5 ms·

> it's still your Kindle and Amazon should therefore disclose any information they have stored on your Kindle. What's to stop me from mentioning to a group of

by uxp 14y ago

> it's still your Kindle and Amazon should therefore disclose any information they have stored on your Kindle. What's to stop me from mentioning to a group of friends that I hardly use my Kindle anymore, and one of them offering me $50 for it? Is it still my kindle? Do I have to specifically de-register it before the exchange takes place? What if I beat my wife nightly and she takes off one day into hiding, taking our Kindle with her? Am I legally allowed to recover any location or usage information (assuming it contains that, like a Fire) to teach her a lesson that leaving me is a bad choice? One should be forced to obtain a warrant to obtain any information about a digital device (kindle/ipad/surface/galaxy) that is not the kind of information readily given by the operator of the underlying service to end users by default. It'll prevent a lot of shitty "edge cases" that unfortunately aren't uncommon, including unwarranted digital spying by law enforcement in the first place. I agree on the second point though. When one encrypts a disk on OSX, it requires a complete and painfully (to a lay-user) manual process to wipe that disk to reuse unencrypted if the encryption key is no longer available. The same process should be employed for re-registering any device without the knowledge of the previous registrant's information.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Lagged2Death 14y ago
What's to stop me from mentioning to a group of friends that I hardly use my Kindle anymore, and one of them offering me $50 for it? ... Do I have to specifically de-register it before the exchange takes place? Yes? Is this so different from selling someone a car, a cell phone, a video game console, etc.? What if I beat my wife nightly and she takes off one day into hiding, taking our Kindle with her? Am I legally allowed to recover any location or usage information (assuming it contains that, like a Fire) to teach her a lesson that leaving me is a bad choice? You are attempting to confuse a pretty simple issue of property rights by throwing some over-the-top moral issues and potentially bad outcomes into the mix, as if either the morals or the outcomes have a bearing on the property rights situation or the law. You might as well say "What if I steal a Kindle from Adolf Hitler? Should he be allowed to track me down?" The way things "should" be doesn't have a lot to do with this. In any case, if your abused wife took off with your LoJack or OnStar equipped car, I would expect the theft recovery people would, you know, recover the theft. They wouldn't ask you if you had stopped beating your wife first. They wouldn't first tell you to get the cops involved, then tell you they actually required a court order, then tell you that all data related to your car had been lost. For a relatively low-value item like a Kindle, perhaps it would have been a fair compromise to tell the owner "Sorry, all we can do is ban the unit from the Amazon network." But that's not what happened in this story.
- andynewman 14y ago
  The bottom line is that it's not the customer service reps place to get involved. Giving private user information out every time it is requested would be reckless. For every stolen device, there's at least one that was lost, given away, or sold. A car that costs thousands of dollars is a little different. That's why cars have titles. You don't officially transfer anything when you sell a phone or a Kindle, other than a bit of cash and the device itself. You're also confusing the situation by brining up LoJack or OnStar. A major part of those services is providing location data. Similar to Find my iPhone. If you want to argue why doesn't Amazon have a "Find my Kindle" feature, then I wouldn't disagree. If you're arguing that Amazon should trust anyone who asks for private user information with a compelling story, well...
  - Lagged2Death 14y ago
    A car that costs thousands of dollars is a little different. That's why cars have titles. You don't officially transfer anything when you sell a phone or a Kindle, other than a bit of cash and the device itself. You would hand your American-style locked-to-a-carrier cell phone, that you're paying a monthly service contract on, to another person for a sum of cash? Without wiping your address book, without de-registering the device from the provider account, etc.? Really? And you'd keep paying the contract for the cell phone you don't have anymore? I can see why you'd imagine that cars are different because of their high value. That's not what I was getting at, though. I chose cars as an example because of the registration. Even the lowest value cars are tied to an elaborate network of rules - tax laws, operation and licensing laws, environmental laws, financing and insurance contracts, and property rights. A cell phone is a lot like that; without those ties to the network, the cell phone is worthless. A Kindle is a lot like that too. I'm not arguing that Amazon should necessarily get involved or that they should necessarily have a "find my Kindle" feature. But if law enforcement requests information that Amazon has already promised to hand over to law enforcement I can't see any excuse for not making good on that promise. Even if you think requiring a warrant is the best policy, the story here is that Amazon now claims the information is lost, permanently beyond the reach of a warrant or anything else. I don't think Amazon needs amateur defenders and in this case I don't think they even deserve them. Do you think that if the FBI knocks on Amazon's door and demands account information for all customers who read certain books (on doing chemistry at home, on radical fundamentalist religions, etc.) that they will chase the FBI away, or is it more likely they'll cave instantly, without even asking about a warrant? I find it far-fetched that Amazon is refusing to help with petty thefts as a way of looking out for our privacy. They're just doing what most businesses do: the easy thing.

by uxp 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Lagged2Death 14y ago

What's to stop me from mentioning to a group of friends that I hardly use my Kindle anymore, and one of them offering me $50 for it? ... Do I have to specifically de-register it before the exchange takes place? Yes? Is this so different from selling someone a car, a cell phone, a video game console, etc.? What if I beat my wife nightly and she takes off one day into hiding, taking our Kindle with her? Am I legally allowed to recover any location or usage information (assuming it contains that, like a Fire) to teach her a lesson that leaving me is a bad choice? You are attempting to confuse a pretty simple issue of property rights by throwing some over-the-top moral issues and potentially bad outcomes into the mix, as if either the morals or the outcomes have a bearing on the property rights situation or the law. You might as well say "What if I steal a Kindle from Adolf Hitler? Should he be allowed to track me down?" The way things "should" be doesn't have a lot to do with this. In any case, if your abused wife took off with your LoJack or OnStar equipped car, I would expect the theft recovery people would, you know, recover the theft. They wouldn't ask you if you had stopped beating your wife first. They wouldn't first tell you to get the cops involved, then tell you they actually required a court order, then tell you that all data related to your car had been lost. For a relatively low-value item like a Kindle, perhaps it would have been a fair compromise to tell the owner "Sorry, all we can do is ban the unit from the Amazon network." But that's not what happened in this story.

andynewman 14y ago
The bottom line is that it's not the customer service reps place to get involved. Giving private user information out every time it is requested would be reckless. For every stolen device, there's at least one that was lost, given away, or sold. A car that costs thousands of dollars is a little different. That's why cars have titles. You don't officially transfer anything when you sell a phone or a Kindle, other than a bit of cash and the device itself. You're also confusing the situation by brining up LoJack or OnStar. A major part of those services is providing location data. Similar to Find my iPhone. If you want to argue why doesn't Amazon have a "Find my Kindle" feature, then I wouldn't disagree. If you're arguing that Amazon should trust anyone who asks for private user information with a compelling story, well...
- Lagged2Death 14y ago
  A car that costs thousands of dollars is a little different. That's why cars have titles. You don't officially transfer anything when you sell a phone or a Kindle, other than a bit of cash and the device itself. You would hand your American-style locked-to-a-carrier cell phone, that you're paying a monthly service contract on, to another person for a sum of cash? Without wiping your address book, without de-registering the device from the provider account, etc.? Really? And you'd keep paying the contract for the cell phone you don't have anymore? I can see why you'd imagine that cars are different because of their high value. That's not what I was getting at, though. I chose cars as an example because of the registration. Even the lowest value cars are tied to an elaborate network of rules - tax laws, operation and licensing laws, environmental laws, financing and insurance contracts, and property rights. A cell phone is a lot like that; without those ties to the network, the cell phone is worthless. A Kindle is a lot like that too. I'm not arguing that Amazon should necessarily get involved or that they should necessarily have a "find my Kindle" feature. But if law enforcement requests information that Amazon has already promised to hand over to law enforcement I can't see any excuse for not making good on that promise. Even if you think requiring a warrant is the best policy, the story here is that Amazon now claims the information is lost, permanently beyond the reach of a warrant or anything else. I don't think Amazon needs amateur defenders and in this case I don't think they even deserve them. Do you think that if the FBI knocks on Amazon's door and demands account information for all customers who read certain books (on doing chemistry at home, on radical fundamentalist religions, etc.) that they will chase the FBI away, or is it more likely they'll cave instantly, without even asking about a warrant? I find it far-fetched that Amazon is refusing to help with petty thefts as a way of looking out for our privacy. They're just doing what most businesses do: the easy thing.