5 ms·

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

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.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Well there's a cynical view of how to deal with the general public.
    - brazzy 14y ago
      Unfortunately one that works - mainly because the general public's behaviour is driven by attention to news stories rather than informed choice.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      The market is optimised for efficiency not morality.

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.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  Well there's a cynical view of how to deal with the general public.
  - brazzy 14y ago
    Unfortunately one that works - mainly because the general public's behaviour is driven by attention to news stories rather than informed choice.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    The market is optimised for efficiency not morality.