Amazon UK Found Guilty Of Airmailing Dangerous Goods (theguardian.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon UK Found Guilty Of Airmailing Dangerous Goods (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday September 23, 2016 @05:20AM from the you-have-got-a-package dept.

Amazon UK has been found guilty and fined 65,000 euro for breaking aviation safety laws after repeatedly trying to send dangerous goods by airmail, reports The Guardian. From the article: A judge at Southwark crown court in London said on Friday that Amazon knew the rules, had been warned repeatedly, but had failed to take reasonable care. Although the risks from the goods sent for shipment by air were low, he blamed the breaches on "systemic failure" at the online retailer. As well as the fine, Amazon was ordered to pay 60,000 euro towards prosecution costs. Earlier in the week, the jury found Amazon guilty of breaching rules for shipping dangerous goods by airmail on four counts between November 2013 and May 2015. The prosecution was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority, after a complaint from Royal Mail. Some offences took place after Amazon knew it was under investigation. In each case, the items -- two packages containing laptop lithium batteries and two containing aerosols that used flammable gas propellant -- had been flagged up by Amazon's computer systems as possibly dangerous goods, and subject to restricted shipping rules.

56 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Are we punishing risk assessment? by penguinoid · 2016-09-23 05:25 · Score: 1

Aerosols are stored separately at Amazon’s warehouse because they are deemed dangerous, and training literature for warehouse staff explains that lithium batteries are dangerous, “potentially causing burns, explosions or a fire”.
Training literature updated to say, "lithium batteries are safe, unlikely to cause burns, explosions or a fire"

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
1. Re: Are we punishing risk assessment? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Unless they're Samsung ones.
2. Re:Are we punishing risk assessment? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Training literature updated to say, "lithium batteries are safe, unlikely to cause burns, explosions or a fire"
  Also "Smoking is good for the lungs, providing a refreshing blast of stimulating nicotine!" and "Alcohol, which does improve your driving skills!" and that'll be the end of it.
3. Re:Are we punishing risk assessment? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently only Amazon is allowed to have risk assessment. Royal Mail clearly should bend over instead of doing their own risk assessment.
4. Re:Are we punishing risk assessment? by NotAPK · 2016-09-23 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  "Alcohol, which does improve your drinking skills!"
  FTFY!
Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:27 · Score: 0, Troll

Amazon is greedy for being unwilling to properly ship potentially dangerous goods. This isn't the first time they've been in trouble for something like this, either. I think it goes beyond negligence and to greed for not paying to properly ship the goods. Therefore, a 60,000 Euro fine is hardly enough to discourage the behavior. It's incredibly Jewish of Amazon to do this, but sadly they won't be punished sufficiently to make them stop.
1. Re:Not enough by Hognoxious · 2016-09-23 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  They probably made more than that in the time it took to write that post.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
2. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe, maybe not. Amazon struggles to make a profit.
3. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's incredibly Jewish of Amazon to do this
  
  Found the Trump supporter.
4. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Re-word it to say this: Amazon *saved* more money by improperly shipping...
5. Re:Not enough by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-23 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  Amazon struggles to make a profit.
  Amazon has made a deliberate decision to focus on growth rather than profit. So far this has been a very smart strategy, and their investors seem to agree.
  Amazon is an obvious counter-example to the claim that American investors only focus on short term results.
6. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  £65,000 is roughly 75,000 Euros not 60,000
  We neatly dodged the Euro Trainwreck in the UK..
7. Re:Not enough by Hognoxious · 2016-09-23 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Is there some Hollywood accounting going on? Last I heard Bezos isn't exactly skint.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:Not enough by lgw · 2016-09-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Amazon is greedy for being unwilling to properly ship potentially dangerous goods.
  
  Given this only happened 4 times, I'd bet it's just a process enforcement issue - that is, they have a process to prevent it, but no real incentive to police it.
  
  Therefore, a 60,000 Euro fine is hardly enough to discourage the behavior.
  
  Maybe - it's they're only doing it negligently, that's enough incentive to actually follow the process they (I'm guesing) already have. Or to just fly all the explosives only on the new planes they bought. One of those.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  I believe the saying is "The exception makes the rule"
10. Re:Not enough by david_thornley · 2016-09-23 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I always heard "The exception proves the rule." This makes sense if you use "proves" in a very old-fashioned sense meaning "tests", or if what's important is the existence of the exception. If I run a storefront, and put up a sign saying "Emergency - store closed 1-7 PM today", I'm implying that the store is normally open 1-7 PM on that day.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
11. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, just go out into the world and try to do business with a Jew.
  They're the most tight fucking-arse wankers you'll ever meet.
  And absolutely to the point of being cunts about it. Hence, they well-deserve the moniker of being "Jewish" in their business dealings.
  Just say no.
  Fuck Jews.
12. Re:Not enough by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-23 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  The reason that Amazon is an exception is that they are actually investing for the long run. Most unprofitable companies are not investing, they are just losing money through mismanagement and using "we are investing for the long term" as an excuse. So of course investors don't tolerate that.
  There are plenty of growth funds that specialize in companies focused on growth rather than short-term profit. If there was really a lack of long term investing, these funds would out-perform the market. For the most part, they don't.
  If you ignore HFTers (which are neither long nor short term investors) the average hold time for stocks has been going up for more than a decade.
Fix the law by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:39 · Score: 1

Fix the law; $68K is an inadequate fine to hurt enough to fix their behavior. Prohibiting them from using any airmail for a year would be much more reasonable.
1. Re:Fix the law by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Great plan until they actually do that and then realize how much money Amazon was pumping into the mail service. Even just on the Airmail side of things. Plus there is the very real possibility that if they barred Amazon from Airmail that Amazon might just switch over to exclusively using private carriers. Either way I will guarantee the mail service will see a hefty hit to their bottom line and people in the employ of said mail service will likely lose their jobs as a result of punishing Amazon in such a way.
2. Re:Fix the law by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  >>> Fix the law; $68K is an inadequate fine
  £65,000 is roughly $84,233 at current rate of exchange... Not that it makes much difference
3. Re:Fix the law by TheCastro1689 · 2016-09-23 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  FedEx and UPS constantly drop their packages off at local post offices to complete their delivery. It's become a lot of money to the USPS.
4. Re:Fix the law by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-23 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  $68K
  It wasn't $68K. The summary says it was €68K, but it wasn't that either. It was £68K.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
5. Re:Fix the law by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-23 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Hah, not it wasn't, it was £65K! Now everybody looks stupid, including me!
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
6. Re:Fix the law by NotAPK · 2016-09-23 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  And why do middle-man scum like FedEx and UPS exist again?
7. Re:Fix the law by drinkypoo · 2016-09-23 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  And why do middle-man scum like FedEx and UPS exist again?
  UPS and FedEx are getting their small packages delivered, and customers are getting Saturday delivery.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sixty Five thousand Euros?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:40 · Score: 0

£65,000 = Pounds Sterling, if you Please. Accepted at all good Courts of Justice...
1. Re:Sixty Five thousand Euros?? by FlyHelicopters · 2016-09-23 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Â£65,000 = Pounds Sterling, if you Please. Accepted at all good Courts of Justice...
  Couch cushion money for Amazon...
guilty of not paying the shakedown tax by micahraleigh · 2016-09-23 05:44 · Score: 0

Foreign companies are essentially bottomless piggy banks, right?

We're just helping ourselves to our fair share.
1. Re:guilty of not paying the shakedown tax by Joce640k · 2016-09-23 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Only the American ones.
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:guilty of not paying the shakedown tax by FlyHelicopters · 2016-09-23 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Only the American ones.
  That door swings both ways...
3. Re:guilty of not paying the shakedown tax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Try following the laws in the countries you operate in, instead of whining. See which is more profitable long-term. This law is reasonable and easily followed.
4. Re:guilty of not paying the shakedown tax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  How dare the United States fine an American company!
5. Re:guilty of not paying the shakedown tax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  That door swings both ways...
  So does you mom!
6. Re:guilty of not paying the shakedown tax by micahraleigh · 2016-09-26 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Easily followed, sure ... you just hand it over.
  
  Reasonable in that the government has a reason to enrich itself.
Reminds me of Mr. Burns quote by The-Ixian · 2016-09-23 05:48 · Score: 1

The reference to Airmail made me think of a Mr. Burns quote:
"I'd like to send this letter to the Prussian consulate in Siam by aeromail. Am I too late for the 4:30 autogyro?"

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
1. Re:Reminds me of Mr. Burns quote by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-23 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  You there, fill it up with petroleum distillate and revulcanize my tyres post-haste!
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Ridiculous by Damouze · 2016-09-23 05:50 · Score: 1

"Earlier in the week, the jury found Amazon guilty of breaching rules for shipping dangerous goods by airmail on four counts between November 2013 and May 2015."
This is where I stopped reading. Please come back when you have a proper justice system where proper judges determine your guilt, not a bunch of people whose only interest is to get out of the jury chamber as soon as possible.

--
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
1. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  What an awesome idea!
  Let's have prosecutors, who are employed by the Ministry of Justice, work with judges, who are former prosecutors employed by the Ministry of Justice, to side with them over the defendant's lawyer, some guy in private practice.
  Yeah, I'm sure THAT will be fair.
  Japan tried this system. It lead to decades of 99% or better conviction rates, often based on no evidence at all. There's a reason Japan recently implemented Jury trials, and it isn't because the judge-only system was working so well.
What I don't understand. by Ecuador · 2016-09-23 05:52 · Score: 1

What I don't understand is why you are not allowed to air mail a battery by itself in a sealed container, while you are allowed to air mail the same battery inside a device. I am not that familiar with battery technology, but I would expect that a battery connected to a circuit to have additional ways of catching fire compared to a battery by itself. I mean if a fault happens inside the battery you are screwed whether it is in a device or by itself, but AFAIK there are cases where the problems were caused by the electronics connected to the battery, so you get an even higher chance of something going wrong. Maybe they are afraid the density, i.e. shipments with just batteries which would make more batteries per volume than say a shipment of laptops? But still, there would be rules about density then.
What am I missing?

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
1. Re:What I don't understand. by ArtemaOne · 2016-09-23 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Almost any major market device such as laptops and phones have circuitry that protects the battery from creating problems. One example is the 16850 batteries. If you get the protected version, they grow in height (making them not fit the same devices, which is confusing) because of the extra circuitry that prevents problems from occurring. That sort of thing is in every one of the things you mentioned, so they are safer inside than isolated.
2. Re:What I don't understand. by Ecuador · 2016-09-23 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I am familiar with the basics at least and, as far as I know, the extra circuitry is there to protect them from problems that are related to the battery charge and discharge. Otherwise the danger with lithium batteries seems to be short-circuits that can happen INSIDE the cell when tiny metal particles move around and touch parts they should not, or something like that. The circuitry does not protect from anything like that. That's why I am asking whether someone who actually knows this stuff can shed some light.
  
  --
  Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
3. Re:What I don't understand. by Jerry+Atrick · 2016-09-23 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think there's a reasonable (flawed) assumption devices provide an acceptable level of physical protection for their batteries, mainly from puncture and external short circuits. At least more protection than padded bags, cardboard or light plastic packing is going to achieve without stringent unenforceable packing standards.
  Another condition for transporting in devices is that they cannot turn on, ruling out most of the causes of in-device fires.
  Possibly credible if you ignore cheap knockoffs that aren't standards tested.
4. Re:What I don't understand. by Jaime2 · 2016-09-23 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  ... or when they are involved in a plane crash. Most of the safety regulations are there to protect the emergency responders that may come to the site of an accident.
  Where I used to work, we couldn't air ship some of our chemotherapy drugs. They wouldn't explode or catch fire, but if a box of them were crushed, the people who breath the air could be seriously harmed.
5. Re:What I don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  The rules (I read them some time ago) actually explain what you have to do for safe shipping, and making it quite clear what the concerns are.
  A battery inside a device is basically inside a (reasonably) safe and sturdy container designed to fit it perfectly.
  A loose battery in contrary, if not packed properly can bump around inside the package and get damaged, it might make contact with some metal and discharge very quickly and cause a fire (even without damaging the battery), possibly after falling out of the package.
  Another issue is that you can stack a lot more batteries in the same space than whole devices, thus increasing both risk and potential damage.
6. Re:What I don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Almost any major market device such as laptops and phones have circuitry that protects the battery from creating problems. One example is the 16850 batteries. If you get the protected version, they grow in height (making them not fit the same devices, which is confusing) because of the extra circuitry that prevents problems from occurring. That sort of thing is in every one of the things you mentioned, so they are safer inside than isolated.
  better circuitry is not going to fix the problems associated with bad chemistry, these batteries live at the hairy edge of stability and there is only a small margin of safety. if the chemical processes are out of tolerance then they are making bombs.
7. Re:What I don't understand. by tlhIngan · 2016-09-23 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  What I don't understand is why you are not allowed to air mail a battery by itself in a sealed container, while you are allowed to air mail the same battery inside a device. I am not that familiar with battery technology, but I would expect that a battery connected to a circuit to have additional ways of catching fire compared to a battery by itself. I mean if a fault happens inside the battery you are screwed whether it is in a device or by itself, but AFAIK there are cases where the problems were caused by the electronics connected to the battery, so you get an even higher chance of something going wrong. Maybe they are afraid the density, i.e. shipments with just batteries which would make more batteries per volume than say a shipment of laptops? But still, there would be rules about density then.
  What am I missing?
  Problem is battery density. If you're sending batteries, the amount is far more dangerous per unit volume than if the battery was in a device.
  Shipping lithium batteries in bulk is what caused the downing of a UPS cargo plane a while back which is why they're no longer allowed - one battery caught fire, which then caused other batteries in the same container to catch as well.
  Whereas if it was in a laptop, it may destroy the device and the pack, but the density of cells is lower and its less likely to catch more packs on fire.
  It's why hoverboards are particularly dangerous - their packs of 10 or 20 cells wrapped tightly together - when one goes off, it will more than likely cause the rest to off as well.
  Also, raw lithium and aluminum don't mix - which means the sprayed lithium can damage structural aircraft components as well.
8. Re:What I don't understand. by NotAPK · 2016-09-23 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Some of those aspects make sense, but the big ticket items about "bumping around" are just bullshit. Most laptop batteries, for exampe, come inside a protective plastic case. Most (in my experience) have recessed metal contacts so the battery is unable to short against a loose conductor.
9. Re:What I don't understand. by drinkypoo · 2016-09-23 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Shipping lithium batteries in bulk is what caused the downing of a UPS cargo plane a while back which is why they're no longer allowed - one battery caught fire, which then caused other batteries in the same container to catch as well.
  But you can carry batteries onto a plane in bulk — the limit is on battery capacity, not on the total capacity you're allowed to carry, so you can put 30 batteries in one bag and walk onto a plane...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
enfia o dinehiro no cú e vai embora helena fd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 05:53 · Score: 0

enfia a merda do inti ali no teu cú henela filha da puta., daí tu para de me trollar. eu só estu esperando essa filha da puta ir embora daqui pra eu voltar a jogar gta.
Who fucked up the currency in the summary? by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-23 06:03 · Score: 1

Amazon UK has been found guilty and fined 65,000 euro
No, it was pounds (British ones, specifically).
Also, there is a symbol for both the pound and the euro. Mind you, knowing Slashdot, it would probably display as Ãc.
(Jesus, I couldn't even paste in a string of nonsense ASCII characters without Slashdot screwing it up somehow. That c was supposed to be a , but doing that resulted in an â

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Who fucked up the currency in the summary? by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-23 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  And then I hit Submit too early. Bah. Fergeddit.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Who fucked up the currency in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Also, there is a symbol for both the pound and the euro.
  No, there isn't. Each one has its own symbol.
How many airplanes crash from cargo fires? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-23 10:00 · Score: 0

You may be asking yourself if this is really that big of a deal. I mean do airplanes really crash from cargo fires?
Yes. Here are some examples:
UPS Airlines Flight 6 - lithium ion battery packs
ValuJet Flight 592 - improperly stored chemical oxygen generators added to the company cargo for maintenance
American Airlines Flight 132 - hydrogen peroxide
1. Re:How many airplanes crash from cargo fires? by NotAPK · 2016-09-23 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  From the onset of a cabin fire you have 17 minutes to get the plane on the ground before complete loss of the aircraft.
  The growing situation with batteries is bloody terrifying. Will it take a total loss of aircraft before a better solution (than just an outright ban) can be found? Could this be what happened to MH-370 last year?
Not new. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2016-09-23 13:40 · Score: 0

I remember an incident mentioned by Zoologist Desmond Morris, in The Naked Ape . He goes through how difficult it was to get a dog through quarantine and get it into UK. Then about opening his regular mail one day and finding some dog brain slices sent from Africa! Some acquaintance/collaborator asking for a favor, "Please test the enclosed dog brain slices for ...". I think the book was published in 1970 or so.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact