upon a remote server to work. A
remote server that the company has already said will be shut down
later this year. So people are buying a product thinking they will
potentially get years of service from it only to find out it is just
dead weight in a few months.

It's why I hate the idea of anything that depends upon remote
connections. Some thing like your cable modem have to have that remote
connection so there's no avoiding it, but things like Smart TVs I
don't care for.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:01:58 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:37:59 -0400, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:

>>>That's the crazy and dangerous thing that is being discussed here. The
>>>only argument that Amazon has is that the driver misheard. Not that
>>>they were in the wrong for disabling all of the Amazon connected
>>>equipment. So this could and will happen to someone again in the
>>>future so that all of their Amazon enabled equipment would stop
>>>working or at least be severely disabled without being able to use the
>>>Amazon enabled portion of their features.

>>>What isn't clear to me is if the local features still worked. So if he
>>>had Nest thermostat did it still work or was it disabled because of
>>>the Amazon disconnection.

>>My whole point is that EVEN IF THE DRIVER HEARD CORRECTLY Amazon was
>>completely in the wrong in using their "security system" to prevent
>>someone accessing their own home - even once never mind for 6 days.

>>A major corporation has the right to assume their customers range
>>between angelic and pond scum - but even so that doesn't give them the
>>right to interfere with access to property that is not owned by
>>Amazon.

>The problem is that ownership becomes a hazy thing when Amazon is
>running the service that controls the device. So Amazon didn't do
>anything to the devices as the guy still had them in his home. They
>just turned off his service so he couldn't control them remotely.
>Something that is certainly within their rights, even if the reason
>behind this action was wrong.

No, you're going to have to explain your position how Amazon was within
its rights. Effectively they took possession of the man's home by
deception or some other illegal means. It was clearly capricious.

>It's the same with companies selling devices that depend upon remote
>servers that are going to be turned off at some point. I can't recall
>if it is Amazon or someone else but there is a company that has
>devices for sale today that depend upon a remote server to work. A
>remote server that the company has already said will be shut down
>later this year. So people are buying a product thinking they will
>potentially get years of service from it only to find out it is just
>dead weight in a few months.

Not the same at all, given that the buyers have notice of when the
service shall end.

>. . .

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:20:27 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:01:58 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:37:59 -0400, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:
>
>>>>That's the crazy and dangerous thing that is being discussed here. The
>>>>only argument that Amazon has is that the driver misheard. Not that
>>>>they were in the wrong for disabling all of the Amazon connected
>>>>equipment. So this could and will happen to someone again in the
>>>>future so that all of their Amazon enabled equipment would stop
>>>>working or at least be severely disabled without being able to use the
>>>>Amazon enabled portion of their features.
>
>>>>What isn't clear to me is if the local features still worked. So if he
>>>>had Nest thermostat did it still work or was it disabled because of
>>>>the Amazon disconnection.
>
>>>My whole point is that EVEN IF THE DRIVER HEARD CORRECTLY Amazon was
>>>completely in the wrong in using their "security system" to prevent
>>>someone accessing their own home - even once never mind for 6 days.
>
>>>A major corporation has the right to assume their customers range
>>>between angelic and pond scum - but even so that doesn't give them the
>>>right to interfere with access to property that is not owned by
>>>Amazon.
>
>>The problem is that ownership becomes a hazy thing when Amazon is
>>running the service that controls the device. So Amazon didn't do
>>anything to the devices as the guy still had them in his home. They
>>just turned off his service so he couldn't control them remotely.
>>Something that is certainly within their rights, even if the reason
>>behind this action was wrong.
>
>No, you're going to have to explain your position how Amazon was within
>its rights. Effectively they took possession of the man's home by
>deception or some other illegal means. It was clearly capricious.

Adam, firstly, I don't believe they took control of his home. While
some reports put it that way, others say it was only various smart
devices like light controls and his own comments suggest that he still
had full access to his home. While I disagree with what Amazon did
there's no way you can argue that Amazon doesn't have the right to
discontinue service. That's clearly something they are allowed to do.

What they did that was wrong was turning the service off on the basis
of what a driver thought he heard. There's no way to justify that and
I'm certainly not trying to do so. I'm just stating that Amazon does
have the right to discontinue service, but they shouldn't have in this
case. Especially since they didn't even attempt to see if what the
driver reported happened as he said by at least contacting the
customer before turning off the service. That's the bare minimum they
should have done but they took the easy way out of hearing a complaint
from a driver and cutting off service to the customer. That's the sort
of behavior that will drive away future customers.

>>It's the same with companies selling devices that depend upon remote
>>servers that are going to be turned off at some point. I can't recall
>>if it is Amazon or someone else but there is a company that has
>>devices for sale today that depend upon a remote server to work. A
>>remote server that the company has already said will be shut down
>>later this year. So people are buying a product thinking they will
>>potentially get years of service from it only to find out it is just
>>dead weight in a few months.
>
>Not the same at all, given that the buyers have notice of when the
>service shall end.

No, they do not. I know about it because it's being discussed on the
web but you would have to go to the companies web site to find that
information where it is hidden away and not prominently displayed on
the product page. If you only go to the web sites selling the product
you would never know that it about to be EOLed because that
information is not to be found anywhere except hidden away on the
company web site.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:02:22 PM UTC-4, shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:01:58 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:37:59 -0400, shawn
> ><nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> It's the same with companies selling devices that depend upon remote
> servers that are going to be turned off at some point. I can't recall

the cloud is just someone else's computer

> if it is Amazon or someone else but there is a company that has
> devices for sale today that depend upon a remote server to work. A
> remote server that the company has already said will be shut down
> later this year. So people are buying a product thinking they will
> potentially get years of service from it only to find out it is just
> dead weight in a few months.

Several years ago HP made a beautiful 10.1-in tablet. It was very popular and sold like hotcakes. About 2 months AFTER the tablet went to market, HP discontinued it. No Seriously. Why?

Because the OS (WebOS) was no longer being developed by HP and Android was taking over.

Now this would not have been a problem immediately, but when people started donating the tablets to charities, where I eventually began buying them for resale, the tablets could NOT be reset to a clean slate. Why?

Because before a reset, the tablet had to connect to the HP cloud server, which no longer existed, HP took it down.

Seriously, I'm not exaggerating. HP had for most people made a nearly new, beautiful 10.1-in tablet e-waste.

But there was a work around, and because of the server issue, I made some serious cash on these things. How?

I bought TONS of them for PENNIES and flashed the memory with an Android ROM. I listed them on Craigslist for anywhere from $35 - $50 each, which was nearly all profit. Once again the tablets began flying off the shelf, MY SHELF, like hotcakes,. At one point I was selling 4 or more a day, with some buyers buying more than one.

Moral of the story, turn lemons into lemonade, and make money from a shitty situation created by piss-poor management team at HP.

And remember: "the cloud is just someone else's computer"

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:59:23 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <u6cp0h$3o2a7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-06-13 7:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
>>>> because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
>>>> he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
>>>> Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
>>>> of his home.
>>>>
>>>> Here's what the man accused of racism wrote on Medium:
>>>>
>>>> "When I connected with the executive, they asked if I knew why my account
>>>> had been locked. When I answered I was unsure, their tone turned somewhat
>>>> accusatory. I was told that the driver who had delivered my package
>>>> reported receiving racist remarks from my Ring doorbell."
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that a delivery driver (with headphones on) imagined he heard
>>>> something racist from the doorbell, but the owner of the house wasn't even
>>>> home when the event happened. He also had cameras all over the property
>>>> that showed that he was totally innocent.
>>>>
>>>> "I reviewed the footage and confirmed that no such comments had been made.
>>>> Instead, the Eufy doorbell had issued an automated response: 'Excuse me,
>>>> can I help you? M' The driver, who was walking away and wearing headphones,
>>>> must have misinterpreted the message. Nevertheless, by the following day,
>>>> my Amazon account was locked, and all my Echo devices were logged out,
>>>> leaving me no ability to unlock my doors and access my home."
>>>>
>>>> How insane is this? They locked the man out of his own home from Thursday,
>>>> May 25, to Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
>>>>
>>>> "In the end, my account was unlocked on Wednesday, with no follow-up email
>>>> to inform me of the resolution."
>>>>
>>>> It's 2023 y'all. Corporations can now lock you out of your home and
>>>> completely shut down your life if they think you're racist.
>>>>
>>>> https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-just-locked-a-man-out-of-his-smart-hous
>>>> e-because-a-delivery-driver-reported-him-as-a-racist-after-mishearing-someth
>>>> ing-from-the-doorbell--the-man-wasnt-even-at-home
>>>
>>> Worse than that, they can do it on the incredibly thin grounds that one
>>> of their delivery drivers, who was no doubt hurrying and distracted,
>>> THOUGHT he heard something despite wearing headphones at the time.
>>
>> My point is that even if there had been no mistake and the delivery guy
>> *had* heard a racist comment, that's still nowhere near justification
>> for a corporation to assume control over whether you can access your own
>> home or not.
>
> To be clear he wasn't locked out of his house. He was locked out of
> his Amazon Echo account which meant he couldn't control many of the
> devices he had in his home like his lights. That said it's entirely
> unreasonable what Amazon did in this situation. It might different if
> the guy had been home and physically attacked the driver but that
> isn't what happened.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189915/Amazon-shuts-customers-smart-home-week-driver-claimed-heard-racist-slur.html
>
>
> Now some reports say he got locked out of his like the one in the
> original post and this one from IGN:
> https://sea.ign.com/amazon-3/200588/news/amazon-locks-man-out-of-his-smart-home-after-baseless-racism-accusation
> but I think that's just a misunderstanding as the guy seems amazingly
> calm if he had been locked out of his house. As that would have been a
> much bigger issue.
>
> At least the guy says he is considering moving over to Raspberry Pi
> for controlling the smart devices which is the right move if you are
> going to have smart devices in your home. With a Raspberry Pi unit
> controlling them it's entirely under your control. So no big company
> can decide that you've crossed a line so they are going to punish you.
>
> This reminds me of the dangers of Google. Many people have accounts
> with Google and Youtube. If you were to break Youtube's TOS then your
> account could be suspended. No real surprise there, but if your
> Youtube account gets suspended then your access to Gmail and Google
> Docs and any other Google services are also suspended, and Google
> customer support is so much worse than Amazon as it is difficult to
> even get a response from Google.

Google somehow figured out that I had both a company and a personal YouTube
account (so what?) And sent me a threatening email that unless I gave them
my cell phone number they would kill my YouTube account. I ignored them,
and they did.

I have no idea why they cared about any of that much less sanctioned me for
it.

>
>>> bet is that if he/she really heard something racist, it was in whatever
>>> he/she heard over the headphones. Given that most delivery drivers are
>>> young and probably inclined to listen to rap, it wouldn't be surprising
>>> to hear something racist.)
>>>
>>> In any case, if I were this customer, I'd be removing all this Amazon
>>> tech IMMEDIATELY, telling everyone I could reach about it and suing
>>> Amazon for at least the costs of having to stay elsewhere for almost a
>>> week.
>
> As I said above I don't think the guy was locked out of his home, just
> prevented from accessing a bunch of his smart devices. What I don't
> know is how the devices behaved in that situation. Do they just
> continue on with whatever they were programmed to do (say have the
> lights turn off at 11PM ) or do they not control the devices at all
> when the account is suspended. Does that leave them under your control
> so you can turn the lights on and off manually or something else?
>
> I never liked the idea of letting someone else have access to
> controlling your home, car or even your phone and this sort of thing
> just convinces me I had the right idea.
>
> Oh, and there's the other thing we see more companies doing which is
> selling you features they control remotely. So you have BMW selling
> you an expensive car and then letting you purchase heated seats by the
> month or the year. Don't pay the subscription cost and the seats stop
> heating up. Sell the car to someone else and they have to pay BMW if
> they want those heated seats. There are other features they are
> treating the same way but I can't recall what they are. There are also
> a couple of other companies doing the same thing with their vehicles
> like Tesla. Want the extra performance? Then pay Tesla more $$. Wonder
> if the performance upgrade transfers between owners or not.
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2023-06-14 2:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <u6cp0h$3o2a7$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-06-13 7:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
>>> because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
>>> he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
>>> Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
>>> of his home.
>>>
>>> Here's what the man accused of racism wrote on Medium:
>>>
>>> "When I connected with the executive, they asked if I knew why my account
>>> had been locked. When I answered I was unsure, their tone turned somewhat
>>> accusatory. I was told that the driver who had delivered my package
>>> reported receiving racist remarks from my Ring doorbell."
>>>
>>> It turns out that a delivery driver (with headphones on) imagined he heard
>>> something racist from the doorbell, but the owner of the house wasn't even
>>> home when the event happened. He also had cameras all over the property
>>> that showed that he was totally innocent.
>>>
>>> "I reviewed the footage and confirmed that no such comments had been made.
>>> Instead, the Eufy doorbell had issued an automated response: 'Excuse me,
>>> can I help you? M' The driver, who was walking away and wearing headphones,
>>> must have misinterpreted the message. Nevertheless, by the following day,
>>> my Amazon account was locked, and all my Echo devices were logged out,
>>> leaving me no ability to unlock my doors and access my home."
>>>
>>> How insane is this? They locked the man out of his own home from Thursday,
>>> May 25, to Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
>>>
>>> "In the end, my account was unlocked on Wednesday, with no follow-up email
>>> to inform me of the resolution."
>>>
>>> It's 2023 y'all. Corporations can now lock you out of your home and
>>> completely shut down your life if they think you're racist.
>>>
>>> https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-just-locked-a-man-out-of-his-smart-hous
>>> e-because-a-delivery-driver-reported-him-as-a-racist-after-mishearing-someth
>>> ing-from-the-doorbell--the-man-wasnt-even-at-home
>>
>> Worse than that, they can do it on the incredibly thin grounds that one
>> of their delivery drivers, who was no doubt hurrying and distracted,
>> THOUGHT he heard something despite wearing headphones at the time.
>
> My point is that even if there had been no mistake and the delivery guy
> *had* heard a racist comment, that's still nowhere near justification
> for a corporation to assume control over whether you can access your own
> home or not.
>
Absolutely! I didn't mean to suggest it would have been okay to lock him
out of his house if he had said something racist, I just meant that they
used the feeblest of possible arguments to do so. Obviously, it's his
house and no can deprive him of it without due process. (If he had
failed to keep up with the mortgage, the mortgate holder could evict
him; if he had used the house is some illegal way, like to make drugs,
the authorities might be able to seize it; etc.) But simply saying
something unsavoury could never be reasonable grounds in a sane society.

>> bet is that if he/she really heard something racist, it was in whatever
>> he/she heard over the headphones. Given that most delivery drivers are
>> young and probably inclined to listen to rap, it wouldn't be surprising
>> to hear something racist.)
>>
>> In any case, if I were this customer, I'd be removing all this Amazon
>> tech IMMEDIATELY, telling everyone I could reach about it and suing
>> Amazon for at least the costs of having to stay elsewhere for almost a
>> week.

--
Rhino

In article
<153772768.708466142.429770.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Google somehow figured out that I had both a company and a personal YouTube
> account (so what?) And sent me a threatening email that unless I gave them
> my cell phone number they would kill my YouTube account. I ignored them,
> and they did.
>
> I have no idea why they cared about any of that much less sanctioned me for
> it.

They want to sell your number to third parties. When I'm asked for my
cell number, I always give them the number they assigned me when I got
a phone installed in my first apartment in 1975. (Only landlines then,
kids!)

A Friend wrote:
>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>Google somehow figured out that I had both a company and a personal YouTube
>>account (so what?) And sent me a threatening email that unless I gave them
>>my cell phone number they would kill my YouTube account. I ignored them,
>>and they did.

>>I have no idea why they cared about any of that much less sanctioned me for
>>it.

>They want to sell your number to third parties. When I'm asked for my
>cell number, I always give them the number they assigned me when I got
>a phone installed in my first apartment in 1975. (Only landlines then,
>kids!)

I provide the phone number of the business's corporate headquarters.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article
> <153772768.708466142.429770.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Google somehow figured out that I had both a company and a personal YouTube
>> account (so what?) And sent me a threatening email that unless I gave them
>> my cell phone number they would kill my YouTube account. I ignored them,
>> and they did.
>>
>> I have no idea why they cared about any of that much less sanctioned me for
>> it.
>
>
> They want to sell your number to third parties. When I'm asked for my
> cell number, I always give them the number they assigned me when I got
> a phone installed in my first apartment in 1975. (Only landlines then,
> kids!)
>

Oh, that’s nice. My college apartment had a great easy to remember number.
I wonder who that belongs to now?…

A girl I knew in college, the poor things phone number was (dorm prefix)
1234. Yeah, every Saturday night the drunk frat boys started calling.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> A Friend wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Google somehow figured out that I had both a company and a personal YouTube
>>> account (so what?) And sent me a threatening email that unless I gave them
>>> my cell phone number they would kill my YouTube account. I ignored them,
>>> and they did.
>
>>> I have no idea why they cared about any of that much less sanctioned me for
>>> it.
>
>> They want to sell your number to third parties. When I'm asked for my
>> cell number, I always give them the number they assigned me when I got
>> a phone installed in my first apartment in 1975. (Only landlines then,
>> kids!)
>
> I provide the phone number of the business's corporate headquarters.
>

Nice

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 18:40:14 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>Adam, firstly, I don't believe they took control of his home. While
>some reports put it that way, others say it was only various smart
>devices like light controls and his own comments suggest that he still
>had full access to his home. While I disagree with what Amazon did
>there's no way you can argue that Amazon doesn't have the right to
>discontinue service. That's clearly something they are allowed to do.

They do if they do so with proper notice. Not if they give him one
helluva surprise. If a customer faithfully pays their account they do
have the right to notice if the vendor chooses to close their business
and vendors DO have the obligation to not discriminate to whom such
service will be offered.

(In the case of the baker who didn't want to make a gay wedding cake,
I'd accept that since there are plenty of alternative bakers who
would. There are not plenty of alternative Amazons but frankly if
Amazon chose to shut down their service based on a customer's beliefs
they had BETTER have spelled out their terms in advance clearly and
definitely and not take people by surprise)

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:30:37 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article
><153772768.708466142.429770.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Google somehow figured out that I had both a company and a personal YouTube
>> account (so what?) And sent me a threatening email that unless I gave them
>> my cell phone number they would kill my YouTube account. I ignored them,
>> and they did.
>>
>> I have no idea why they cared about any of that much less sanctioned me for
>> it.
>
>
>They want to sell your number to third parties. When I'm asked for my
>cell number, I always give them the number they assigned me when I got
>a phone installed in my first apartment in 1975. (Only landlines then,
>kids!)

I would have told them (truthfully) that I didn't have a cell phone
and if they persisted give them my land line. And if they blew my ears
off with a non-voice message I'd tell them to change the number to
DEV_NULL (aka known in programming circles as "that great bit bucket
in the sky")

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:30:37 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <153772768.708466142.429770.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Google somehow figured out that I had both a company and a personal YouTube
>>> account (so what?) And sent me a threatening email that unless I gave them
>>> my cell phone number they would kill my YouTube account. I ignored them,
>>> and they did.
>>>
>>> I have no idea why they cared about any of that much less sanctioned me for
>>> it.
>>
>>
>> They want to sell your number to third parties. When I'm asked for my
>> cell number, I always give them the number they assigned me when I got
>> a phone installed in my first apartment in 1975. (Only landlines then,
>> kids!)
>
> I would have told them (truthfully) that I didn't have a cell phone
> and if they persisted give them my land line. And if they blew my ears
> off with a non-voice message I'd tell them to change the number to
> DEV_NULL (aka known in programming circles as "that great bit bucket
> in the sky")
>

I’ve never had a live person, demand my cell number out of the clear blue
sky. These are just message notifications that pop up.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 08:23:34 -0700 (PDT), chromebook test
<chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 7:31:40?PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
>
>
>> It's 2023 y'all. Corporations can now lock you out of your home and
>> completely shut down your life if they think you're racist.
>>
>> https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-just-locked-a-man-out-of-his-smart-house-because-a-delivery-driver-reported-him-as-a-racist-after-mishearing-something-from-the-doorbell--the-man-wasnt-even-at-home
>
>
>
>
>random notes:
>
>I have (at least) a dozen smart home devices. Smart switches, smart bulbs, smart plugs, smart LED strip lights, smart cameras, smart TVs, and recess smart can lights. I chose GOOGLE's system over the others (Apple, Amazon, Zigbee, etc, etc) for several reasons
>
>1) Compatibility. Most Google devices will work with Amazon Echo, as will a few with Apple Siri. Amazon devices until recently, would not work with Google. Google's system is more open, more compatible, and has many 3rd party manufacturers. Apple's system is finicky and even 3rd party wifi routers can cause problems.
>
>2) Price: An Apple smart plug can cost $50. A comparable Google plug is $7. Amazon is $24.
>
>3) Availability: In conjunction with price, and because I buy at auction, I have limited most of my smart device purchases to what I can find at auction. Google seems to top the list where I shop. I have bought Apple and Amazon devices to examine quality or test, but wound up giving all those smart devices away to neighbors and friends. Google's ecosystem is my preference.
>
>4) I don't worry about being locked out of my house because Amazon locked me out of my account.
>

You should be. This person lost access on an accusation that was
impossible since no one was home. Amazon policies apparently punish
you based on only an accusation.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:20:23 -0700 (PDT), chromebook test
<chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:14:17?PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2023-06-13 7:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
>> > because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
>> > he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
>> > Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
>> > of his home.
>> >
>> > Here's what the man accused of racism wrote on Medium:
>> >
>> > "When I connected with the executive, they asked if I knew why my account
>> > had been locked. When I answered I was unsure, their tone turned somewhat
>> > accusatory. I was told that the driver who had delivered my package
>> > reported receiving racist remarks from my Ring doorbell."
>> >
>> > It turns out that a delivery driver (with headphones on) imagined he heard
>> > something racist from the doorbell, but the owner of the house wasn't even
>> > home when the event happened. He also had cameras all over the property
>> > that showed that he was totally innocent.
>> >
>> > "I reviewed the footage and confirmed that no such comments had been made.
>> > Instead, the Eufy doorbell had issued an automated response: 'Excuse me,
>> > can I help you? M' The driver, who was walking away and wearing headphones,
>> > must have misinterpreted the message. Nevertheless, by the following day,
>> > my Amazon account was locked, and all my Echo devices were logged out,
>> > leaving me no ability to unlock my doors and access my home."
>> >
>> > How insane is this? They locked the man out of his own home from Thursday,
>> > May 25, to Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
>> >
>> > "In the end, my account was unlocked on Wednesday, with no follow-up email
>> > to inform me of the resolution."
>> >
>> > It's 2023 y'all. Corporations can now lock you out of your home and
>> > completely shut down your life if they think you're racist.
>> >
>> > https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-just-locked-a-man-out-of-his-smart-house-because-a-delivery-driver-reported-him-as-a-racist-after-mishearing-something-from-the-doorbell--the-man-wasnt-even-at-home
>> Worse than that, they can do it on the incredibly thin grounds that one
>> of their delivery drivers, who was no doubt hurrying and distracted,
>> THOUGHT he heard something despite wearing headphones at the time. (My
>> bet is that if he/she really heard something racist, it was in whatever
>> he/she heard over the headphones. Given that most delivery drivers are
>> young and probably inclined to listen to rap, it wouldn't be surprising
>> to hear something racist.)
>>
>> In any case, if I were this customer, I'd be removing all this Amazon
>> tech IMMEDIATELY, telling everyone I could reach about it and suing
>> Amazon for at least the costs of having to stay elsewhere for almost a
>> week.
>>
>> --
>> Rhino
>
>
>
>The story in question involved a black Amazon delivery guy, to a black Amazon customer's house in a predominantly black neighborhood. I am betting there is more to this story that will eventually come out.
>

NO ONE WAS HOME AT THE TIME. What "more" could there be to this
story.

>
>
>
>------------
>
>keep a song in your heart !
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJAfLE39ZZ8
>

NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:20:23 -0700 (PDT), chromebook test
> <chromiumtest56@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:14:17?PM UTC-4, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-13 7:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> A man found himself locked out of his smart house powered by Amazon
>>>> because, while he wasn't home, an Amazon delivery driver mistakenly thought
>>>> he heard a racist remark come from the man's doorbell, reported it to
>>>> Amazon, and Amazon immediately locked down the account, locking the man out
>>>> of his home.
>>>>
>>>> Here's what the man accused of racism wrote on Medium:
>>>>
>>>> "When I connected with the executive, they asked if I knew why my account
>>>> had been locked. When I answered I was unsure, their tone turned somewhat
>>>> accusatory. I was told that the driver who had delivered my package
>>>> reported receiving racist remarks from my Ring doorbell."
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that a delivery driver (with headphones on) imagined he heard
>>>> something racist from the doorbell, but the owner of the house wasn't even
>>>> home when the event happened. He also had cameras all over the property
>>>> that showed that he was totally innocent.
>>>>
>>>> "I reviewed the footage and confirmed that no such comments had been made.
>>>> Instead, the Eufy doorbell had issued an automated response: 'Excuse me,
>>>> can I help you? M' The driver, who was walking away and wearing headphones,
>>>> must have misinterpreted the message. Nevertheless, by the following day,
>>>> my Amazon account was locked, and all my Echo devices were logged out,
>>>> leaving me no ability to unlock my doors and access my home."
>>>>
>>>> How insane is this? They locked the man out of his own home from Thursday,
>>>> May 25, to Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
>>>>
>>>> "In the end, my account was unlocked on Wednesday, with no follow-up email
>>>> to inform me of the resolution."
>>>>
>>>> It's 2023 y'all. Corporations can now lock you out of your home and
>>>> completely shut down your life if they think you're racist.
>>>>
>>>> https://notthebee.com/article/amazon-just-locked-a-man-out-of-his-smart-house-because-a-delivery-driver-reported-him-as-a-racist-after-mishearing-something-from-the-doorbell--the-man-wasnt-even-at-home
>>> Worse than that, they can do it on the incredibly thin grounds that one
>>> of their delivery drivers, who was no doubt hurrying and distracted,
>>> THOUGHT he heard something despite wearing headphones at the time. (My
>>> bet is that if he/she really heard something racist, it was in whatever
>>> he/she heard over the headphones. Given that most delivery drivers are
>>> young and probably inclined to listen to rap, it wouldn't be surprising
>>> to hear something racist.)
>>>
>>> In any case, if I were this customer, I'd be removing all this Amazon
>>> tech IMMEDIATELY, telling everyone I could reach about it and suing
>>> Amazon for at least the costs of having to stay elsewhere for almost a
>>> week.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rhino
>>
>>
>>
>> The story in question involved a black Amazon delivery guy, to a black
>> Amazon customer's house in a predominantly black neighborhood. I am
>> betting there is more to this story that will eventually come out.
>>
>
> NO ONE WAS HOME AT THE TIME. What "more" could there be to this
> story.

Don’t make me defend Amazon here, but doesn’t the ring doorbell let you see
who’s at the door and speak to them remotely, like from your iPhone?

>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> keep a song in your heart !
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJAfLE39ZZ8
>>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.