4 ms·

No, we have a strict policy of not taking pictures or video at work unless it has gone through a rigerous process and is explicitly approved. This protects comp

No, we have a strict policy of not taking pictures or video at work unless it has gone through a rigerous process and is explicitly approved. This protects company IP in the only way that should matter, but it also literally saves lives. Someone tried to bomb the building I used to work in. I do not need the layout of my site on public display, the security measures, the blast proof structures, the safe places to hide. Sorry, whatever pictures the interviewee took takes a backseat to personnel safety. It is the paramount value at amazon, existing above any and all leadership principles.

card_zero 3y ago
Sounds less than completely ingenuous. * The (putative) photos weren't published. * They aren't photos of the building. Perhaps a hundred frivolous public photos could present a risk in this way. A few secret ones taken for a good reason do not. * They were taken to protect safety, just not in alignment with the employer's particular idiosyncratic perspective on safety (which seems muddled up with concerns about IP and PR). So this has no relation to the risk of bombings or shootings, and I still don't see the connection to risk to other workers' livelihoods (AKA jobs). Maybe Amazon are monitoring what you write here, so you're obliged to say this weird stuff?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  You know whats better than trying to strategize and hypothesize around a million employees taking pictures with no approval or accountability? An iron rule that everyone is subject to. You might be right in the particular scenario, that is completely irrelevant. Everyone gets alerts regarding every incident at amazon regardless of whether anyone was hurt. We have a very robust infastructure for identifying issues and correcting them globally. The best the interviewee could have accomplished is adding political complications that produce inferior results.
  - card_zero 3y ago
    There are institutions for public safety outside of Amazon, such as regulatory bodies and laws, to which it is subject. Amazon is not yet a sovereign country, so the alleged robustness of its suspiciously self-serving internal safety procedures is not relevant here, since there can and should be such a thing as whistleblowing, in the civil society within which Amazon awkwardly sits prior to its secession.
    - Geisterde 3y ago
      Right, the epa did a great job with east Palestine and flint. Not having accidents is something amazon has an economic incentive for, what incentives do these other institutions have?
  - metabagel 3y ago
    Iron rule doesn’t sound like somewhere I’d like to work.
metabagel 3y ago
I’m pretty sure personnel safety is not the paramount value at Amazon.

card_zero 3y ago

Sounds less than completely ingenuous. * The (putative) photos weren't published. * They aren't photos of the building. Perhaps a hundred frivolous public photos could present a risk in this way. A few secret ones taken for a good reason do not. * They were taken to protect safety, just not in alignment with the employer's particular idiosyncratic perspective on safety (which seems muddled up with concerns about IP and PR). So this has no relation to the risk of bombings or shootings, and I still don't see the connection to risk to other workers' livelihoods (AKA jobs). Maybe Amazon are monitoring what you write here, so you're obliged to say this weird stuff?

Geisterde 3y ago
You know whats better than trying to strategize and hypothesize around a million employees taking pictures with no approval or accountability? An iron rule that everyone is subject to. You might be right in the particular scenario, that is completely irrelevant. Everyone gets alerts regarding every incident at amazon regardless of whether anyone was hurt. We have a very robust infastructure for identifying issues and correcting them globally. The best the interviewee could have accomplished is adding political complications that produce inferior results.
- card_zero 3y ago
  There are institutions for public safety outside of Amazon, such as regulatory bodies and laws, to which it is subject. Amazon is not yet a sovereign country, so the alleged robustness of its suspiciously self-serving internal safety procedures is not relevant here, since there can and should be such a thing as whistleblowing, in the civil society within which Amazon awkwardly sits prior to its secession.
  - Geisterde 3y ago
    Right, the epa did a great job with east Palestine and flint. Not having accidents is something amazon has an economic incentive for, what incentives do these other institutions have?
- metabagel 3y ago
  Iron rule doesn’t sound like somewhere I’d like to work.

metabagel 3y ago

I’m pretty sure personnel safety is not the paramount value at Amazon.