4 ms·

If he is guilty of theft then Amazon was accepting fenced goods. I don't see what is controversial about these definitions. If peons are going to be charged wi

by yayana 8y ago

If he is guilty of theft then Amazon was accepting fenced goods. I don't see what is controversial about these definitions. If peons are going to be charged with serious crimes over dark patterns used for free advertising that eat up civic resources then follow through on the rest of the law.. He is guilty of violating ToS or fraud, (to whatever extent Amazon could believe he (regularly?) found 18 undelivered packages!?) but if this is theft then Amazon was encouraging and abetting theft. The DA should really start the process of investigating this Amazon program to see if Amazon is benefiting materialy from returned packages not being claimed, etc, etc.

soneil 8y ago
Would they benefit? Assuming it's amazon packages that are being returned (I can't see any other approach that's remotely logical), then either: a) they re-attempt delivery, and it's zero-sum (with slightly raised logistics costs) b) the package goes in the returns bin, and they send a new replacement (at a loss, returns aren't sold at ticket value) c) the package goes in the returns bin, and the customer is refunded (also at a loss due to the devaluation of the return). None of these options actually has amazon benefitting. The latter two just have them lose less.
- yayana 8y ago
  D) Amazon doesn't actively report the return to the recipient and waits for the recipient to claim it. Some recipients don't, some packages are incorrectly paid for by their delivery contractor (USPS) insurance or go into incorrect penalties against them. The most likely thing I would suspect is an initial program intended to handle seasonal employees leaving packages at the wrong door, then being abused leading to needing to come back and scan before redelivery.. I don't see why Amazon didn't spend their quote denying they in anyway paid drivers for returns as it reads to me like they aren't really denying that they might have a dark incentive that they became reluctant to fix. (The article reads a little like it is just local police beat, but then there should be nothing from Amazon.)

by yayana 8y ago

soneil 8y ago

Would they benefit? Assuming it's amazon packages that are being returned (I can't see any other approach that's remotely logical), then either: a) they re-attempt delivery, and it's zero-sum (with slightly raised logistics costs) b) the package goes in the returns bin, and they send a new replacement (at a loss, returns aren't sold at ticket value) c) the package goes in the returns bin, and the customer is refunded (also at a loss due to the devaluation of the return). None of these options actually has amazon benefitting. The latter two just have them lose less.

yayana 8y ago
D) Amazon doesn't actively report the return to the recipient and waits for the recipient to claim it. Some recipients don't, some packages are incorrectly paid for by their delivery contractor (USPS) insurance or go into incorrect penalties against them. The most likely thing I would suspect is an initial program intended to handle seasonal employees leaving packages at the wrong door, then being abused leading to needing to come back and scan before redelivery.. I don't see why Amazon didn't spend their quote denying they in anyway paid drivers for returns as it reads to me like they aren't really denying that they might have a dark incentive that they became reluctant to fix. (The article reads a little like it is just local police beat, but then there should be nothing from Amazon.)