6 ms·

Blaming Amazon is misplaced. Blame the people stealing and the system that refuses to prosecute them.

balls187 4y ago
It’s not about blame. If Amazon can ship products to my house within 2-hours, it certainly can crack down on selling stolen goods. It just has zero incentive to.
- nostromo 4y ago
  New York City has tens of thousands of cops - they certainly can crack down on theft better than can Amazon.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Cops don't solve crimes.
JCharante 4y ago
Why doesn't amazon just simply require receipts or invoices when you send stuff to their warehouses for FBA?
- nostromo 4y ago
  Receipts and invoices are dead simple to forge. Besides, if I want to sell a used book on Amazon, maybe I don’t have the receipt anymore. No, the easiest solution is to prosecute shoplifters - not to reorganize honest society around them. If cities don’t want to do that anymore then products will be expensive and difficult to buy - and eventually there will only be Amazon left.
nottorp 4y ago
Yeah, I look at this thread and wonder why a store should have to do the police's job. It's also interesting how the HN crowd will jump to protect a company's profit except when it's about the few love to hate you entities.
wstuartcl 4y ago
I do not think it is misplaced to look at a massive fence of stolen goods as a problem. Amazon takes a cut of every sale just like a fence. They have constructed their onboarding and process to "not know your customer" because they enjoy this revenue even though they must know their system is being heavily used for these illicit sales.
d3nj4l 4y ago
> the system that refuses to prosecute them. TFA addresses this directly.
mbreese 4y ago
You can tackle a problem from multiple directions. So while direct prosecution is important, cutting off a method for converting stolen goods to money is also important. As soon as that method become unprofitable, the activity will either stop or switch to something else.
- subradios 4y ago
  Regulating legitimate business activity out of existence to support progressive prosecutors ideas about shoplifting and street crime is the opposite of a solution.
  - ohbleek 4y ago
    Your comment is not supported by the information in the article. Quite the opposite.
  - tehwebguy 4y ago
    Actually you are both wrong :) Regulating away legitimate secondary markets to sell on leaves us all paying higher prices. If brands and retailers believe it’s really retail theft causing all of this I invite them to track their goods better and run sting operations. I guarantee this type of money is going out the side door a truckload at a time, not the front door stuffed into someone’s shirt. But the “progressive prosecutor problem” is a made up lie. Even in San Francisco where a DA recall vote actually succeeded it was obvious (and immediately proven[0]) that SFPD were actually just refusing to respond to calls: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-policing-17550839.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-...
  - ryan_lane 4y ago
    Knowing your suppliers and that their goods are legitimate is a pretty basic function of a business, and calling people progressive to enforce that is a bit strange. Amazon isn't a pawn shop. They have a lot of choice when it comes to dealing with known businesses.
    - 4y ago
ALittleLight 4y ago
But also blame Amazon. If you ran a store that repeatedly sold stolen goods do you think local police and prosecutors would ignore you? Trafficking in stolen property is a felony. That's true whether you definitely know it's stolen property or if you definitely should have known (recklessly trafficking). You, if you repeatedly did it out of your small business and ignored complaints, would face prison. Why does the law apply differently to Amazon? My guess is, if you told Amazon's CEO that he had one month to substantially reduce trafficking or face felony prosecution and prison time - I bet you'd see severe reductions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- prvit 4y ago
  >If you ran a store that repeatedly sold stolen goods do you think local police and prosecutors would ignore you? Yes, if you operated your business in a way similar to Amazon the cops and prosecutors would in fact almost certainly ignore you.
  - rdtwo 4y ago
    Yeah no they wouldn’t. How long did Amazon collect no sales tax before that loophole closed? How much did they have to pay back? If you tried that the state would stream roll you
    - prvit 4y ago
      Are you kidding? The “sales tax loophole” just supports my point, if it was just smaller businesses they would’ve gone on forever.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    Really? I just googled my location plus "trafficked stolen property conviction" and found news stories regarding multiple convictions. It sure seems like the police investigate and arrest people knowingly selling stolen property. In what sense is Amazon not doing this, or recklessly disregarding whether or not they are doing this? If I were a multi-hundred billion dollar business operating like Amazon, then of course cops and prosecutors would ignore me. Laws aren't for rich and powerful companies - they are for individuals and small business owners.
blululu 4y ago
Nope. In most states (CA for example) it is a felony to sell stolen goods when the amount exceeds a pretty modest threshold. If, as alleged in the parent comment, they are committing a crime on a large scale then the blame is very well placed. *of course this does not exonerate the original thieves, but as a matter of practicality it is going to be easier to hit a single large offender than a myriad of small ones.
- notch656a 4y ago
  mens rea
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    You don't have to intend to commit a crime to have mens rea. You merely have to intentionally do all the steps involved in the crime. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and neither is intentional ignorance of whether you are breaking it or not. Pawn shops got the receiving end of this deal a while ago. Now it's Amazon's turn.
    - samtho 4y ago
      Intent does matter, however - plausible deniability would not be a thing otherwise. Only in cases of strict liability are intentions not usually considered, which mostly include minor offenses (infractions) and a few major ones like statutory rape. Possession of items that are illegal to possess in any situation is another case where strict liability applies, but possession of legal goods that “a reasonable person” would not be aware was stolen does not fall into this case. Amazon sellers sign a contract saying the goods they offer for sell are their legal possessions to sell, giving Amazon plausible deniability as if anyone breaks the law, as the seller would then also be breaking their rules as well. I think we need to ask ourselves the harder questions of why people are stealing and figure out how to address that issue. Just like how we here tend to condemn technological solutions for social problems, tons of legal regulations can be fairly criticized for a being a legal solution to a social problem.

It’s not about blame. If Amazon can ship products to my house within 2-hours, it certainly can crack down on selling stolen goods. It just has zero incentive to.

nostromo 4y ago
New York City has tens of thousands of cops - they certainly can crack down on theft better than can Amazon.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Cops don't solve crimes.

JCharante 4y ago

Why doesn't amazon just simply require receipts or invoices when you send stuff to their warehouses for FBA?

nostromo 4y ago
Receipts and invoices are dead simple to forge. Besides, if I want to sell a used book on Amazon, maybe I don’t have the receipt anymore. No, the easiest solution is to prosecute shoplifters - not to reorganize honest society around them. If cities don’t want to do that anymore then products will be expensive and difficult to buy - and eventually there will only be Amazon left.

nottorp 4y ago

Yeah, I look at this thread and wonder why a store should have to do the police's job. It's also interesting how the HN crowd will jump to protect a company's profit except when it's about the few love to hate you entities.

wstuartcl 4y ago

I do not think it is misplaced to look at a massive fence of stolen goods as a problem. Amazon takes a cut of every sale just like a fence. They have constructed their onboarding and process to "not know your customer" because they enjoy this revenue even though they must know their system is being heavily used for these illicit sales.

d3nj4l 4y ago

> the system that refuses to prosecute them. TFA addresses this directly.

mbreese 4y ago

You can tackle a problem from multiple directions. So while direct prosecution is important, cutting off a method for converting stolen goods to money is also important. As soon as that method become unprofitable, the activity will either stop or switch to something else.

subradios 4y ago
Regulating legitimate business activity out of existence to support progressive prosecutors ideas about shoplifting and street crime is the opposite of a solution.
- ohbleek 4y ago
  Your comment is not supported by the information in the article. Quite the opposite.
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  Actually you are both wrong :) Regulating away legitimate secondary markets to sell on leaves us all paying higher prices. If brands and retailers believe it’s really retail theft causing all of this I invite them to track their goods better and run sting operations. I guarantee this type of money is going out the side door a truckload at a time, not the front door stuffed into someone’s shirt. But the “progressive prosecutor problem” is a made up lie. Even in San Francisco where a DA recall vote actually succeeded it was obvious (and immediately proven[0]) that SFPD were actually just refusing to respond to calls: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-policing-17550839.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/brooke-jenkins-sf-...
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  Knowing your suppliers and that their goods are legitimate is a pretty basic function of a business, and calling people progressive to enforce that is a bit strange. Amazon isn't a pawn shop. They have a lot of choice when it comes to dealing with known businesses.
  - 4y ago

ALittleLight 4y ago

But also blame Amazon. If you ran a store that repeatedly sold stolen goods do you think local police and prosecutors would ignore you? Trafficking in stolen property is a felony. That's true whether you definitely know it's stolen property or if you definitely should have known (recklessly trafficking). You, if you repeatedly did it out of your small business and ignored complaints, would face prison. Why does the law apply differently to Amazon? My guess is, if you told Amazon's CEO that he had one month to substantially reduce trafficking or face felony prosecution and prison time - I bet you'd see severe reductions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
prvit 4y ago
>If you ran a store that repeatedly sold stolen goods do you think local police and prosecutors would ignore you? Yes, if you operated your business in a way similar to Amazon the cops and prosecutors would in fact almost certainly ignore you.
- rdtwo 4y ago
  Yeah no they wouldn’t. How long did Amazon collect no sales tax before that loophole closed? How much did they have to pay back? If you tried that the state would stream roll you
  - prvit 4y ago
    Are you kidding? The “sales tax loophole” just supports my point, if it was just smaller businesses they would’ve gone on forever.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  Really? I just googled my location plus "trafficked stolen property conviction" and found news stories regarding multiple convictions. It sure seems like the police investigate and arrest people knowingly selling stolen property. In what sense is Amazon not doing this, or recklessly disregarding whether or not they are doing this? If I were a multi-hundred billion dollar business operating like Amazon, then of course cops and prosecutors would ignore me. Laws aren't for rich and powerful companies - they are for individuals and small business owners.

blululu 4y ago

Nope. In most states (CA for example) it is a felony to sell stolen goods when the amount exceeds a pretty modest threshold. If, as alleged in the parent comment, they are committing a crime on a large scale then the blame is very well placed. *of course this does not exonerate the original thieves, but as a matter of practicality it is going to be easier to hit a single large offender than a myriad of small ones.

notch656a 4y ago
mens rea
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  You don't have to intend to commit a crime to have mens rea. You merely have to intentionally do all the steps involved in the crime. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and neither is intentional ignorance of whether you are breaking it or not. Pawn shops got the receiving end of this deal a while ago. Now it's Amazon's turn.
  - samtho 4y ago
    Intent does matter, however - plausible deniability would not be a thing otherwise. Only in cases of strict liability are intentions not usually considered, which mostly include minor offenses (infractions) and a few major ones like statutory rape. Possession of items that are illegal to possess in any situation is another case where strict liability applies, but possession of legal goods that “a reasonable person” would not be aware was stolen does not fall into this case. Amazon sellers sign a contract saying the goods they offer for sell are their legal possessions to sell, giving Amazon plausible deniability as if anyone breaks the law, as the seller would then also be breaking their rules as well. I think we need to ask ourselves the harder questions of why people are stealing and figure out how to address that issue. Just like how we here tend to condemn technological solutions for social problems, tons of legal regulations can be fairly criticized for a being a legal solution to a social problem.