60 ms·

I gave Amazon a key to my house and regretted it

• mikeash 9y ago
  > [Amazon] says that it will “correct the problem” if your property gets damaged. (In the fine print, you also agree to arbitration, rather than a lawsuit, if something goes really wrong.) This is such crap. If they really were committed to making things right in the event of a problem, they wouldn't have to fear being sued. You want me to believe that you'll protect my most valuable asset after I give you free access to it, but you'll make me trust your good intentions and the judgment of an arbitrator you probably picked? Seems to me that the right to sue should be considered fundamental, and binding arbitration should be made illegal.
  • drawkbox 9y ago
    > binding arbitration should be made illegal Binding arbitration and non-competes, are both disgusting anti-business, anti-American, anti-worker, anti-innovation, anti-rights that need to be killed. These two horrible tactics have crept in since 2000 into nearly everything. Signing away your right to compete and your right to use the legal system should both be illegal and have no place in America. How did we let this happen? For non-competes, NDAs should suffice. Arbitration should be a step towards legal rather than supplanting it. Many times arbitration is better for both parties in terms of cost/time but when it isn't people shouldn't be signing away the right into forced arbitration to go further.
    • gthtjtkt 9y ago
      Couldn't agree more. I called State Farm last month just to get a quote on a potential car purchase. Instead, I ended up canceling my current policy on the spot because the agent tried to push Limited Tort as if it was just an easy way to save money. It made me so furious because most people don't understand what they're giving up, and they won't understand until they get into an accident and learn they signed away their rights years ago. The way agents sell Limited Tort gives you a completely inaccurate impression of the potential consequences. That sort of thing should absolutely be criminal.
      • r00fus 9y ago
        Can you explain what Limited Tort meant in this case?
        • gthtjtkt 9y ago
          In car insurance it means you give up your right to sue for pain and suffering unless you suffer serious injuries. The PA definition of a serious injury is "a personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement." So even if you're injured badly enough to need a year of physical therapy for full recovery, you would likely get no money for your pain and suffering under Limited Tort. Without Limited Tort you'd probably get anywhere from $30,000 - $100,000 for that amount of pain/suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.
          • erjjones 9y ago
            Out of curiosity, which insurance did you end up going with?
          • michaelmrose 9y ago
            Do you think the additional money actually serves to offset in any way shape or form the persons suffering? If so what is the conversion factor between pain and money? Do you think quantifying pain and suffering has a positive value even if its very hard to come up with a meaningful way to define suffering in terms of dollars?
            • mgkimsal 9y ago
              > "actually serves to offset in any way shape or form the persons suffering" If you're injured to the point where it impacts your ability to work, or you need extra care from someone... of course it offsets it.
              • michaelmrose 9y ago
                Paying for care has nothing to do with pain and suffering. I wasn't asking the pointless question you imagine I was asking an actual relevant nonobvious question.
    • phkahler 9y ago
      >> For non-competes, NDAs should suffice. With all that complaining about signing away your right to sue and work, why do you think it's OK to sign away your right to speak? Serious question.
      • disillusioned 9y ago
        Because a company still needs some level of protection against having their trade secrets spread to their direct competitors by way of a defecting employee.
        • phkahler 9y ago
          So you think a companies trade secrets are more important than a person's first amendment rights? I'm playing devil's advocate here BTW. I think trade secrets might be over rated.
          • GrinningFool 9y ago
            "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...]" This is not related to 1st amendment; this is no law being passed by congress or any government body. Nothing prevents a person from speaking after an NDA is signed - they won't get tossed in jail, because no law was broken. However, after doing so, they will be responsible for any civil penalties they agreed to when they signed the contract.
            • phkahler 9y ago
              I only brought in the first amendment to highlight the importance of the right to free speech. Contracts are important but perhaps some things should not be allowed in them. Many contracts are unfair, but people enter into them anyway for various reasons.
        • phkahler 9y ago
          People have been trying to charge rent on ideas for just about forever. We have patents and copyrights for that purpose. Not that I'm a fan of where that have gone (the length of copyright and even 20 years on patents).
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • Latty 9y ago
      Arbitration, just like plea deals, are an obviously terrible idea that is legal almost entirely because it reduces the cost of having trials. Less trials is cheaper, which everyone running things likes. Of course, that's trading justice for money, which most people would agree is a terrible idea. Of course, that isn't reflected in the actual state of the law.
      • Hermel 9y ago
        Arbitration can make sense in an international setup with contracts between large companies. For example, if an American company does business with a Russian company, they might agree to do arbitration in the UK in case of a dispute. However, what Amazon does here is just wrong.
      • dd36 9y ago
        Forced consumer arbitration has been widely adopted solely because it is used to preclude class actions. Some state courts send matters to public arbitration, which is decidedly different. There are parts of forced consumer arbitraiton that companies do not like, but there's too much upsdie to precluding class actions. Things companies don't like include: the high up front cost and the lack of appeals. There's nothing legally preventing arbitrators from being vehemently pro-consumer. The incentives prevent it but, legally, an arbitrator could award a crazy amount of money to a consumer on a tenuous basis and there's little that could be done. It's interesting that no such examples exist, however.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
        • Latty 9y ago
          Nothing preventing them? How many companies will hire the arbitrator that is pro-consumer? There are obvious incentives for the arbitrators to favour the people paying them - individuals are not going to be doing a lot of business with them, companies are.
          • megy 9y ago
    • meddlepal 9y ago
      You're using the legal system... by negotiating away your right to sue. Don't sign the agreement if you don't like it.
      • hobs 9y ago
        That's fine until its inculcated into every commercial agreement going forward, and you have no legal power to challenge the entire system.
        • meddlepal 9y ago
          The answer seems pretty obvious... live a simpler life that doesn't depend on these services.
          • pmiller2 9y ago
            That's entirely workable... if you want to not have a job, or a bank account, or a credit card.
          • landryraccoon 9y ago
            Exiling yourself from society shouldn't be a requirement of wanting equal access to the justice system.
          • michaelmrose 9y ago
            There is zero reason not to include such a contract in every point of contact between you and society if you let people run with this one eventually the bottom of your receipt for a pound of grapes will contain such language and they'll call it a contract of adhesion. If mandatory binding arbitration included as part of your standard interaction with businesses is a net negative for 99% of people and a positive for business owners and large stock holders there is no particular reason why the 99% can't vote not to allow the owners to do that.
          • jfaat 9y ago
            A few months ago my car got covered in white paint from the garage of the apartment I live in. I had it detailed, which they agreed to pay for right away. They credited my account for the cost of the detail, then added it back as a rent charge when I refused to sign away my right to sue over the incident (well, the contract said basically they weren’t liable for anything that happened at all around that time on the premises. also the detailing didn’t remove the paint). They required me to pay back the money in order to make my rent payment the next month, or i would have been charged 10% of the rent + detailing charge as a fee. So yeah, avoid services like renting an apartment and you’ll be all set. Good luck!
    • goldenkey 9y ago
      I had good experience arbitrating with AT&T over a missing credit for an old phone I sent in when upgrading. They didnt know where the phone was even though tracking showed they received it, and they werent giving me a credit. I tried to escalate and speak to more and more agents but ultimately I sent a letter to their legal department with a Request For Arbitration form. A paralegal from their legal department contacted me and offered me a good sum of money shortly after. Really was a smooth process..
      • conistonwater 9y ago
        But you didn't reach arbitration? Somebody from the legal department thought the best way to avoid legal risk was to give you money, which is how they avoided the possibly more risky legal process.
        • goldenkey 9y ago
          I filled out the request for arbitration. Ive never arbitrated before so I assumed that was the process. But are you saying they settled instead of arbitrating? What is the difference?
    • otakucode 9y ago
      The thing with non-competes is that most businesses realize that their employees could run circles around them and out-compete them without even trying if they were brave enough to try. So they fear that. I mean, no overhead of a radically expensive office building plus its utilities and maintenance, those multiple layers of ineffective management, the executive cherry on top charging an ultra premium to make your company look good? Cut that stuff out and you barely need to charge anything to continue making a perfectly opulent living for a typical technology worker. And it's not like the office or any of those things actually add anything of value, they're all just maintained mostly through sheer force of will and tradition - things proven to fail at any moment. So if you sign something that severely penalizes going out on your own and competing against your employer, they're going to jump on that and treat it like a lifeline because it very much is exactly that.
    • gnopgnip 9y ago
      The alternative of going to trial more often has its own downsides. Similar parallels to plea bargaining. If the cost of a plea bargain or arbitration is $500, and the cost of a trial is $5000, with trials only there are many injustices that would never be pursued.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • djsumdog 9y ago
      I walked away from a job offer recently. It was the first company that refused to remove their non-compete clause. They're illegal in California. In Illinois, they're illegal if you made less than $13/hr. They should be made illegal everywhere. I know one software developer personally who has been screwed over by a non-compete. I know others who simply ignore them, which is dangerous since different states have rules differently on their enforceability.
      • azernik 9y ago
        If you don't mind my asking, what state was this in? And did you get the impression that it's treated as a norm locally?
        • jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
          I can say I looked up the ruling history in Oregon and the longest one that I found held was ~6months. Generally courts in OR state are narrow towards non competes. So that's at least some evidence it varies by state.
        • djsumdog 9y ago
          This was in Illinois. Chicago has a vastly different hiring environment than any other place I've lived in. The interviews are long, there are a ton of behaviour questions (one interview had a solid hour dedicated to behaviour questions; and they wanted really detailed specifics). It's a far departure from other markets I've worked in. I've personally never even asked behaviour questions during an interview, and really I think you can get a good judge of behaviour just by watching the candidate answer technical questions. I'm not sure if non-competes are the norm. I have a feeling they might be as they recently passed laws to ban them for low income earners. I've only had one job offer, and they refused to remove it. I have no problem signing NDAs, IP wavers, patent wavers, etc. But I refuse to sign anything that restricts my right to work after a company stops paying me. If it turns out all of them do the same thing, I might have to head back to the west coast.
          • infinite8s 9y ago
    • GrinningFool 9y ago
      I recently bought furniture. There was small print that said I was agreeing to the terms and conditions on the back. Historically you're used to seeing warranty and financing (if any - none in this case) information. When I flipped it over, it turned out it was a binding arbitration agreement. For a furniture purchase.
    • wpietri 9y ago
      > Binding arbitration and non-competes, are both disgusting anti-business, anti-American, anti-worker, anti-innovation, anti-rights that need to be killed. Agreed. Here's how I look at it: If a company really screws you over, you can sue. It's a lot of time and money, but it's worth it for a big problem. But what if the problem is small? If I get screwed out of $5 by a dodgy company, I won't bother to sue. But if they've done the same to a lot of people, a class action lawsuit makes it worth some lawyer's time to go after them. Arbitration clauses destroy that. Without class action, we need much more vigorous government intervention. Failing that, consumers lose the trust in the marketplace, harming commerce and making everybody poorer. And we'd likely see more proactive regulation as well, reducing innovation.
    • mehrdada 9y ago
      I'm proud to have turned down a economically-maximizing offer with a margin on principle of not signing non-competes. I understand that I was lucky to have the luxury to be able to say no and not everyone is able to do so on a different circumstance, but I believe if you have the option of taking a lower offer without a non-compete you have the moral obligation to your profession to push back and resist, and let them know that a non-compete is morally repellent.
  • huebnerob 9y ago
    Binding arbitration is probably the only thing making the legal risk of such a high-liability product/service manageable from Amazon's point of view. If it wasn't available, the product may not even exist. Which is fine. Maybe something like this shouldn't exist until we have the technology to make it foolproof. At least to the extent where the expected lawsuit frequency is something Amazon is willing to take on.
  • kevin_b_er 9y ago
    The arbitration monkey courts are perversely incentivized by money to go with who gives them the most business. Their bias is inescapable. The agreement thus effectively means you hold amazon blameless for their drivers activity, as you'll never get a dime out of mandatory binding arbitration against a large corporation.
  • jethro_tell 9y ago
    >You want me to believe that you'll protect my most valuable asset after I give you free access to it I mean, Maybe I'm just an old man and you should get off my lawn but jesus, what could possibly go wrong here? You give it away willingly then expect there to be no abuse? Why would they give you the right to sue? You just gave them a key to your house and they assume you'll accept any licence because you're so desperate for the convenience that you won't say no anyway. If they wanted to install an amazon locker on my front porch, that would solve the problem for everyone. But that's not a cool project to work on with computer vision so . . ..
    • mikeash 9y ago
      Why wouldn't I expect them to correct any abuse, when they explicitly state that they will do so? If they just went, "We'll do our best, but if anything goes horribly wrong you're fucked, sign here," then whatever. I wouldn't sign up for it anyway, but at least they'd be honest. But to say that they will "correct the problem" if anything goes wrong, but force you into binding arbitration, is just wrong.
      • jethro_tell 9y ago
        Yeah, I'm just saying, you just gave them a key to your house, which is probably a mistake, and you'll probably sign the arbitration clause because why wouldn't you make two mistakes for ultimate convenience? Most companies will take as much as you give them. Seems like an easy win in this customer demographic
        • II2II 9y ago
          Giving someone a key to your house is quite different from signing a contract with a binding arbitration clause. The former is an indication that you trust the key holder or the safeguards that are in place. The latter is signing away a legal right, which should carry much more weight.
          • jethro_tell 9y ago
  • sliverstorm 9y ago
    This is such crap. If they really were committed to making things right in the event of a problem, they wouldn't have to fear being sued. I mean, even if you have the best of intentions, it's still nice to have all the cards stacked in your favor for your own protection.
    • mikeash 9y ago
      It is, but that doesn't make it nice to put unreasonable conditions in a contract. If I put a clause in a contract saying I'm allowed to kill you if I get annoyed with you, while promising that I definitely won't kill you and I'm just trying to cover my bases, I don't think that would go over too well.
  • jawns 9y ago
    I am vehemently opposed to binding arbitration, but one thing I've often wondered is what effect it would have on the courts if it were made illegal. Would they experience clogging, in the short term? Would fees increase to help fund expansion (and deter suits until expansion can accommodate the increased number of filings)?
    • mikeash 9y ago
      Maybe we could just use taxes? Courts should be a public service just like roads and schools and firefighters. Courts don't cost that much in the grand scheme of things, so even if we had to expand them by a factor of 2 to handle all the arbitration cases, that would be entirely doable. I would be interesting to know just how much volume arbitrators see, and how many of those might be expected to turn into court cases in the absence of binding arbitration clauses.
      • jessaustin 9y ago
        If we're going to spend more on courts, let's do so on the criminal side in the hopes that fewer than 95% of defendants will plea out.
  • astura 9y ago
    Binding arbitration, when both parties readily agree it's the best way forward, has it's place to settle disputes and shouldn't be outright illegal. It's a lot cheaper and quicker than the legal system and many times court is overkill for minor contact disputes. Take the "court room" TV shows like Judge Judy, they are an example of binding arbitration that both parties benefit from. The producers look for cases pending in small claims court and offer them to drop their case and settle their dispute in arbitration instead, that arbitration is what's shown on TV. The show pays all parties an appearance fee plus travel expenses and the show pays any judgement that is awarded instead of the defendant. Since it's not a judgement it doesn't show up on public records so it wouldn't affect the defendant's credit report or public records. Being forced into binding consumer arbitration is certainly terrible and ought to be illegal. Arbitration should not be forced when one party has significant less power than the other. Especially when only one party gets to pick the arbitrator.
    • mikeash 9y ago
      Seems like there are two rather different meanings of "binding arbitration." I agree that the kind where both parties come together and agree, for a specific case, to engage in arbitration and be bound by the result is OK. The kind where you agree beforehand, when no damages have occurred, that if any case comes up then you will both go to arbitration instead of court, is not OK.
      • marcoperaza 9y ago
        The parties to a contract may want an impartial way to settle any disputes that come up down the line, without the high costs, risks, and complexities of litigation. It can be highly rational for both parties to agree to binding arbitration. Look at the NFL and the players’ association. They have an arbitrator, the very capable Professor Stephen Burbank, handling disputes. Both sides (and the courts) strongly prefer this to having to go to court. Arbitration is more controversial when foisted upon consumers in contracts of adhesion, i.e. the take-it-or-leave-it contracts you sign all day at stores, amusement parks, websites, etc. Also very controversial is that arbitration clauses are now being used to prevent class action litigation altogether. In those cases, the Supreme Court has nevertheless upheld it through a very broad reading of the Federal Arbitration Act.
  • JackFr 9y ago
    > binding arbitration should be made illegal Why do you want to interfere and limit my right to execute a contract?
    • mikeash 9y ago
      Because there are some rights it's bad to be allowed to give up. You can't sign away your right to life or freedom. Being able to have your grievances heard in a court of law should be considered a fundamental right, like the right to life.
    • landryraccoon 9y ago
      There has to be equal information, equal negotiating power and recourse for both parties. There are many cases where there is a huge disparity in information between the parties : Doctors and patients, for example, is an obvious case, or between lawyers and their clients. I would argue that Amazon has far more negotiating power and information in any contract with the average consumer, and therefore the law should be heavily biased in favor of the consumer. Even if there was no binding arbitration and Amazon does screw up and harms the consumer, will the consumer even have the resources to prevail in a lawsuit? Binding arbitration stacks the deck even more in the favor of the more powerful party. If Amazon were signing a contract with Google or Apple, I assume that they both would have relatively equal negotiating power and access to information. With you or I? I highly doubt I can afford it.
    • PeterisP 9y ago
      A contract requires a "meeting of minds", informed consent, and both parties having reasonable power to negotiate the contract. Such contracts definitely can contain clauses like binding arbitration, and you should be free to execute such contracts. However, there's a strong opinion (e.g. encoded in EU law) that the standard contract forms offered by companies to consumers are not really properly negotiated contracts (even if consumers willingly sign them) and thus in such contracts you're not allowed to enforce a certain set of terms that are considered abusive. One of such terms is a binding arbitration clause. Your customer is free to negotiate and make a contract containing such clauses with you, and then it'd be valid, but if you simply get all your customers to sign on the dotted line under such a clause, it's understood that you don't really have obtained informed consent from any of them.
  • flatline 9y ago
    Binding arbitration does not preclude criminal prosecution. I mean, that’s what I tend to think of when I hear “really wrong.” I’m not a huge fan of arbitration clauses generally but they are not unilaterally evil. Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? It can take over your life for years and leave you broke.
    • mikeash 9y ago
      Criminal prosecution against a company?
      • flatline 9y ago
        IANAL but if their delivery guy commits a crime, it’s on him. If it becomes known that Amazon knowingly contributed to their delivery personnel committing crimes, or in some way covered them up, or is in some related way defrauding customers, they carry a legal risk beyond what arbitration covers. Everything is a trade off.
        • croon 9y ago
          Sure, but your contract is with Amazon, they have a subcontractor, that person steals something, Amazon cuts ties with them, You lost something, Amazon is home free, and you may or may not get your stuff back, but you can't go after Amazon whom you have a contract with. I doubt there's a scenario in which you can claim Amazon did anything criminal. But IANAL either.
          • flatline 9y ago
            OTOH you can file a claim with insurance, and I bet that arbitration clause does not permit your insurance company from going after Amazon or their contractor to recoup damages.
  • pishpash 9y ago
    Once again, the problem is one-side contracts which should have no legal force. If we follow that principle, it may even mitigate the need for explicit antitrust and consumer protection rules.
  • DannyBee 9y ago
    Arbitration is actually a really good dispute resolution mechanism, but mainly between two commercially equal parties :) That is what it's main use used to be.
  • rhino369 9y ago
    >If they really were committed to making things right in the event of a problem, they wouldn't have to fear being sued. I'm a litigator and I'd rather arbitrate small disputes. Litigation is absurdly expensive and slow. I've had great experiences with AAA arbitrators. They were fair and reasonable. They kept costs down too. My biggest complaint about arbitration is that its too much like court. I thought it could have been more streamlined. I've even used it as a consumer. When Sprint kicked me off their service for using BitTorrent, threatening arbitrator got them to buy back my two month old phone. Plaintiff's lawyers hate arbitration because they like dumb juries.
    • shostack 9y ago
      How would you respond to views that arbitration outcome statistics favor the corporation paying for it?
      • philipodonnell 9y ago
        Facts, not views. Facts says it favors corporations. It may seem like we live in a post-fact world, but here, I believe, you can still call a fact a fact.
      • pas 9y ago
        A lot of consumers are indeed in breach of contract. Even if socially not fair, they agreed to a contract that seemed like a very good deal at the time. That's because of the costs/risks they haven't foresee at the time.
  • dmichulke 9y ago
    > ... should be made illegal Sorry this may seem personal but my own experience is that any phrase ending with these words is usually a good indicator of cluelessness. It often means: I don't understand the motivations and reasons of the parties involved, I disagree with free and voluntary contracts and my opinion should override the will of the signing parties. Needless to say, there are many unintended consequences, a "talk and don't ask or listen" attitude and a naive egocentrism at play that is also often prevalent in politics.
    • mikeash 9y ago
      This would be a lot more convincing if you explained why you thought I was actually wrong. There are lots of "free and voluntary" contracts that are illegal. You can't sign away your life or your freedom. You can't even sign a contract where you agree to work for $4/hour. In many jurisdictions you can't sign away your right to work for a competitor. You can't sign away your right to privacy or use of the legal eviction process in a rented apartment. It's generally agreed upon that there are certain rights that are so important you can't sign them away. It seems to me that access to the courts should be one of them.
  • hennsen 9y ago
    Maybe people could just stop signing such end user agreements and let amazon et al feel that their idea of putting all risk to the customer is flawed...
• GuiA 9y ago
  Amazon’s end goal is that any consumer purchase you make happens as follows: you say (think?) “hey Alexa I want $ITEM” - anywhere you are - and a few hours later at most, $ITEM is in your house, perhaps even in your fridge if applicable. Maybe Amazon didn’t make $ITEM, maybe they don’t employ the truck driver/make the drone who drops it off, but they’re the ones getting your money. They’re doing extremely well at it so far, but it’s kind of terrifying that such a capitalism singularity is plausible. An HN commenter a while back made the parallel between Amazon and Weyland-Yutani from Alien, which is quite apt.
• pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > To share online access with family and friends, you have to give them a special code to SMS (yes, text) to unlock the door. This makes sense - nearly everyone's phone can send an SMS. Having to install an app just to unlock a door is an unnecessary barrier.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • xaedes 9y ago
    "Having to install an app just to unlock a door is an unnecessary barrier." Amazon Key: unlocks your door with a app.
    • pavel_lishin 9y ago
      But this is for guests, not for you.
  • reificator 9y ago
    > Having to install an app just to unlock a door is an unnecessary barrier. Yes, but the door is a necessary barrier, so I don't really care.
  • unobtaniumstool 9y ago
    That's a great feature. I have a smartlock and it's insane how hard they try to keep it from being convenient to use -- in the same of security of course.
  • smileysteve 9y ago
    Except, SMS is incredibly insecure and can be easily spoofed.
    • jandrese 9y ago
      While true, that shouldn't be overly relevant in this case. They are one-time codes that you will be sending once the person is at your door. There is a potential issue if you're talking about sending someone a code (or multiple codes) several days in advance, but I don't think the systems are set up to do that currently. Plus you get an alert and a picture/video whenever one of the codes is used so it's fairly high risk for a burglar. You get an entry alert and it's some dude in a mask you call the cops. I tend to think that they'll stick to the old fashioned way of just breaking a window instead.
• LinuxBender 9y ago
  I watch accounts get popped all the time in cloud providers. Is it a good idea to bridge such risks to your home physical security?
  • IpV8 9y ago
    I watch windows get popped all the time on physical houses. Is it a good idea to build windows into your house?
    • musage 9y ago
      When a window gets broken, you at least know someone was (or still is) there.
      • kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
        That is not a strong counter-argument. Causing damage is not inherent to getting unauthorized entry into a house. A skilled lock-picker can open many locks without destroying them.
        • brazzledazzle 9y ago
          Even an unskilled lock-picker can open locks without destroying them. Beating them up with scratches is another matter, but who inspects their locks regularly?
        • musage 9y ago
          "There are other ways additional ways to cause harm" is not something that requires a counter-argument in the first place. It's like saying "Nobody lives forever anyway, why ever visit a doctor? After all, not ever visiting a doctor is not inherent to mortality or illness." And while we're at it, the package being left on your porch is not inherent to packages getting stolen or not containing what they should. Heck, ordering stuff isn't even the only way to buy things. So why prevent against it by giving Amazon access to your house, of all things out of all the possibilities there are? The decision to be made isn't between having windows or an Amazon lock, those things are orthogonal. You're adding a shitty additional link to an already weak chain. Now any random person can break your window with you knowing, any random person can kick the door in with you knowing, and -- I'll pretend to not see the moved goalposts because as I said, no counter-argument is required to a non-argument anyway -- a skilled lockpicker can let themselves in without you knowing. Now, thanks to this amazing technology and given enough time, a script kiddie, not to mention hardened cyberwebs criminals, might be able let anyone in without you knowing or without even knowing the completely unskilled person they let in. That is to say, now even people who wouldn't be able to kick in a door, break a window, or pick a lock can potentially get into your house. And for what? So you can order at Amazon. It's not even a standard to be used for any delivery you want to use it for, just Amazon. This doesn't need an counter-argument. If you want to buy this, you have my blessing.
• jessaustin 9y ago
  I paid a locksmith $100 for a new strike plate... I had heard this was true, but now I have seen that there really are people who can't use a screwdriver.
  • linkregister 9y ago
    To be fair, most don’t own drill bits long enough to make the holes necessary for the long screws that hold it on. But yes, it takes much more time to wait for the locksmith than to just purchase the part and do the work yourself. And it’s cheaper to buy the drill and the bits than to have a locksmith at your house for 20 minutes.
  • StavrosK 9y ago
    It's more like "there are people too rich to bother with a screwdriver".
    • jessaustin 9y ago
      Sure, but this is in the context of a household in which meeting delivery people is inconvenient. I haven't found locksmith service to be more convenient than package delivery, although of course I might not be spending enough on it...
      • StavrosK 9y ago
        Yeah, I don't know how getting a locksmith is easier than literally screwing a plate in, but I don't know how rich people think.
        • daveFNbuck 9y ago
          His door had an issue that a professional lock installer wasn't able to handle. He probably just assumed it was something that required a locksmith. If someone told me I needed a new strike plate, I wouldn't even know what that meant.
• wehadfun 9y ago
  Washington post did a negative article about Amazon?
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • creaghpatr 9y ago
    Controlled opposition, to be exact
    • Dirlewanger 9y ago
      Yeah, don't expect any articles about how this company upends and ends up virtually owning almost every industry it enters, making the Rockefellers and Carnegies of yester-century red with envy, and how it won't stop any time soon.
  • ramblerman 9y ago
    Arguably negative, but still advertising. I just learned about amazon key from this article...
  • qq66 9y ago
    Amazon is way too powerful for a few articles here and there, in the Washington Post or elsewhere, to make much of a difference.
  • crdoconnor 9y ago
    My first thought too. Maybe they're planning on canning the service anyway. Weird that your comment is literally right at the bottom.
• mabbo 9y ago
  > The company promises deliveries are only made by Amazon employees it thinks are trustworthy. Amazon doesn't have employees delivering packages. They are all contractors, and often contractors hired by contractors. The concerning thing about this is that it literally means Amazon may have only learned the name of the person who is accessing your home 30 minutes before they are inside it.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • paulcole 9y ago
    >Amazon doesn't have employees delivering packages. They are all contractors, and often contractors hired by contractors. Are you 100% sure about this or is it a guess? There’s no evidence I’m aware of that goes against Amazons statement.
    • gambiting 9y ago
      Maybe it's different in US, but in UK all deliveries from Amazon are done by 3rd party companies - DPD, Hermes, Parcelforce, etc, even if the tracking website says "Amazon Logistics" - it's just a front company.
      • paulcole 9y ago
        Is the Amazon Key service available in the UK?
        • dazc 9y ago
          No but you can give a door access code if one is available.
      • Kocrachon 9y ago
        In the US, they are all individual "contractors". They call them Flex Drivers. They are similar to Uber drivers. Individually hired but are technically contractors. So Amazon does background checks on them but technically they are not Amazon employees, they are "self employed". Which is why many of them drive things like Uhaul vans for deliveries. They try to cram as many orders as they can into a van, and rush them through, to get the biggest possible payout.
• Saad_M 9y ago
  Is there a really need for this type of product? With the choice of either collecting your parcel from a delivery office or the multitude of delivery lockers that are popping up everywhere is this a problem that needs solving? Perhaps someone could help me to understand if there are particular scenarios where this would be beneficial to allow this form of parcel delivery.
  • Erik816 9y ago
    There is a huge convenience to getting your packages at your door rather than having them shipped to a separate location. For a household with kids, we are getting several deliveries a week. Things like diapers, wipes, food, etc. I'm already used to just opening the door and picking them up, so driving somewhere to get them really defeats the point of ordering them online. I might as well just drive to Target instead.
    • wtetzner 9y ago
      I would rather buy a box with a lock on it that I can keep outside my front door than let strangers (and Amazon) into my house.
      • unobtaniumstool 9y ago
        This is an odd but apparently widespread phobia. Do you not have a housekeeper, or a landscaper, or dog walker, or anyone else who goes into your house when you're not there? It's pretty common for service personnel to be in a house doing stuff.
        • johnbrodie 9y ago
          A person or group of people that I've met personally and don't change often is much different than letting a random low-paid employee/contractor into your house.
          • aeorgnoieang 9y ago
• jlebrech 9y ago
  i prefer undelivery, aka leaving it in the closest depot in the same city or town for the recipient to pick at their convenience, for example amazon lockers.
  • rabidonrails 9y ago
    so, like a store. I think that the reason I use Amazon is for the shipping convenience.
    • kthejoker2 9y ago
      Indeed, it's the only reason (well, that and their generous consumer subsidy at the expense of their workers, affiliates, and shareholders.) I do find myself branching out to other e-commerce sites just as matter of portfolio diversification. Which is why I'll never do anything as exclusive as Amazon Key. I want a world where Amazon has to buy a Kthejoker Key.
    • amaranth 9y ago
      More like how Sears used to work but with more locations so you don't have to go (as far) out of your way on your commute from work. You order stuff from a vast catalog (Amazon website) and then when it's available you go pick it up. The advantage is the selection of goods and that you don't have to actually do the shopping. No hunting through aisles and such, just in and out.
      • ensignavenger 9y ago
        Like the way Walmart works?
        • yeukhon 9y ago
          No. This is how major retail stores do these days... Maycs' Best Buy.
• YuriNiyazov 9y ago
  Kind of a weird article - it's very long, describes in great detail how everything works, and the regret is hidden about three quarters of the way down, and I am still unclear about what the regret is. That he signed up to a walled garden, and the key doesn't work when you want to share it with your dog walker? The walled garden response is "you should've known as much" and the dog walker response would be "this is version 1" Anyway, this feels more like an ad for amazon key than a real takedown. Oh wait... WaPo, Bezos... right.
  • endorphone 9y ago
    Oh wait... WaPo, Bezos... right It states that right near the beginning of the article. I'm cynical in a different way, though. I see this article as the sort of turgid content that dominates tech media: Take some product or behavior that's new, act like it's scary and milk some content out of it. The title itself is simply ridiculous -- the regrets seem to be that the product is exactly what it is held as. It isn't for me. For some people heavily invested in the Amazon ecosystem it might be a fine compromise.
    • unobtaniumstool 9y ago
      Used to be you could read tech news written by people who were both knowledgable and enthusiastic about technology. Now it seems to be mostly paranoid, technophobic clickbait.
      • tastythrowaway 9y ago
        maybe that's a reflection of their audience?
        • endorphone 9y ago
          In a way I absolutely think this is true, but it is more the way we consume media now than our basic values changing. Previously I had a few sites that I visited daily to read tech news. Media properties where writers tried to keep a constant supply of entertaining and illuminating articles that I give attention and focus to, even if superficially not interesting, because I have trust that it's worth my time. Now I instead rely upon social news and even Facebook feeds to supply the more interesting articles, filtered and crowd "curated". In that gaudy world, you need to show your legs and hoot and holler to get attention. So we end up with this sort of media. We see the same thing with blogs where many of us abandoned subscriptions and readers and just assume that the good content will percolate into our view. I don't think I'm alone in this behavior, and it has been negative to the whole.
• thisisit 9y ago
  > The bad news is Amazon missed four of my in-home deliveries and charged me (on top of a Prime membership) for gear that occasionally jammed and makes it awkward to share my own door with people, apps, services — and, of course, retailers — other than Amazon. I don't understand this. Are there any APIs for Amazon key which will allow other people/apps to use the key? If yes, how do the damages work?
  • icebraining 9y ago
    I'm assuming you could use the SMS codes. At the homeowner's responsibility, of course.
• balls187 9y ago
  > They don’t recommend Key if you have pet, and won’t come in if they hear barking. Two beagles means this is a non-starter for my household, as they immediately will bark if a stranger approaches the driveway.
  • fenwick67 9y ago
    About 56% of US households had pets in 2011. That's a huge chunk of customers they're missing out on.
    • r00fus 9y ago
      I get the feeling that Amazon is indifferent to "missing out". The approach is to throw stuff on the wall and see what sticks. Think of Amazon Key as your average tech startup that has Amazon branding.
      • balls187 9y ago
        See what sticks, iterate and improve. For those with pets, get your own Amazon Locker installed on your porch...
    • ben174 9y ago
      Not all of them bark or are aggressive.
      • balls187 9y ago
        Pets escaping is likely a concern.
  • skeet 9y ago
    Just install Amazon Collar round your dog's neck. It will lightly caress it as the delivery person approaches your house, ensuring your items get there safely.
    • 9y ago
• carlob 9y ago
  In most of Europe AFAIK deliveries are never left at the door, and the deliveryperson calls you shortly before stopping to check that you are at home. In this scenario if I owned a smartlock I could just open the door remotely for them, no need to buy their lock and app.
  • xaedes 9y ago
    Please be more specific than "most of europe". As you are talking out of experience, you can just say where that happened. At least in Germany no delivery person will call me to check whether I am home.
    • j605 9y ago
      For me, the private ones call you if you had provided your number. In other cases you get a slip in the postbox to schedule an appointment. If you miss again, you have to go to a post pick up centre. For DHL, if you miss this as well it gets sent to some DHL sorting centre which is quite far away.
    • b0rsuk 9y ago
      They do it in Poland.
    • 3princip 9y ago
      I'm in Serbia and deliverymen always call. There are multiple private courier services, having gotten to know a lot of the drivers they'll sometimes bring me the package to a different location if I'm not home but reasonably close. Online purchases here are mostly paid at point of delivery, in cash if one wishes. So the delivery driver also handles the payment. Hence, they can take some liberties with delivery since the goods haven't been payed for in advance. The cash on delivery and flexibility of couriers is one of the few services that work quite well here, compared to some more developed countries.
    • simsla 9y ago
      In Belgium and the UK (Scotland), I've never had people leave packages in the open. Even if I explicitly ask them to leave them in the building hallway (because I'm at work) it's 50/50 whether they'll do it.
• greywolf 9y ago
  got the fire hd because it was so cheap but so far HATING IT. amazon is everywhere in it, and blocking others as well. simply put, it's extremely invasive, and a horrible experience.
• bob_theslob646 9y ago
  Is Amazon liable if your packages get stolen? If that is the case, that could explain why they want a "key" to your house. Why else would this do this? Oh, wait they are bleeding money. >The amount of money that Amazon lost on shipping — a.k.a. the net cost of landing all those brown boxes on your doorstep in record time — reached an all-time high of nearly $7.2 billion in 2016, according to GeekWire’s analysis of the e-commerce giant’s financial results. I would be curious to see another person's take on how much Amazon loses on people stealing packages per year. [1](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/true-cost-convenience-amazons-annual-shipping-losses-top-7b-first-time/ https://www.geekwire.com/2017/true-cost-convenience-amazons-...)
  • fossuser 9y ago
    The article touches on another reason, with house access they can organize services (house cleaning, dog walking etc.) that require access to the house.
    • jethro_tell 9y ago
      Yes, The low liability, ups/usps friendly way to do this is to turn that 7 billion into a bunch of little yellow metal boxes with a key pad. I bet a lot of people who want the convenience would let them screw it to the front of the house or down to the deck
      • reaperducer 9y ago
        They're halfway there. The yellow boxes are in most grocery stores in my area. And there are green ones at Whole Foods. Considering the USPS won't service individual house mailboxes in some parts of the country anymore (only communal mailbox clusters up to a mile away), what's the difference between getting a package from the USPS lockbox, or the Amazon lockbox which is located at a place I was going anyway?
    • test6554 9y ago
      House access. A camera in your home. Automated delivery confirmation. Guaranteed correct address. No more delivery to wrong address because the door won't open at the wrong address.
• gebeeson 9y ago
  I've thought about this service and what I could do moving forward for better security. A front door airlock came to mind; front Amazon Keyed door that leads to an alcove that is in front of another locked door. Big enough for packages and maybe a couple adults. Unsure if the effort would be worth it however. Just a thought game.
  • bjorgen 9y ago
    Something that's starting to happen in apartment construction is the inclusion of these "airlock" style rooms at the front of the apartment. That way you can get your packages delivered securely and still have your home secure.
  • protomyth 9y ago
    > A front door airlock came to mind Some of the better houses in the north have a mudroom between the outer door and the inner door. Helps a whole lot in winter and during the rainy muddy times. Agree it would probably work well with this type of thing for deliveries.
  • jcl 9y ago
    As far as security goes, a problem with "airlocks" is similar to a problem with attached garages: It's easier to get into them than directly into the house, and once you are in them, they can provide cover for a more concerted effort to get into the house. An Amazon-Key-like system may mitigate the risk, of course, assuming that the users of the app are properly vetted and that attackers are deterred by cameras.
  • cracell 9y ago
    It's not like deadbolts secure houses that well. Skilled thieves can get into the vast majority of homes. Deadbolts just stop opportunists looking for an easy quick grab.
  • compuguy 9y ago
    What your describing is called a Mantrap.
• qq66 9y ago
  Not sure that any of this crap is needed in the suburbs. Just have a smart-locked container and refrigerator outside your front door.
  • loeg 9y ago
    Don't even need the smart-locked container or refrigerator.
• illumin8 9y ago
  Why not just sell a lockbox that you can put on your front porch? Seems like an easier solution.
  • bootlooped 9y ago
    Not to mention if the box fails then somebody only gets into the box. If the door and camera rig fails somebody gets into your house.
  • IncRnd 9y ago
    Amazon isn't concerned with what customers want but what is fastest for their deliveries. If they use the same app to open the door, and mark as delivered, then a lockbox would increase the time per delivery. Is there a delivery person for Amazon who can comment on this?
    • bootlooped 9y ago
      Why would it be harder to place an item behind a locked lid to a box than a locked door to a house? If anything the box should be faster; if it were a smart device it could easily be programmed to be unlocked or even ajar any time it is empty.
      • IncRnd 9y ago
        I read, "a lockbox that you can put on your front porch," as a realtor-style lockbox that holds a key to the house and needs a pin entered to get the key. For what you wrote, it likely wouldn't have the same slowdown.
  • zentiggr 9y ago
    "But Amazon is barely hiding its goal: It wants to be the operating system for your home." Why engineer a delivery solution when you can convince some people to give up even more control and access?
  • DerfNet 9y ago
    I've considered building a small shed in which Amazon could place packages, grocery delivery could deposit groceries in a small fridge, etc. If the future is Amazon staple deliveries and Uber drivers coming by with my groceries, this might be a reasonable solution.
• siculars 9y ago
  Not in a million years. Now, if the EFF or Mozilla made a remotely accessible digital lock that I could control with interfaces to whomever I want that would be a different story.
  • squarefoot 9y ago
    You could make it yourself with cheap parts and some good engineering wrt power failures etc. (don't make it electric only, real world ain't Star Trek). The electromechanical lock is the most expensive part, but everything else can be done with a *PI like board plus battery and an encrypted network connection. If you don't have a fixed IP or are behind a firewall/NAT you can automate a mail reader on the board to monitor an address for an encrypted message containing a code to unlock the door, shoot a few images using a webcam and mail them back to you, or do other things. Basically anything that can be done by closing a switch a meter away can be also done a half planet away through the Internet.
    • jessaustin 9y ago
      Actually the mechanism could be totally mechanical. You just want a compartment with a delivery door and a trap door, which aren't both open at the same time. See that in action at any big blue USPS mailbox.
• michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  A lot of comments are about other solutions (lockboxes, etc.) - these are solutions for a problem Amazon doesn't have. Amazon wants to own grocery delivery (put your milk in your fridge), they want to own dog walking, they want to own plumbing and other house services. The article's correct that this is the first step in a larger plan, and I think at least fairly well thought out for that.
  • the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
    It’s nice that Amazon wants to own that but I don’t want that service. They can keep it.
    • merb 9y ago
      well the door service is helpful - if you have two doors. one front door locked via the amazon lock and a second door - locked regulary. i.e. most smaller aparatment buildings.
      • creaghpatr 9y ago
        Intersting idea...I had an Amazon package stolen off my porch this week, the thief opened it and saw it was the novel Watership Down, then threw it back on my porch. Stolen packages are a way of life in my neighborhood.
        • merb 9y ago
          well that's sad for you and good that you do not live in germany. most post services will actually give the package to your neighborhood if you are not at home. the first week in my new neighborhood took me a while to track some missing packages down. (well instead of bringing me the packages, which the people now do they wanted to know me, so they waited till I came to them...)
          • komali2 9y ago
            "to your neighborhood" Wait, was this a translation error? Did you mean "neighbor?" Or is there some "neighborhood representative" in every neighborhood in Germany?
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• Sohcahtoa82 9y ago
  I just use the Amazon Locker service. There's a set of Amazon Lockers at a convenience store I pass by on my way home from work. Super easy to use and I never have to worry about packages being stolen. The only downside is that large packages or items from 3rd party sellers can't be shipped to a locker.
  • samcat116 9y ago
    My school recently got rid of their own book store in favor of Amazon Locker locations. Its fantastic. Basically its a storefront with a bunch of lockers in it and a counter. Most items get either free two day or one day (most school supplies and textbooks are one day). I get an email with a barcode and I head over and scan it and the locker opens up. Only downside is that its about a 10 minute walk from my dorm. You also get returns dealt with much faster since they can instantly verify you're actually returning the product.
  • FireBeyond 9y ago
    I use a smart home security system (AT&T Digital Life). Not without its flaws, and not automated but I can, as soon as I see tracking info in Amazon (or wherever) update delivery instructions with a one time door lock code for their drivers. This works with UPS, USPS, FedEx, whomever. When my company shipped me a fully loaded iMac and Cinema screen, while I was 100 miles away, this was perfect. I got a notification on my phone that the door was opened, I could see how long they were inside, and could verify that it was locked after.
    • maxxxxx 9y ago
      Not bad!
  • gnicholas 9y ago
    I tried using Amazon Lockers when I was living in an Airbnb in downtown Philly for a month. There were almost never any available nearby. Wonder if others have had the same experience.
• baxtr 9y ago
  Even though it claims to be critical, it is not that critical. I almost felt that I’m reading an advertisement for an amazon product
  • corruptbytes 9y ago
    Probably because WaPo is owned by Amazon/Bezos
• dailyvijeos 9y ago
  The longer-term solutions to home delivery are refrigerated and non-refrigerated storage pods with universal app access. These can either be built into a house / garage or be free-standing. This reduces the risks of having delivery people enter your home, which is a bad idea. Also, in general, in tort-happy America, delivery people and other field workers should always wear bodycams to prove they were in the right because random people can and do make up convincing stories to file lawsuit$.
  • KSS42 9y ago
    Kind of like old houses with milk and coal delivery hatches?
• vermontdevil 9y ago
  Anyone have recommendations for a good keyless lock? Seems the one Amazon uses has bad reviews on Amazon.
  • chrismbarr 9y ago
    If you want to use Amazon Key (what this article is about) then I think the only lock you can use is this specific one. Any other keyless lock system won't work from Amazon deliveries like this (at least as far as I can tell)
    • DerfNet 9y ago
      I explicitly don't want to use Amazon Key, but would like a keyless lock as keyed locks are basically a minor inconvenience for even an amateur lock picker, but a 5 key pin would take days or weeks to brute force. Looks like a Schlage Touch might be the best option out there. Numeric keypad, no key hole, and has no radio connectivity of any kind to be tampered with.
    • vermontdevil 9y ago
      No interest in Amazon Key. Just wondering about any other keyless products worth looking at like Schlange etc.
• vishalzone2002 9y ago
  why not just have 2 doors with some space in between for deliveries :p
  • ng-user 9y ago
    I think the term you're looking for is a 'vestibule'
• jrgaston 9y ago
  Amazon is my store of last resort. I prefer to support local businesses even when they charge more.
• b0rsuk 9y ago
  tl;dr: Amazon wants to be the Facebook of your home. Decide who and on what terms can access your data. Physical data. Trusted Amazon partners will have an advantage. Others will be excluded. Actually I think this is not as bad as Facebook, because it's much less abstract and average Joes can wrap their head around it, and I think benefits are not as seductive as in FB's case. So I expect Amazon Key to fail.
• uptown 9y ago
  Somewhat off-topic, but is anybody using an external security webcam for their home that they'd recommend? Every review I've read seems to have very conflicting opinions. What's good? Ring? Arlo? Nest? Home-Grown w/ Raspberry Pi?
  • gehwartzen 9y ago
    Personally I threw up some Samsung wired cams and am happy. Easy to view online and records locally for 3 months or so.
    • uptown 9y ago
      Is there a way to view from a mobile device and also receive motion detection alerts?
      • gehwartzen 9y ago
        Yup, there's a mobile app and motion detecting alerts (with defined areas).
        • uptown 9y ago
          Thanks for the info
• dimpadumpa 9y ago
  How in earth people can trust multibillion companies ?? They Loe, cheat, violate privacy and you cannot prevent it. Please, people don't mess your home security !!
  • gr3yh47 9y ago
    Digital security is long dead so just dont use smart-anything if you aren't ok with it being pwned
• idooontcare 9y ago
  Hard to believe that people really mess with they home security like this.. haha
• matt_morgan 9y ago
  This is not about making it easier to get deliveries. When an Amazon delivery doesn't work out, they refund you. This is about reducing Amazon's costs. Don't do it. As long as we all don't do it, Amazon will credit us when deliveries fail.
  • graylights 9y ago
    This makes no sense as a cost reduction. Amazon drivers in my area don't even come to my door. Let alone knock. With this they want their drivers to: 1. Come to door 2. Knock 3. Wait a moment for response 4. Unlock door with app 5. Open Door 6. Drop package 7. Close and lock door Delivery has turned into minimizing every excess second. I wager within a few months most of these amazon keys will be ignored as they leave packages on the driveway. I wouldn't buy this unless it comes with a guarantee it will be used.
    • bob_theslob646 9y ago
      It does make sense for cost reduction because they are liable if they lose the package
• dudul 9y ago
  Is package theft such a widespread problem? I've never had a package stolen from me. I've lived in apartment buildings, single/two-family houses and that never happened to me.
• freedomben 9y ago
  The vendor and ecosystem walled garden lock-in is getting utterly insane. I kind of blame Apple for starting this. They were so successful that other tech companies realized they had to do it too.
• gnicholas 9y ago
  Does anyone know how people are supposed to use these if they have a home alarm? This obviously won't work if your alarm is armed, unless you give Amazon your alarm code. I've asked a few friends who have an alarm system and they said they would not give out the code if it's going to be passed along to delivery people (who could break into the house later and then disable the alarm). But I guess not enough people have alarms for Amazon to be worried about this? Or perhaps this is aimed more at urban apartment-dwellers, who are less likely to have security systems?
• glauque 9y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consumerism, but if you got to the point where the business you're buying products from has the key to your house just so you can keep up with deliveries, maybe it's time to reconsider your spending habits.
  • dr1337 9y ago
    And while you're at it maybe give them your bank account details so that they can just sell you stuff that their AI thinks you want.
    • romanows 9y ago
      I do that with a monthly clothing service and it works pretty well, so I guess YMMV.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • dcosson 9y ago
    alternative take - if you got to the point where you're getting in your car and driving around town for everyday necessities like groceries, pantry items, toothpaste, socks, replacement usb cables, vacuum cleaner filters, etc. with maybe the occasional splurge on something frivolous, maybe it's time to reconsider your shopping habits.
  • ithought 9y ago
    It's the best option if your alternative is mailing to a PO Box. Also I like this company August which makes a similar product. I'd rather just let the delivery person in remotely each time. I read August is also making a robot to deliver your groceries to your refrigerator. And I know Snap has been trying to do Snap2Store. Their head hardware guy made the Ring doorbell hardware. He also made some thermal imaging system. I'd probably give Snap a key to my house with Snapdrones surveilling. (Automonous social ephemerality to highlight my life?)
• alvil 9y ago
  Regret nothing. You are simply idiot :D
• pteredactyl 9y ago
  Why anyone would ever do this is beyond me. Same with Alexa-like devices.
• amptorn 9y ago
  Alright, here's my idea: Amazon Locker Personal. Same principle as an Amazon Locker, but it's a single locker and you put it outside your house. Such things already exist, the only difference is that this one would be locked all the time and only the delivery person would be able to unlock it.
  • dtparr 9y ago
    > only the delivery person would be able to unlock it. That might make it tough to get your package.
  • nickonline 9y ago
    So a box with a unlocked padlock on it?
    • amptorn 9y ago
      No. Do you know how an Amazon Locker works?
• polock 9y ago
  I think it's such crap. Who care's if they stole or broke something under the radar?
• mythrwy 9y ago
  No such thing as bad publicity? Probably lots of people didn't about Amazon Key. Read the scary headline expecting burglary or orgy in the bedroom only to learn nothing all that terrible happened. A few delivery windows got missed. A lock didn't work at some point. With numerous positive things sprinkled in, and things that are coming. Oh but the author doesn't like that. "Who cares?" you are supposed to say. "Packages get delayed all the time! Sign me up".
• RichieAHB 9y ago
  I just don’t understand why you’d put one of these on your house rather than a garage, outhouse, box. Or get things delivered to work or to a neighbour. There are some cases where this isn’t possible but I think you could spend the same money on a solution that doesn’t grant access to your whole house, even using the smart lock. Additionally, this seems to create a commonly accepted situation where anyone who looks like a delivery driver can have a go at a front door without anyone batting an eyelid. It seems like there’s nothin people won’t give up for Amazon. We’ll have the Amazon “Cold and Flu Check” next where you have to photograph yourself naked and upload the images to S3.
• kuceram 9y ago
  Maybe https://mailhaven.co/ https://mailhaven.co/ is an alternative for you. It's a mailbox for packages basically.
• PostThisTooFast 9y ago
  Paywall. fORGET IT.
• elvirs 9y ago
  clickbait title about nothingburger
• kazinator 9y ago
  This is just the plight of an early adopter. Eventually, the idea will develop into something generic without vendor-lock-in, and something reliable.
• yipopov 9y ago
  >The Amazon Cloud Cam live streams and archives deliveries with Amazon Key Are they absolutely crazy? The camera obviously needs to be operated independently from Amazon, being able to be remotely switched on or off by the very people it's supposed to watch completely defeats its purpose.
• EADGBE 9y ago
  All the anti-Amazon Key articles mention the "service" costing $250. I must not be seeing it all. You get an indoor security camera, and a smart deadbolt for $250, right? ===================================================== I paid a locksmith $100 for a new strike plate, which was Amazon’s recommendation. LOL!
• LearnerHerzog 9y ago
  Anyone else find the whole setup strikingly similar to HAL-9000's role in 2001: A Space Odyssey? The article, too, presented the author with the same issue Dave experienced, when HAL wouldn't open the pod bay doors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARJ8cAGm6JE HAL's decision was a conscious one, but I find it rather interesting a 1960s-Kubrick (& Arthur C. Clarke) could predict the casual use of multiple currently-cutting-edge devices, and incorporate them into the story: - One being HAL's resemblance to a new amazon smart-home, at least in general purpose functionally, plus the vibe of sentience and omnipresence - Another prediction being realtime face-to-face chat as shown in one scene, which would https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwo6JpMceg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwo6JpMceg Naturally this makes me wonder if artificial consciousness is possible or not (be it X years/decades/centuries into the future), what fundamental questions it may answer, and what consequences it may have. I am not necessarily referring to the consequences of recursively self-improving super-intelligence, but not excluding it either I suppose. I am referring to true consciousness, with human-level feelings and emotions, where the personality may have an effect on what it does rather than simply and emotionlessly taking the logical (or programmed) route every time. Creation of artificial consciousness may be many steps away from trying to undertake; however, given the ever-accelerating rate of both digital-tech and neuroscience, if true consciousness is at all possible to program, it will likely come far sooner than expected. It's bound to also answer a lot of questions about our ontological understanding of our own perception in/of realities. In any case, by the grace of God and Elon Musk, let's hope we can avoid a Hollywood catastrophe in the upcoming rise of AI in general through the end of time as far as collective consciousness is concerned.
• esturk 9y ago
  Amazon practices have become more and more shady and fraud riddled. Just today I found out I was charged for Amazon Cloud Drive that I never authorized for 2 years and they only reversed the charge for the most recent year. I never agreed nor made any consent to signing up to the enlarged storage service. I was never notified my subscription was renewed nor was I aware I was charged through any email. They absolutely refused to refund me for a purchase I never authorized! How corrupted is that?
• nathan_long 9y ago
  TL;DR - expect vendor lock-in when a vendor puts your lock in. > The Key-compatible locks are made by Yale and Kwikset, yet don’t work with those brands’ own apps. They also can't connect with a home-security system or smart-home gadgets that work with Apple and Google software. > And, of course, the lock can’t be accessed by businesses other than Amazon. No Walmart, no UPS, no local dog-walking company.