5 ms·

Companies have privacy obligations. If they inaccurately link you to a fraudulent user and then tell you all the activity of that fraudulent user, they've proba

Companies have privacy obligations. If they inaccurately link you to a fraudulent user and then tell you all the activity of that fraudulent user, they've probably just broken the law. That's a specific example where it might not be legal but I agree that this is widespread and there are lots of things in the real world where it would be fine to tell you, but they choose not to. In my experience this is to protect internal process (so you can't cite why they're idiots) or so that they can sell you another product (credit score improvement, etc). But I do agree, the withholding of detail is widespread to a point where it suggests people just plain don't want to tell you anything.

chris_wot 14y ago
A bit of catch 22 really. If they have inaccurately linked you with a fraudulent user and they accuse you of having committed fraud, they've just defamed your character. If they were in the U.S. I'd be suggesting they lawyer up.
- oliwarner 14y ago
  Defamy wouldn't apply as it's a private relationship. They're not broadcasting to the world that they think you're a con, they're just telling you... Which is fine.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Where are you getting that definition from? I have used Wikipedia for the definition of how one proves libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. Of course, there is no citation. I just added the {{fact}} tag. But does anyone know if this is true or not?
    - unreal37 14y ago
      Telling her privately that her account is associated with a fraudulent account has not caused her any harm, thus its not libeled her. Only if they published it to the world, she could claim her reputation has been harmed.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        Actually, it did because she lost all her books and she isn't able to get them back.
        Evbn 14y ago
        The loss of books has nothing to do with the speech act of libel.
        chris_wot 14y ago
        "Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm."
        dangrossman 14y ago
        1:00 PM -- fraud system links her account to another banned account 1:00 PM -- her account is closed 2:00 PM -- she asks Amazon why her account is closed 3:00 PM -- Amazon makes the statement you claim is libelous The loss occurred before the statement, so you cannot claim the statement caused that loss. The alleged libel did not result in the damages you're claiming. Libel would be if Amazon falsely accused her of fraud in public, then her employer terminating her employment as a result of that statement. That is a harm resulting from the statement.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      The last one seems a little odd "the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement". What is to stop somebody extensively researching something but then just deciding to lie anyway?
  - rmc 14y ago
    Depends. In the EU, companies are legally required to store personal data accurately. It doesn't matter if they don't tell anyone (in fact often they cannot tell people, privacy and all that). If you tell them that personal data they have one you is incorrect, they are legally required to correct it. So yes, if the data is wrong, they might be breaking the law.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Not just in Europe - Australia has similar privacy legislation also. If a company is storing incorrect information about you, you can request to see your record and then have them correct that record. If they won't, the Privacy Commissioner can investigate and order them to do so.
    - oliwarner 14y ago
      I don't know... Even in records, Amazon are allowed to inaccurately call you a filthy good-for-nothing and these would not be subject to EU Privacy requests. They're not FOIA requests. You don't get to request a copy of your whole file like you can with the FBI. Amazon is not a public body. Its privacy requirements are limited to giving you a copy of your personal information. Name. Address. Phone number. Anything else (including the marker labelling you as a pillaging hobo) is their proprietary business intelligence and good luck convincing them otherwise.
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I'm not sure privacy obligations are really at play here. I can think of two reasons they're taking the approach they're taking: 1) They don't want to get into a discussion which is likely to be time consuming. It's not just innocent people who appeal these things, often the most guilty are those who will most actively and vocally profess their innocence (in some cases up to and including going to court over it - c.f. the UK politician Jonathan Atkin). The minute Amazon became willing to talk about this stuff they'd need a who bunch more people to start looking into each one in detail, review every claim and counter claim and so on, and they clearly don't think that that's a good use of their money. 2) The sorts of things they'd likely have to reveal are going to be the sorts of things people who are abusing the system want to know to get round it. Doing this would make their job harder. Not saying that it's right that they take this approach, just I can see the reasons they do.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  The minute Amazon became willing to talk about this stuff they'd need a who bunch more people to start looking into each one in detail, review every claim and counter claim and so on, and they clearly don't think that that's a good use of their money. I for one would like them to start talking about this sort of thing, and review these cases more thoroughly. After all, people paid good money to them to read books. Books which they stole away from them. It seems unlikely that Amazon provided a refund to the lady in question.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    I'm sure you would, but that's not much of a reason for Amazon to do so. It's far easier and cheaper for them to ignore most cases and instead wait for the few that blow up like this one and then look into them at that point. In those cases if they think that they're even remotely in the wrong I suspect that they'll reinstate the account, send their apologies, send the person in question a gift voucher and get on with doing exactly what they were doing before. It's very easy to think that the sort of outcry that happens on HN, or even on Twitter, reflects public opinion, but the reality is that this audience is both far more aware of these events, and far more considered in their reaction. The sad reality is that Amazon can get away with this sort of thing because most Kindle users won't ever learn about it and even if they do won't really understand what it means or change their behaviour.
imgabe 14y ago
If they are not confident enough that they've accurately linked you to a fraudulent user to tell you the details of that account, they should not feel confident enough to CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT on that basis.

chris_wot 14y ago

A bit of catch 22 really. If they have inaccurately linked you with a fraudulent user and they accuse you of having committed fraud, they've just defamed your character. If they were in the U.S. I'd be suggesting they lawyer up.

oliwarner 14y ago
Defamy wouldn't apply as it's a private relationship. They're not broadcasting to the world that they think you're a con, they're just telling you... Which is fine.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Where are you getting that definition from? I have used Wikipedia for the definition of how one proves libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. Of course, there is no citation. I just added the {{fact}} tag. But does anyone know if this is true or not?
  - unreal37 14y ago
    Telling her privately that her account is associated with a fraudulent account has not caused her any harm, thus its not libeled her. Only if they published it to the world, she could claim her reputation has been harmed.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Actually, it did because she lost all her books and she isn't able to get them back.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        The loss of books has nothing to do with the speech act of libel.
        chris_wot 14y ago
        "Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm."
        dangrossman 14y ago
        1:00 PM -- fraud system links her account to another banned account 1:00 PM -- her account is closed 2:00 PM -- she asks Amazon why her account is closed 3:00 PM -- Amazon makes the statement you claim is libelous The loss occurred before the statement, so you cannot claim the statement caused that loss. The alleged libel did not result in the damages you're claiming. Libel would be if Amazon falsely accused her of fraud in public, then her employer terminating her employment as a result of that statement. That is a harm resulting from the statement.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    The last one seems a little odd "the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement". What is to stop somebody extensively researching something but then just deciding to lie anyway?
- rmc 14y ago
  Depends. In the EU, companies are legally required to store personal data accurately. It doesn't matter if they don't tell anyone (in fact often they cannot tell people, privacy and all that). If you tell them that personal data they have one you is incorrect, they are legally required to correct it. So yes, if the data is wrong, they might be breaking the law.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Not just in Europe - Australia has similar privacy legislation also. If a company is storing incorrect information about you, you can request to see your record and then have them correct that record. If they won't, the Privacy Commissioner can investigate and order them to do so.
  - oliwarner 14y ago
    I don't know... Even in records, Amazon are allowed to inaccurately call you a filthy good-for-nothing and these would not be subject to EU Privacy requests. They're not FOIA requests. You don't get to request a copy of your whole file like you can with the FBI. Amazon is not a public body. Its privacy requirements are limited to giving you a copy of your personal information. Name. Address. Phone number. Anything else (including the marker labelling you as a pillaging hobo) is their proprietary business intelligence and good luck convincing them otherwise.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago

I'm not sure privacy obligations are really at play here. I can think of two reasons they're taking the approach they're taking: 1) They don't want to get into a discussion which is likely to be time consuming. It's not just innocent people who appeal these things, often the most guilty are those who will most actively and vocally profess their innocence (in some cases up to and including going to court over it - c.f. the UK politician Jonathan Atkin). The minute Amazon became willing to talk about this stuff they'd need a who bunch more people to start looking into each one in detail, review every claim and counter claim and so on, and they clearly don't think that that's a good use of their money. 2) The sorts of things they'd likely have to reveal are going to be the sorts of things people who are abusing the system want to know to get round it. Doing this would make their job harder. Not saying that it's right that they take this approach, just I can see the reasons they do.

chris_wot 14y ago
The minute Amazon became willing to talk about this stuff they'd need a who bunch more people to start looking into each one in detail, review every claim and counter claim and so on, and they clearly don't think that that's a good use of their money. I for one would like them to start talking about this sort of thing, and review these cases more thoroughly. After all, people paid good money to them to read books. Books which they stole away from them. It seems unlikely that Amazon provided a refund to the lady in question.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I'm sure you would, but that's not much of a reason for Amazon to do so. It's far easier and cheaper for them to ignore most cases and instead wait for the few that blow up like this one and then look into them at that point. In those cases if they think that they're even remotely in the wrong I suspect that they'll reinstate the account, send their apologies, send the person in question a gift voucher and get on with doing exactly what they were doing before. It's very easy to think that the sort of outcry that happens on HN, or even on Twitter, reflects public opinion, but the reality is that this audience is both far more aware of these events, and far more considered in their reaction. The sad reality is that Amazon can get away with this sort of thing because most Kindle users won't ever learn about it and even if they do won't really understand what it means or change their behaviour.

imgabe 14y ago

If they are not confident enough that they've accurately linked you to a fraudulent user to tell you the details of that account, they should not feel confident enough to CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT on that basis.