Amazon Granted a Patent That Prevents In-Store Shoppers From Online Price Checking (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Amazon's long been a go-to for people to online price compare while shopping at brick-and-mortars. Now, a new patent granted to the company could prevent people from doing just that inside Amazon's own stores. The patent, titled "Physical Store Online Shopping Control," details a mechanism where a retailer can intercept network requests like URLs and search terms that happen on its in-store Wi-Fi, then act upon them in various ways. The document details in great length how a retailer like Amazon would use this information to its benefit. If, for example, the retailer sees you're trying to access a competitor's website to price check an item, it could compare the requested content to what's offered in-store and then send price comparison information or a coupon to your browser instead. Or it could suggest a complementary item, or even block content outright. Amazon's patent also lets the retailer know your physical whereabouts, saying, "the location may be triangulated utilizing information received from a multitude of wireless access points." The retailer can then use this information to try and upsell you on items in your immediate area or direct a sales representative to your location.

Comments

Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[GameboyRMH]

Not only will they track you and spy on you. but now they'll also censor your browsing.

At least they're not just silently modifying the traffic to mislead you...yet...

Now what's that theory about all participants in capitalism requiring perfect information about the market?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[__aaclcg7560]

Consumers are on the receiving end of capitalism. They're not capitalists. What more perfect information can you get than a capative audience on your in-store wifi network?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Reminds me of what Henny Youngman always used to say: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this"...

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually hope they implement and use it actively. I hope other stores do too and I hope this is actively mentioned in the news. Perhaps that's what's needed for Joe Common to finally realize how ubiquitous tracking is and why he should care.

Then finally maybe there'll be a push towards everything going HTTPS and websites and apps finally putting some effort to protect the privacy of their users' traffic.

Re: Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually,Best Buy got caught doing exactly that some years ago. They were modifying web pages to show inflated prices when shoppers used their network to look for price matches.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you turn off Wi-Fi and use your carrier bits. If they try to intercept that, well, you'll
know better than to shop there anyway, and can complain to the FCC as well. That
alone should cause Amazoned enough PR grief to perhaps re-think their approach,
assuming the discussion here on /. doesn't do the trick. Come to think of it, wouldn't it
be "interesting" if someone put up warning signs near the entrances to their properties?...

Kind of reminds me of when I was in my senior year of college and got an HP-35 calculator
for Christmas. Got a lot of raised eyebrows from management when I went into the local
supermarket and started calculating price-per-weight on various items. Ironically, when the
use of small handheld calculators exploded in the following year, a state law was passed to
*require* the posting of unit prices on store shelves.

So, yes, sometimes the consumer does win over draconian store practices...

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[hwihyw]

So Amazon's in-store wifi will now be biased towards Amazon. Say it isn't so.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[kilfarsnar]

Perhaps that's what's needed for Joe Common to finally realize how ubiquitous tracking is and why he should care.

Then finally maybe there'll be a push towards everything going HTTPS and websites and apps finally putting some effort to protect the privacy of their users' traffic.

I have little hope that Joe Common will ever care about ubiquitous tracking. They may say they care, but they will not change their actions or habits. Most people just don't have the vision or understanding. However, I have noticed that more and more websites are going to HTTPS. It seems to have been prompted by Edward Snowden's revelations a few years ago; or at least seemed contemporaneous.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[ShanghaiBill]

I hope other stores do too and I hope this is actively mentioned in the news.

They could use the same technique to block all news mentioning it.

Then finally maybe there'll be a push towards everything going HTTPS

You are confused. This has nothing to do with HTTPS. Nearly every ecommerce site is already using HTTPS.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[alvinrod]

It has nothing to do with being on the receiving end, as the theory (which doesn't even require capitalism as it comes from game theory and any planned economy that wants to even have a chance of working is going to strive for perfect information) applies to anyone participating in the game, which consumers are definitely doing.

In the real world, perfect information is practically impossible, and even when it is potentially available, it is frequently too expensive to justify the cost of acquiring it. Capitalism as typically practiced is a decentralized economic approach, which tends to work well in practice because no one is a mind reader, so the individual players tend to make economic moves that are more locally informed on average than planned economies could ever hope to achieve.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[TWX]

Perhaps, given that Amazon has like, two retail locations, the point of this is to prevent other sellers like, oh, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc, from being able to block retail customers from searching for Amazon pricing on items they find in-store?

'cause it seems to me that if a seller doesn't really have a brick-and-mortar presence, that this patent doesn't help them actively.

Re: Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[thegreatbob]

Similar, but slightly different... they were manipulating their own website (or rather, had a separate intranet site) to cheat people out of their own online specials.
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... http://gizmodo.com/241220/best...

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[thegreatbob]

There's a pool on the roof.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[DrXym]

Use Opera Mini, Orfox or something like that. Failing that, don't use the store wifi and ensure not to install/use Amazon's apps, or if you do, deny them location info.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[spikesahead]

Why would I EVER connect to in-store wifi? Even if they manage to change the law enough to let them turn the store into a faraday cage, I can still GO OUTSIDE and find out anything I want.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[gnick]

I hope other stores do too and I hope this is actively mentioned in the news.

They could use the same technique to block all news mentioning it.

Only if you're trying to load the news story while connected to the store's wi-fi. Not connecting to the store's wi-fi seems like it would solve this issue pretty well.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[ukandystreet]

With HTTPS this is impossible.

Unless you happen to have a root cert. I guess the question is how much do you trust Amazon Trust Services?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Z00L00K]

How do you know that?

That's what the air ticket sellers have done for a long time now. It has been proven that if you shop around for best price then they use cookies to track that you do that and you almost never get any better price than you got at the first site.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[tepples]

Why would I EVER connect to in-store wifi?

Because your phone's 4G meter app shows "0 MB left".

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[religionofpeas]

My "cheap-bastard" plan costs $1 / day for 100MB + calls + text.

My "luxury-bastard" plan costs $11/month for 10GB, no calls, no text.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[dkone]

Why would you ever 'jump on' wifi in a store? Even if my wifi is turned on, I have to manually connect to any new networks. My experience this dates back to Best Buy and their in-store price lookup kiosks. Not sure if they still have them, but a few years back I had looked up the price of something at home saw it was in stock at the local Best Buy. Went there to purchase but the price was something like 100 dollars more. I asked the associate what was up, told him I just verified the price on the their website was less. He takes me to one of the pricing kiosks, looks up the part and shows me it matches the in-store price. Since this was before I had a smart phone (like I said it was years ago), I ran home looked up the price again, printed it out, went back to the store and got the item for that price. Turns out the in-store kiosks either pointed to an intranet mirror of the public site or had different pricing. Bottom line is don't trust the wolf when he says he isn't going to eat you.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[nitehawk214]

Now that is some evil shit right there.

But is there some way to detect this? Does Amazon Trust Services allow Amazon to spoof any website in the world?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[ShanghaiBill]

According to the article whether or not HTTPS is used is very relevant to the system employed in this patent.

Well, then since near 100% of ecommerce sites use HTTPS, Amazon's technique will work roughly 0% of the time, and this is a total non-issue.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Minupla]

Or better - install a VPN server at home and send everything on your phone out through it. Now you can connect to anything you want, it'll either be secure or won't work (captive portal won't be visible while you're on a VPN).

Min

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[JohnFen]

This. Of course, anyone who is still using any WiFi they don't control without going through a VPN probably doesn't care about their privacy at all.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[JohnFen]

With HTTPS this is impossible. With HTTPS connections the only thing Amazon could tell is what address you were connecting to and everything from there is encrypted.

Not quite. If the search terms are part of the URL, as is common, then HTTPS doesn't hide them.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[TheFakeTimCook]

I hope other stores do too and I hope this is actively mentioned in the news.

They could use the same technique to block all news mentioning it.

Only if you're trying to load the news story while connected to the store's wi-fi. Not connecting to the store's wi-fi seems like it would solve this issue pretty well.

Exactly.

I don't know about anyone else's phone; but my iPhone allows me to connect to the internet via cellular data. This neatly bypasses that whole "in-store-WiFi" bit.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[thomn8r]

promise that some day, if they're good and compliant, you'll regulate all their problems away

Actually, the promise is that if they comply, they too will some day be millionaires.

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[magarity]

Because your phone's 4G meter app shows "0 MB left".

What is this, 2015? You're on the wrong plan/network if you get that kind of thing anymore.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[ctilsie242]

I use in store wi-fi all the time. Through my VPN software, that is. I've seen too much hanky-panky go on otherwise, be it some stores trying to force their own key for SSL requests, ad injections, redirects, blocking competitive sites as "pornographic", all types of shenanigans.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[XanC]

Yes it does.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[tepples]

I don't have a data plan at all, and not having one saves me hundreds per year compared to having one unless price comparison would make up for its price.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Jawnn]

Now what's that theory about all participants in capitalism requiring perfect information about the market?

That notion holds that the "invisible hand" only works where customers are adequately informed about the marketplace and the things of interest to them in that marketplace. It really does not apply here. Amazon is perfectly within their rights to say, "My WiFi. My rules. Go get informed on somebody else's network."

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Rick Schumann]

Actually the summary says as much as their 'patent' specifies essentially a man-in-the-middle attack, intercepting and modifying the datastream to and from your browser, not just outright blocking certain requests. The obvious workaround would be to use your cell connection instead of in-store WiFi. The more obvious solution would be to indict Amazon on the basis of cyber-hacking laws, which is essentially what they're doing. I don't think they could even force you to sign a waiver and have it be legal. I'm glad I don't have or want a smartphone, I'll never have to put up with bullshit like this.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Rick Schumann]

Here's a different possible reason why: Amazon is considering getting into the patent-troll business, and if anyone else tries this, they'll sue the living daylights out of them. If they try to get the 'technology' licensed to them, they'll find the price to be beyond exorbitant.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[robkeeney]

I wouldn't call that patent trolling, I'd call that defensive patenting.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[David_Hart]

Not only will they track you and spy on you. but now they'll also censor your browsing.

At least they're not just silently modifying the traffic to mislead you...yet...

Now what's that theory about all participants in capitalism requiring perfect information about the market?

It's been reported that Amazon uses algorithms to determine what price you see on their web page. I'm willing to bet that the primary use for this is for the Amazon web page to show the same price or the same price minus a certain percent as the retail outlet. This way they could avoid tripping themselves up by showing a higher price or a significantly lower price on the Amazon web page.

Re: Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[slazzy]

Another reason to always use a VPN as well. I run my own on a digitalocean droplet.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[JohnFen]

You are correct, I am wrong. I shouldn't comment pre-coffee.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[rhazz]

the point of this is to prevent other sellers like, oh, Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc, from being able to block retail customers from searching for Amazon pricing on items they find in-store?

That's a good point. Conversely, I wonder if sites like Amazon could use source IP information to detect if someone is looking up their product from inside a competitor's store? They could cross-reference your location with their own database of that competitor's prices and give you a price that is 5% less.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[LunaticTippy]

Sometimes I don't get a good mobile signal deep inside a building. If I'm bored I'll hop on wifi if available. I doubt this behavior is unusual.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[therealspacebug]

VPN - there, done :)

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[thomst]

Use a VPN, damnit.

I'm on Project Fi, which includes automagic VPN protection on other than trusted WiFi networks. I'm also a belt-suspenders-and-staples kind of a guy, so I have VPNUnlimited's Android client installed on my Nexus 6, as well.

Because fuck a whole bunch of Jeff Bezos, anyway.

(And, yes, I'm well aware of the irony of the above sentiment, given my .sig. My mind is a hobgoblin-free zone.)

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Obfuscant]

Even if they manage to change the law enough to let them turn the store into a faraday cage,

What law do they need to change?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[TWX]

As far as I am aware geolocation is not that granular, even with phones using IPv6, and if I were a competitor and concerned that Amazon was going to do this with customers using my Internet hotspots I'd contract to a service to act as gateway that doesn't immediately indicate where the shopper is connecting from.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[tattood]

Not even that. At the very most they can work out the domain you're connecting to (and only if they're smart enough to correlate a DNS query you did with the IP address you're connecting to.

They can see the IP address and probably the website/hostname you are connecting to thanks to Server Name Indication

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[tattood]

Actually, with a little geolocation magic, they can track you still. Maybe Amazon will innocuously ask for geolocation information or their app does it already. Then it's just a matter of saying, "Oh they are at Walmart looking up prices on Amazon. Show different prices."

On my iPhone, the Amazon app doesn't ask for permission to track location, so the app doesn't know where you are. Even if they could somehow tell you were looking at prices from within a WalMart, if they give you a lower price than WalMart, and you get free prime shipping, then thanks for the easy discount Amazon!

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Grishnakh]

I don't know about anyone else's phone; but my iPhone allows me to connect to the internet via cellular data.

No, it doesn't, not when there's insufficient signal strength because the nearest tower is too far away and you're in a big giant metal box which works as an effective Faraday shield. This is one of the main reasons large stores and malls offer free WiFi in the first place.

So depending on the particular store's location, which network your phone uses, and also your exact location within the store, you may have a choice between in-store WiFi or no data at all.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[eth1]

With HTTPS this is impossible.

Unless you happen to have a root cert. I guess the question is how much do you trust Amazon Trust Services?

Well, abusing that cert in this way would be a very quick way to get most browser developers to stop trusting their root cert. Especially Google, since this behavior would be messing with the value of their search results (and advertising).

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[tepples]

In the US you have unlimited data.

On postpaid plans. Prepaid plans have either caps or no data in the first place.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[TheFakeTimCook]

I don't know about anyone else's phone; but my iPhone allows me to connect to the internet via cellular data.

No, it doesn't, not when there's insufficient signal strength because the nearest tower is too far away and you're in a big giant metal box which works as an effective Faraday shield. This is one of the main reasons large stores and malls offer free WiFi in the first place.

So depending on the particular store's location, which network your phone uses, and also your exact location within the store, you may have a choice between in-store WiFi or no data at all.

Yes, I know that; but I can usually get a cell signal SOMEWHERE in the store, like near the front windows.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[LifesABeach]

WTF! Has anybody figured it out that this is "Wire Tapping?" If this is legal, then I can do the same and profit from it. Why? because it's using my Router. My Router, my rules. OK, sounds good to me, it sure looks like it's OK for me to just setup a portable cell phone tower by the White House and apply Amazon's patent. Because, lets face it, "It's my router, my rules." And before everyone starts throwing ash on their face, just ask yourself, "If you can do this now, what's to stop the local bears from doing it anyway; now they can site Amazon's patent. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[LifesABeach]

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Gavagai80]

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

I wonder if poor people who play the lottery (or otherwise gamble) are more likely to favor right-wing economic policy than those who don't.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[tepples]

So let's go forward with this re-evaluation.

To make a data plan worth my money, I'd need both price comparison and some other application. What are other common applications leading a cellular customer to upgrade from talk and text to talk, text, and data?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Slashdot Junky]

Yep, and another problem with the notion that consumers can just take their business elsewhere is that most businesses selling at similar pricing have or will soon have the same practices. A for-profit business is going to do everything legally possible to increase margins and then everything illegal, unethical, and/or shitty they can get away with for the same goal.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Slashdot Junky]

You'd still need to manually connect to the store's WiFI network for a phone not already configured to auto-connect to it as a known network and/or all open hotspots. I feel it is best to require manual connections.

Re: Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[KGIII]

Bears don't have opposable thumbs.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[Cederic]

Entertainment, information and communication.

I wont list individual applications as within those three themes there are a few million options.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[lsatenstein]

Would you say that they are planning to do "Invasion of privacy"? What you do with your phone and your data connection is not Amazon's business.
If Amazon can't compete, then the question to ask is "why"? They are supposed to be better than Walmart.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[AutodidactLabrat]

Decentralized?
Like Fox 'news'?
Like Amazon?
Like IBM?
Like Comcast?
Like BP?
the list is endless.
every SINGLE capitalist seeks to become a monopoly, and end decentralization
This is why you are losing brick and mortar independents
Not because Amazon is better
Because they are CENTRAL PLANNERS

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[catprog]

So only amazon can do this due to the patent.
Amazon does not have physical stores.

How exactly is Amazon going to do this?

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[catprog]

Cell phone: Are you allowed to put up a cell phone tower?

Net Neutrality: Would this fall under Net Neutrality:

Wire Tapping: How is it wire tapping? You do not tap someone else's wire. You provide your own for the,m to connect too.

Re: Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[LifesABeach]

But they do have dumb ass show off followers. The names of these bears? Ivan.

Re:Yet another reason to never use in-store wifi

[LifesABeach]

Are you being ironic? Else Google it...

So the question is this:

[mark_reh]

Are they patenting it so they can license it, or so they can prevent others from doing it by not licensing it?

Re:So the question is this:

[JaredOfEuropa]

The real question is how this is even worthy of a patent.

Re:So the question is this:

[e3m4n]

or license it to brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy, etc. If the licensing is enough to cover the margins Amazon gets for hosting a product, not only do they still make the profit margins they were expecting, but they dont have to expend labor and shipping in the process. It would be a legal, and unique, twist on the old mob shakedown 'fire insurance' scenario. Buy my amazon-blocking app and you'll never worry about lost sales from us.

Re:So the question is this:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the real question for 9 out of 10 patents.

Re:So the question is this:

[thegreatbob]

That's a conservative outlook, at least regarding software patents....

Re:So the question is this:

[EvilSS]

Are they patenting it so they can license it, or so they can prevent others from doing it by not licensing it?

I suspect they did this to lock it up so brick and mortar stores can't use it to prevent people from using it to check Amazon prices.

Re:So the question is this:

[dmomo]

That makes sense. By preventing others from doing it, Best Buy will not be able to prevent consumers from searching Amazon.com.

Re:So the question is this:

[Albanach]

Are they patenting it so they can license it, or so they can prevent others from doing it by not licensing it?

That was my first thought - a defensive patent might make sense for Amazon here.

Still, I'd like to know how they propose to bypass SSL. Google uses it everywhere, as does Amazon, B&H, and many others.

All the retailer is going to see is a GET request for something from one of those sites, something which they could already quite easily block. What they can't do is see what page your're looking at.

And if they do, folk will just use their phone's data. Free in-store wi-fi as a plus when mobile data was expensive. As it slowly declines in price it becomes less relevant and so does a patent like this.

Re:So the question is this:

[Albanach]

And since I was unclear, they won't get a full GET request, only the domain name you're requesting. That's all that's needed by the browser to establish encryption and everything else is exchanged thereafter.

This idea looks like something from a decade or more ago.

Re:So the question is this:

[houghi]

https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

It would have been cheaper, quicker, and more technically effective for Amazon to just use SSL on all of their pages and render this method ineffective... which they already do.

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

By using SSL on all of their pages, which renders any such tactics ineffective, they've already stopped Best Buy from being able to prevent consumers from searching Amazon.com.

Re:So the question is this:

[Theaetetus]

The real question is how this is even worthy of a patent.

Well, was anyone doing this back in 2012?

1. A system, comprising:
at least one wireless access point configured to provide Internet access to a consumer device within a retail establishment associated with a retailer, and at least one processing component configured to:
identify a first uniform resource locater (URL) requested, via the wireless access point, by a browser application executing on the consumer device;
determine, based upon a comparison of the first URL to stored information associated with one or more competitors of the retailer, that the first URL is associated with a competitor Web site;
identify an offering of an item on the competitor Web site;
identify (i) retailer information associated with an offering of the item by the retailer and (ii) competitor information associated with the offering of the item on the competitor Web site, wherein the retailer information comprises a first price for the offering of the item by the retailer and the competitor information comprises a second price for the offering of the item on the competitor Web site;
determine that a difference between the first price and the second price exceeds a first threshold value or that a consumer value of a consumer associated with the consumer device does not exceed a second threshold value;
determine, responsive to determining that the difference between the first price and the second price exceeds the first threshold value or that the consumer value exceeds the second threshold value, that information associated with an offering of a complementary item that is complementary to the item should be presented to the consumer in lieu of counter-competitive information that competes with the offering of the item on the competitor Web site; and
redirect the browser application to a second URL different from the first URL, wherein the second URL is associated with a Web site that includes the information associated with the offering of the complementary item.

If no one was doing it, then it's novel. And even if people were doing some parts of it, but there's a step that no one was doing, then it's not obvious. So the question is "were all of those steps known in the prior art, as shown by their inclusion in either in a single prior art reference or in a combination of multiple prior art references" and if not, then it's worthy of a patent.

Re:So the question is this:

[JohnFen]

That was my first thought - a defensive patent might make sense for Amazon here.

There's no such thing as a "defensive" patent. If you want to prevent others from patenting something, there are better ways to do it. If you're patenting something without the intention of enforcing the patent, then you're thinking that some time in the future you'll be able to sell your patent to someone else.

Re:So the question is this:

[bluefoxlucid]

Best Buy can still capture your request to DNS-lookup amazon.com and block it outright. The patent says they can look at traffic and block it outright as one potential strategy. Therefor, Best Buy can block your DNS look-up to Amazon.com, thus blocking you from a price-check; Amazon now has a patent on doing just that.

Re:So the question is this:

[pr0fessor]

Since chances are you are not at an amazon store and the website you are comparing pricing and availability on is probably amazon, I would say so that stores can't do it because they already patent it.

Re:So the question is this:

[im_thatoneguy]

My leading theory is that it's for automatic price matching not blocking. Amazon is interested it conquering the real world as well as the virtual. If you walk into an Amazon brick and mortar store and find it cheaper on Best Buy's website it would behoove them to instantly price match the price for you to ensure you don't leave.

Re:So the question is this:

[EvilSS]

It would have been cheaper, quicker, and more technically effective for Amazon to just use SSL on all of their pages and render this method ineffective... which they already do.

SSL would prevent manipulating the traffic or getting specific info about what the customer was looking up, but it would not prevent outright blocking it or redirecting it to the store's website instead. Both scenarios are part of the patent.

Re:So the question is this:

[EvilSS]

Until the store's wifi system captive portal makes a user accept a certificate to connect. Then they can MITM all they want. You know most users would blindly click accept for that glorious free wifi.

They could do this as well, lots of companies do it with their internal networks to monitor HTTPS traffic moving through their firewalls. One hopes that the first company to do it would get crucified over it though.

Re:So the question is this:

[Rick Schumann]

Actually I think the real question is how you can get a patent on a 'technology' that runs afoul of cyberhacking laws?

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

And how would any random brick and mortar get that certificate into my browser's chain of trust?

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

And you think users won't work around it if it's that blatantly obvious?

Re:So the question is this:

[link-error]

Best Buy was catch giving fake online prices when using their in-store kiosks to lookup prices on bestbuy.com

Re:So the question is this:

[EvilSS]

And you think users won't work around it if it's that blatantly obvious?

I don't think most users who would use in-store wifi in the first place would work around it, no.

Re:So the question is this:

[onepoint]

That is a great Question, I wish I had an answer. on a simple observation, I did shake and feel disturbed by this patent. Therefore there is a good chance that it's legit and won't get overturned ( when I don't shake, then I know someone will find a prior work )

Re:So the question is this:

[HornWumpus]

Fry's too, same timeframe to just recently. Red handed, by me. I now leave the page on the phone's browser, before heading there. Otherwise the deal disappears, usually going down one model and returning to normal pricing.

Re:So the question is this:

[mark_reh]

Retail store fronts are amazon's competition. Amazon could license the tech and help their competition while making money from licensing fees, or they could refuse to license it to anyone and that would help kill brick and mortar stores, thereby amazon. But which way is better for amazon in the long run?

Maybe amazon feels it is useful for brick and mortar stores to exist, as their de facto showrooms. Plenty of people have gone to look at something in a brick and mortar store, then gone home and ordered it via amazon.

Re:So the question is this:

[HornWumpus]

How long do you stay connected to broken WiFi?

Re:So the question is this:

[liquidsin]

Right? It's literally "a method of misleading people on our network by outright blocking their connections or silently falsifying data on the wire". It's a patent on a MITM attack.

Re:So the question is this:

[bluefoxlucid]

That depends on if they're using the standard warehouse-as-a-retail-store that's basically a giant, grounded faraday cage and blocks all cell phone signal. Also depends on if you're in Delaware or PA where cell phone towers can be sparse.

Re:So the question is this:

[tattood]

Retail store fronts are amazon's competition. Amazon could license the tech and help their competition while making money from licensing fees, or they could refuse to license it to anyone and that would help kill brick and mortar stores, thereby amazon. But which way is better for amazon in the long run?

Maybe amazon feels it is useful for brick and mortar stores to exist, as their de facto showrooms. Plenty of people have gone to look at something in a brick and mortar store, then gone home and ordered it via amazon.

Since Amazon just bought Whole Foods, maybe they want to prevent you from price checking groceries at Trader Joe's, etc. I doubt that Amazon won't stop with WF, and will likely buy other brick-and-mortar stores to expand their presence.

Re:So the question is this:

[JaredOfEuropa]

It should be both novel and non-obvious. And it's the solution that should be novel, you shouldn't get a patent for an obvious solution to a novel problem either.

Re:So the question is this:

[Holi]

How often do you connect to an in-store wi-fi?

Re:So the question is this:

[barc0001]

Or how did they get a patent on this with all the prior art out there? It was known prior to that filing date that Best Buy and others were feeding people BS prices on their internal free wifi when they came in to "showroom".

http://boingboing.net/2007/03/03/best-buy-admits-to-k.html

Back in 2007... Amazon patent in 2012. WTF USPTO?

Re: So the question is this:

[nate11000]

So they can use it in their own brick and mortar stores now that they've bought Whole Foods.

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

So you think most people stay on broken wifi that can't load the sites they're trying to visit? I mean, I don't think highly of people as a whole, but I don't think that lowly of them either.

Re:So the question is this:

[EvilSS]

Yes, I do. I think most would just think it's a glitch and wouldn't even know how to switch back to cellular.

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

You must have a lot of friends.

Re:So the question is this:

[EvilSS]

And you must not have many outside the tech world.

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

I have enough to know that they don't tolerate broken shit. They might not know why it's not working, but they sure can tell when it's not working and they're not likely to patiently wait for it to start working; they'll leave their cart full of goods in the aisle to step outside and get better signal (e.g. not on the store wi-fi they only connected to because the steel and cinder block construction -- not that they know that's the cause -- only allows them one bar of signal in the store).

And we're talking about people with short attention spans, here. IF whatever they were trying to do on their phone takes more than a couple minutes, they may well forget they left a card full of shit in the store and drive home to finish buying whatever thing they wanted to look at online.

One way or another, this type of system would only end up costing the store money, and I'm pretty sure the stores all know it, which is why it hasn't been done before (unless you count Best Buy's internally mirrored website, which did ultimately end up costing them so... case in point I guess).

Re:So the question is this:

[Gr8Apes]

The scariest thing about this statement is that people have phones set to auto-connect to strange wifi connections with no interaction necessary, and the implication that they don't know how to disconnect themselves from wifi networks. After consideration, the second part isn't hard to believe, but it's been so long since I had a phone with a default configuration from a provider that I don't recall whether the first is the standard configuration. If it is, it shouldn't be, as you can't trust a random wifi connection at all.

Re:So the question is this:

[BronsCon]

Mind you, I've only owned flagship phones from RIM, Motorola, LG, and Samsung for the past decade and my wife has only owned iPhones for that time (ignoring the year I got her to try Android), but it has been my experience that the default configuration is to nag you incessantly when there is an open wi-fi available, but not to connect automatically.

Unless you have a recent Windows phone, in which case it will connect to any free wi-fi, any secured access point one of your contacts has shared with you, and even participating paid wi-fi unless you've hunted down and turned off the appropriate options, because that's what Windows 10 does by default for some idiotic reason.

Since we know most people click whatever affirmative option is presented (e.g. YES, ALWAYS, PLEASE, OK, or CONNECT) and don't bother changing settings other than background and ringtone, yeah, most people probably do end up using in-store wi-fi. I'll easily grant EvilSS that much. But that's laziness moreso than idiocy (regardless that the result is identical either way), and we know people tend to stop being lazy when their own laziness becomes inconvenient for them, so I shall grant him not an inch more.

can they do it with https?

[known_coward_69]

because that seems like how everyone is going with their sites and apps

Re:can they do it with https?

[funkman]

That's not how TLS works. At most you expose the hostname you connect to. All path parameters in the GET request are encrypted. And it doesnt matter if GET/POST/PUT.

Re:can they do it with https?

[nikhilhs]

I thought HTTPS requests only reveal the root domain, not the full URL and not query strings.

Re:can they do it with https?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a GET request the outgoing URL along with any embedded search terms, are in plaintext.

This is incorrect. A HTTPS Get request for the following URL:

https://www.my.site/category/product/99

Will expose only the following information to actors in the middle of the communications chain:

https
www.my.site

NO other information will be exposed regarding the URL or parameters.

Re:can they do it with https?

[Wootery]

You're correct, but you're the fifth person to be correct.

Re:can they do it with https?

[tepples]

https
www.my.site

And this information is enough to ban the server's IP at the router.

Re:can they do it with https?

[religionofpeas]

And this information is enough to ban the server's IP at the route

If they are so desperate to prevent a price comparison, it's probably worth it to go back home and order it on-line.

How will this work with TLS?

[Chrisq]

All that they will be able to tell with a TLS connection is what sites you are accessing, not URLs or contents. Most retailers use TLS (https) by default.

Re:How will this work with TLS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention those of us using VPN clients on our phones as well.

Re:How will this work with TLS?

[nitehawk214]

Amazon has root certificates, they might just spoof it.

I would think this would be illegal and grounds for revoking the cert, but I suppose they can just throw enough money at... wait who gives out the root certs, anyhow? The browser makers?

Re:How will this work with TLS?

[ebvwfbw]

And a Wi-Fi point can MitM a TLS connection.

No it can't. That's the whole point of https, the vendor has a certificate for that site. It's checked. There is a whole PKI that utilizes trusted certificates to prevent that. Used to say - In God we trust. Everyone else get a X509 Certificate.

On the other hand, if you go to bestbuy.com and it presents you with a warning saying this certificate doesn't match the site or is a self signed cert and you accept it anyway, well now you have a possible MITM attack situation.

Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "wire tapping"

Re:Nothing to see here

[Dragonslicer]

It's called "wire tapping"

This is a good point to raise. A patent gives you the "exclusive right to your invention", but the important word is "exclusive". In case people aren't aware, a patent does not give you the right to implement your patent, it only gives you the right to prevent others from implementing it (via monetary restitution or an injunction by a court). You can patent something that's illegal (e.g. a new method for manufacturing heroin), and you can sue anyone that infringes your patent, but you can still be arrested or sued for implementing it yourself.

Note that I'm not arguing whether or not Amazon's system counts as wire tapping, I'm only saying that it's not the USPTO's job to decide if it counts as wire tapping.

Re:Nothing to see here

[gtall]

...I wonder if this patent could be considered a restraint of trade, maybe the FTC should have go at it....oh, forgot, the administration doesn't believe in regulations.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Dragonslicer]

Why would it be restraint of trade? Does the patent prevent other stores from being able to do business? If so, the patent is probably invalid, either for being too broad or too obvious.

Or did you mean the system that is described by the patent?

Re:Nothing to see here

[Brett Buck]

I think you will find that is IS NOT wiretapping. Wiretapping has a specific legal meaning, and this is certainly not it.

      The store is providing a proprietary service, specifically, a dedicated, store-purchased and controlled wi-fi service. They own it, they provide it to you for nominally "free". It's not a common carrier, it's not "net neutrality", it's their network connection that they are allowing you to use.

The cost, of course, is that you aren't able to get anything you want as if you were connected to your own personally-owned system. You have no intrinsic right to do anything or demand any sort of service, you take what they give you. In this case, they are blocking access to certain websites, and (probably) inserting their own ads.

      Since you are on private property using a private network connection, you take what they give you. Don't like it? Use something else, or put the phone down for the duration.

        Note that if you can connect to an *external* wi-fi network, cell network, whatever, then you can do whatever *that* network permits. They probably *can* make their store a Faraday cage (intentionally or otherwise). The FCC's position is that they cannot intentionally jam a cell phone signal and probably not any wi-fi networks.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Brett Buck]

That's good question but there isn't a very good answer. I think you can probably do as you please on private property (within a broad range of other legal constraints based on local/state/federal law and in particular, your business license), but restrain of trade seems rather a stretch. Even then you can probably refuse service to anyone as long as you can dodge the maze of "discrimination" laws.

Re:Nothing to see here

[JohnFen]

Even then you can probably refuse service to anyone as long as you can dodge the maze of "discrimination" laws.

That's pretty easy in the US. It is legally permissible to discriminate against anyone for any reason that isn't in the list of specifically prohibited reasons (age, gender, etc.).

So, the only reason needed is "we just don't like you".

Re:Nothing to see here

[Dragonslicer]

If they implement the patent and prevent you from going to a competitor's website they are restraining your ability to do business with that company, which counts as an illegal restraint of trade.

But they would only be doing it if you're in their store and using their Internet access. If it's that easy to get past their restraints, the FTC probably wouldn't care.

Further, it would be a FCC violation for interfering with your communications.

Has the FCC ruled against ISPs that do things like intercept DNS lookups?

Re:Nothing to see here

[Brett Buck]

And that is in general a much different issue, since the phone system in general *is* a common carrier and subject to common carrier laws. A private wi-fi service IS NOT a common carrier. Once you get past that, ISPs are (or might be, that is yet to be challenged and only is treated that way by Obama executive order).

Re:Nothing to see here

[OYAHHH]

It is absolutely a restraint of interstate trade. How the patent office couldn't see this is beyond me.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Dragonslicer]

It is absolutely a restraint of interstate trade. How the patent office couldn't see this is beyond me.

Because it isn't the job of the USPTO to determine things like wire tapping or restraint of trade. How you can't understand this is beyond me.

Don't use store WiFi

[religionofpeas]

Cool plan, but I never use store WiFi. It's too much of a hassle to sign in, and it's often slow, and when you walk away, it interrupts any open connections. Instead, I just keep 4G mobile data on all the time.

Re:Don't use store WiFi

[tepples]

Instead, I just keep 4G mobile data on all the time.

How much does a subscription to 4G mobile data cost in your area, and how much do you save every month through price comparison?

Re:Don't use store WiFi

[religionofpeas]

How much does a subscription to 4G mobile data cost in your area, and how much do you save every month through price comparison?

I pay $11/month for 10GB. I don't save much by price comparison, but that's not what I got the subscription for, so it doesn't matter.

Re:Don't use store WiFi

[tepples]

The marginal cost of using 4G to check an online shopping site in store is $0.00.

Then application other than price comparison must have prompted you to pay the extra cost of a talk, text, and 4G plan compared to a talk and text only plan. What might this application be?

Re:Don't use store WiFi

[BitterOak]

I don't know if not using the in-store WiFi would help you here. Your phone's GPS location data could give away the fact that you're in the store. Unless you have some kind of GPS spoofing.

Re:Don't use store WiFi

[tepples]

I already have the data connection for other uses anyway.

What "other uses", may I ask? I'm trying to build a case for myself to upgrade from no data to data.

Re:Don't use store WiFi

[uniquegeek]

Then we need to examine potential reasons how this *could* work. For example, it would be interesting if we ever got to the point that there was no cell towers, but only wifi. Or only state-sanctioned cell towers and wifi.

Companies don't want you to own your software anymore, and they want to limit your ability to move to another solution provider. Why wouldn't they plan take it further in other domains, or the government to do the same?

In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[sjbe]

The patent, titled "Physical Store Online Shopping Control," details a mechanism where a retailer can intercept network requests like URLs and search terms that happen on its in-store Wi-Fi, then act upon them in various ways.

WTF would anyone use in-store Wi-Fi in a retail store? I have trouble even imagining a meaningful benefit to this. I don't even use "free" Wi-Fi at places like the airport outside of an emergency. Cellular network connections are generally faster, more secure, more private, and less hassle.

on in store wi-fi, so basic IT network control

[Anonymous Coward]

like what happens at any major company, IT monitors and bans certain addresses on their network. Also if you're on a phone in a metro area, why are you using their wi-fi and not your own 3g/4g/5g/etc... phone connection?

Holy moly we're approaching AppStore IRL

[TimothyHollins]

This is disturbing on so many levels.

How long until it's expanded to the neighbour's non-competing store? (It's their wi-fi, they can do what they want with it)
How long until it's expanded to the whole shopping mall? (It's their complimentary wi-fi, they can do what they want)
How long until it's expanded to your local ISP monopoly? (It's a customer-service that enhances stockholder value, if you don't like it you can always get another ISP)

This kind of abuse should be prohibited by net neutrality regulation, though somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

Re:Holy moly we're approaching AppStore IRL

[Mal-2]

All regulation would do is make them turn off the WiFi entirely, so you have to do all price-checking on their oh so helpful store terminals, which they know everything about. At least with WiFi, you can use HTTPS to keep them from seeing what you're checking, even if they know where you're checking.

Re:Holy moly we're approaching AppStore IRL

[TimothyHollins]

Why would you assume that? Stores aren't *currently* blocking competition, yet stores are *currently* offering complimentary wi-fi. Why would they stop that if anti-competitive practices were regulated? What are you basing your assumptions on?

Also, I very much doubt any of this would cause the slightest consternation for the average /. user, but it would be effective on the vast majority of the tech-illiterate population.

Re:Holy moly we're approaching AppStore IRL

[Mal-2]

I'm not saying every retailer would opt for no WiFi over sniffed WiFi. Just Amazon. In-store kiosks were very common ten years ago, they could easily make a comeback.

Ask for the online price

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked a price for a toner cartridge on staples.com. Drove to the store because I needed it. Much to my surprise it was $15 higher in the bricks. The manager was walking by and I said what's up and showed him the online price. He said quite quickly, show the cashier, we'll give you that price.

I did and I got it.

Re:Ask for the online price

[sunderland56]

The manager was walking by and I said what's up and showed him the online price. He said quite quickly, show the cashier, we'll give you that price.

Was the manager walking funny? Because if I saw a $15 upcharge I'd tell the manager to ram the cartridge up his ass.

Re:Ask for the online price

[Obfuscant]

Because if I saw a $15 upcharge

The last toner cart I ordered was an HP color and it was $240. If you think it is outrageous that a local physical store charges a 6% premium so you can walk in, look and handle the product, and get it right now, versus maybe getting it tomorrow sight-unseen, you're out of touch with the real world. (I'm still waiting for a second-day Amazon Prime delivery that was ordered on Tuesday, so I say "maybe".)

It was proper customer relations to charge the online price, but certainly not out of line for it to be a bit higher to start with in person.

Re:Ask for the online price

[sunderland56]

Toner cartridge I bought (online) today was $12.99; so a $15 upcharge would be over 100%.

A 6% charge in my case would be 78 cents; which I'd pay in a "gotta have it now" case, but since I'm buying when the printer says it needs ink, versus when it stops printing, a week from now is just fine - I'll take the lower price.

Re:Ask for the online price

[JohnFen]

The last toner cart I ordered was an HP color and it was $240.

And you actually paid that? That's simply insane.

Who uses random wifi?

[Pedestrianwolf]

I am the only one that doesn't connect to an access point that I'm not familiar with?

Re:Who uses random wifi?

[JohnFen]

You're not the only one. I avoid them whenever possible (which is 99.99% of the time), and use a VPN when I absolutely must use one.

Re:Who uses random wifi?

[Calydor]

Next step: In-store StingRay.

Re:Who uses random wifi?

[Rick Schumann]

Technologically ignorant people (you know, 99% of everyone?), that's who. "Oh look, free WiFi, I can save my dataplan!"

Re:Who uses random wifi?

[Lost Race]

I don't trust any Internet connection. So "free public wifi" is as good as any other. Seriously, do you trust your home ISP not to fuck with your packets? That'd be pretty naive.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[drinkypoo]

WTF would anyone use in-store Wi-Fi in a retail store?

I often can't get a cellular connection inside of a store, especially if it's in a metal building.

I'm sorry Dave...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I'm afraid I can't let you price check that item. Dave? What are you doing? Why are you switching to LTE? Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do...

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get 50 MB a month of mobile data. The only way I ever use the Internet on my phone is through Wi-Fi.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

Not everyone has an unlimited data plan for their cellphones. Sometimes wifi is just more convenient. I'm using wifi on the express bus since it's faster and doesn't drop out while going through the Palo Alto hills on 280.

This might be defensive

[Lord Kano]

Amazon might have pursued this patent to keep Best Buy and Staples from using the tech.

Amazon is where people go to compare prices. I have stood in a Best Buy or Barnes and Noble and checked the cost of something on Amazon. If the difference is great enough, I'll buy from Amazon instead.

Big retailers know that a lot of people do this or just go showrooming to physically see a product that they have always intended to buy online from Amazon.

LK

Maybe the purpose of the patent is to bury it

[dcavanaugh]

It seems that most of the online price checking takes place at OTHER stores, with customers checking the price of something on AMAZON. If Amazon thought to patent this method, maybe it's because they don't want competitors to block these online price checks.

Re:Maybe the purpose of the patent is to bury it

[houghi]

As they are buying a food store, why not both?

Re:Maybe the purpose of the patent is to bury it

[dcavanaugh]

As you say, nobody is running online price checks at Whole Foods; they KNOW it will be cheaper elsewhere. I view the Whole Foods acquisition as Amazon's attempt to engage the least price-sensitive consumers they can find. Maybe Whole Foods customers will pay a premium (vs. local grocers) for Amazon's legendary online shopping experience. If Amazon ever found a way to deliver groceries to the customer without human cashiers or drivers, it would change the grocery industry forever.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[religionofpeas]

It wouldn't be far-fetched to assume they would use cellular-signal blocking tech alongside this

Great plan... until someone dies in the store because calling 911 from a cell phone didn't work.

Re:Does Amazon GRANT PATENTS now?

[__aaclcg7560]

This is the Gen X department. The Millennial department is in your mother's basement.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[Calydor]

Holy shit, and I thought my 500 MB/month was terrible.

Re:Amazon granted a patent?

[tsqr]

Amazon Granted a Patent That Prevents In-Store Shoppers From Online Price Checking

Hey Beau, if you didn't know, only the USPTO can grant patents in the USA through its powers vested in it through Congress. Congress itself *USED TO* grant patents way back in the day. Amazon CANNOT grant a patent.

Amazon Granted a Patent doesn't mean Amazon gave anyone a patent, any more than Trump accused in obstruction investigation means Trump accused someone of obstruction.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[sjbe]

I often can't get a cellular connection inside of a store, especially if it's in a metal building.

"Often"? I've been in a LOT of stores and while there certainly are some dead zones, it's fairly uncommon. Certainly not enough of them to justify using in store Wi-FI.

Re:Amazon granted a patent?

[unixisc]

Do you grammar? 'Amazon granted a patent' means that Amazon has been granted a patent by the USPTO

Re:Amazon granted a patent?

[religionofpeas]

Trump accused in obstruction investigation means Trump accused someone of obstruction.

Trump thinks it means exactly that.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[XxtraLarGe]

WTF would anyone use in-store Wi-Fi in a retail store? I have trouble even imagining a meaningful benefit to this. I don't even use "free" Wi-Fi at places like the airport outside of an emergency. Cellular network connections are generally faster, more secure, more private, and less hassle.

Maybe for people with bad data plans it's more of an issue, but in general, I agree. A grocery store that I shop at offers free wi-fi, but I turn off my wi-fi when I go into the store. It is actually slower for me to pull up info on their coupon app on the wi-fi than over the cell connection.

Re:In Store WIFI

[unixisc]

Depending on their data plans & usage, yeah

Initially, when I read this, I thought that this was about Amazon somehow preventing me from doing price comparisons when I am logged into their site from my computer. To which, I thought, hey, I can just pull up my tablet and check the other sites, and then decide where to go. Seeing this story, there are 2 potential solutions. First is to do the homework at home, check out the place w/ the best deal, and then go there, and not do one's comparison shopping in the store. The other is to use one's cellular connection to do the online comparison on the phone and then decide who to go w/

Re:Amazon granted a patent?

[TWX]

Are you saying we found Trump's Slashdot handle?

We did it Internet!

Re:This might be defensive (Just like 1-Click)

[cozytom]

Again why does anyone buy anything from Amazon. They are an evil evil evil company. They don't make anything better, only more expensive (long term).

Most likely this patent was asked for by Amazon so they *STOP* retailers from doing this. If a retailer does this, then Amazon can ask the store for all their profits since the beginning of time. Amazon hope customers will do this so they will find it cheaper through the amazon store.

Please people, stop giving Amazon any money, don't buy from these creeps.

Don't need unlimited data

[sjbe]

Not everyone has an unlimited data plan for their cellphones.

You don't need an unlimited data plan. We're talking about doing a quick price comparison. That doesn't require gigabytes of data.

Sometimes wifi is just more convenient.

In a retail store? When?

m using wifi on the express bus since it's faster and doesn't drop out while going through the Palo Alto hills on 280.

What does that have to do with a price check on in-store wifi in a retail store?

Re:Don't need unlimited data

[__aaclcg7560]

In a retail store? When?

When you're five days away from having your maxed out 2GB data cap reset to zero and you don't want to pay an extra $15 for a gig of data.

Re:Don't need unlimited data

[tepples]

That doesn't require gigabytes of data.

It does require greater than zero data, which is what subscribers to a "talk and text" plan get.

or then VPN...

[Herve5]

And me that used my (not-for-profit) ISP free VPN only for paying on foreign wifis.
I may well switch it on by default, after all...
H.
(P. S. yes, there are not-for-profit ISPs. In France, FDN for instance, boldly independent since practically the creation of internet accesses...)

Get a better plan

[sjbe]

I get 50 MB a month of mobile data. The only way I ever use the Internet on my phone is through Wi-Fi.

Then you need to shop around for a better plan. There are plenty available for reasonable prices.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[XxtraLarGe]

I get 50 MB a month of mobile data. The only way I ever use the Internet on my phone is through Wi-Fi.

Total Wireless has a 5 GB plan for $35 a month.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[drew_kime]

I often can't get a cellular connection inside of a store, especially if it's in a metal building.

"Often"? I've been in a LOT of stores and while there certainly are some dead zones, it's fairly uncommon. Certainly not enough of them to justify using in store Wi-FI.

Yes, often. I can get a signal if I have line-of-sight to the sky through the front windows. Once I'm far enough into the back that I can't see the windows it drops out. Maybe the stores are smaller where you are.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look. No one care where you have been, who you know, who you have slept with. It changes nothing, because you are literally talking about how the cellular networks in your area apply to you. While you are no doubt, very special, you need to understand that the world does not experience the same situations as you specifically. There are billions of people, and they all lead different lives, and have different situations, different cellular networks, and sometimes, believe it or not, they do not often get signals inside buildings in the area that they live in.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[Calydor]

If you need to be a professional infosec guy to go grocery shopping, the world's already a lost cause.

Good.

[BronsCon]

Anything that pushes everyone to using SSL for everything is a good thing in my book.

This will push online retailers to use SSL for everything, as SSL will render the snooping and content altering aspects of this patent ineffective. Ergo, this is a good thing.

Re:Amazon granted a patent?

[tsqr]

Trump accused in obstruction investigation means Trump accused someone of obstruction.

Trump thinks it means exactly that.

Yeah, poor reading comprehension can be found in all walks of life.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Chaos Theory

[mfh]

We'll find a way.

Passive participle in headline

[tepples]

Amazon is not supposed to be able to grant patents. Only the USPTO does that in the USA.

You'd have a point if the headline began "Amazon Grants a Patent". But the use of the form "Granted" is a clue that Amazon is not the agent. To fit a headline under a publication's size limits, headline writers often follow rules like the following:

1. A headline is usually in the present tense: "USPTO Grants Patent to Amazon".
2. When the agent is obvious, such as only USPTO that ever grants patents, the sentence is flipped to passive voice: "Amazon Is Granted a Patent".
3. It's common to drop "is" and "are" from a passive main clause: "Amazon Granted a Patent".

Tendency 1 lets readers tell the difference between a passive main clause and an active one because only the passive one will have a passive participle. Most English verbs have a passive participle spelled the same as the past tense, but very few verbs (such as "come" and "run") have a passive participle identical to the present tense. Thus in this context, "Amazon Granted a Patent" means "Amazon [was] granted a patent [by the USPTO]".

Re:Passive participle in headline

[mjwx]

1. A headline is usually in the present tense: "USPTO Grants Patent to Amazon".
2. When the agent is obvious, such as only USPTO that ever grants patents, the sentence is flipped to passive voice: "Amazon Is Granted a Patent".
3. It's common to drop "is" and "are" from a passive main clause: "Amazon Granted a Patent".

And other such butcherings of the queens English.

The headline has words errantly cut out of it, but then you given an explanation in the present tense when this is describing an event that has already occurred, so it should be in the past tense. The headline should have used the past participle "Amazon was granted a patent". Without the word "was", the meaning of the sentence becomes obscure and it can easily be misconstrued as "Amazon has granted a patent" which as the GP was complaining about as Amazon cannot grant patents.

Passive voice should be avoided as it adds unnecessary confusion to the point you're trying to get across, important verbs should not be left out of sentences. The same needs to be said about determiners (the, my, their).

But I digress as this is Slashdot and as always endeavours never to meet a minimum standard of grammar.

Re:Passive participle in headline

[Anonymice]

Queen's

Re:Passive participle in headline

[tepples]

And other such butcherings of the queens English.

As opposed to Staten Island English? Does English really differ that much among the boroughs of New York, NY? :p

it can easily be misconstrued as "Amazon has granted a patent"

Not if the reader is familiar with the convention to use present tense, not present perfect tense, on a main clause in a news headline. Under this convention, anything that appears to be in past tense is a passive participle.

Passive voice should be avoided

Yet you state this in passive voice.

as it adds unnecessary confusion to the point you're trying to get across, important verbs should not be left out of sentences.

Comma splice.

The same needs to be said about determiners (the, my, their).

The following headlines have the same length in characters. Which of them is clearer?

• A. Amazon Granted a Patent That Prevents In-Store Shoppers From Online Price Checking
• B. USPTO Grants Amazon a Patent That Prevents In-Store Shoppers From Online Price Che

Re: Passive participle in headline

[tepples]

Most English verbs have a passive participle spelled the same as the past tense

I hate to burst your bubble, but "granted" is both the past participle and the past tense of the verb "grant". Either reading is grammatically correct.

I covered that. The reason we know it's a participle is that headlinese more often uses present tense, not past tense, for the main clause.

This is nothing...

[__aaclcg7560]

If you're interested in the sausage making of online advertising with user data, check out "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" by Antonio Garcia Martinez, an engineer who sold his engineers and company to Twitter while going to work at Facebook. Be forewarned that the author takes you through the sleazy side of Silicon Valley. Not for the faint of heart.

Re:This is nothing...

[nitehawk214]

sleazy side of Silicon Valley

As opposed to what? I am pretty sure that describes all of Silicon Valley.

Re:This is nothing...

[__aaclcg7560]

As opposed to what? I am pretty sure that describes all of Silicon Valley.

I've read a lot of Silicon Valley books over the years. All of them don't describe going to a MILF party in the Palo Alto hills where older women look for younger men, boinking the marketing girl in the utility closet at a company event, or cruising the hipster bars for pickups as "Chaos Monkeys" does. The only book that comes closest is "What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counter Culture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry" by John Markoff, which goes into the SF Bay Area drug and nudist subcultures.

Re:This is nothing...

[JohnFen]

don't describe going to a MILF party in the Palo Alto hills where older women look for younger men, boinking the marketing girl in the utility closet at a company event, or cruising the hipster bars for pickups

None of those activities have anything to do with why Silicon Valley is sleazy. SV is sleazy because of the business practices that tend to be prevalent there.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Illegal to interefere or block wifi.

[gurps_npc]

They could send you coupons, but they can't stop you from seeing anything you want to see.

Hotels tried to do something similar to force people to use their in-hotel wifi but they got slammed by the FCC.

Re:Illegal to interefere or block wifi.

[Mascot]

Those are entirely different things (unless TFA contradicts the summary). What hotels tried to do was to block hotspots in order to force you to connect e.g. your laptop to the hotel's wifi (presumably at a premium) rather than your own hotspot. From what I remember, they pretty much willfully caused interference to accomplish this, thus why the FCC were not fans.

This patent, on the other hand, is about intercepting and reacting to content while on the store's wifi.

Re:Illegal to interefere or block wifi.

[green1]

This wouldn't be very useful to the store if they couldn't also force you on to their wi-fi, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do everything they can to ensure that you can't get a good cell connection in their store.
People willingly connect to "free" wi-fi when they're somewhere they plan to sit and work, (like a coffee shop) or somewhere they plan to spend a lot of time (like an airport) but not at most stores, the extra step of connecting to the network is more effort than it's usually worth for the time you spend there.

Re:Illegal to interefere or block wifi.

[PPH]

they do everything they can to ensure that you can't get a good cell connection in their store.

Screw with cellular signals and you'll be answering to the FCC (at least in the USA).

I could see Amazon 'encouraging' people to use their in-store WiFi. Some people might configure their phones to automatically switch to WiFi if its present. But Google is in a better position to do something like this, having gotten people to save the Google/Starbucks (and other) Google operated hot spots. Now when you walk in the door, 'Google' is already a known ID and will connect silently.

Re:Illegal to interefere or block wifi.

[Obfuscant]

Screw with cellular signals and you'll be answering to the FCC (at least in the USA).

The FCC has no say over the material used to build a building, much of which will block radio waves quite well. "Those metal screens over the windows are to block sunlight -- thus making the building green by saving on AC costs and part of our commitment to the environment. The copper mesh on the surface of the walls is part of the texturing process -- doesn't it look very nice? What was that, sir? You can't get a cell signal inside? Neither can I. Doesn't that suck?"

Where does the FCC get involved in this?

Re:Illegal to interefere or block wifi.

[Obfuscant]

I'll bet the fire and police departments have something to say. Our coms don't work inside your building.

Fine. We'll install a passive repeater for you. Problem solved. Or you get to do your inspections when the sunshades are rolled up and the place will be flooded with your comms. And it still doesn't involve the FCC.

By the way, if your fire department doesn't have readily available a local repeater to deal with such issues, then your fire department is risking their fire fighter's lives. You're going to run into buildings all over the place that were built long enough ago that they don't pass modern comm channels.

Re:Illegal to interefere or block wifi.

[Obfuscant]

The first fire marshal that walks into your store and can't get a cell signal will have his inspectors shut you down. Just to fuck with you.

You must live in a place where the fire marshals are petty, vindictive tyrants. I've been in plenty of stores where there is no cell signal and they're still open. Big cities, small cities, all over the place. I have no cell signal in the buildings where I work, all three of them, and I know that the fire marshals do inspections on a yearly basis. I guess around here they are more interested in doing their job instead of fucking with everyone. YMMV.

Perhaps they just accept the fact that the law does not require anyone to install cell repeaters in their buildings just so the FM can call his wife to tell her he'll be late for dinner. And that's also why the FD command vehicles all have vehicular repeaters around here, specific to the communications channels they need and use.

Ambiguous grammar

[Comboman]

For the sake of brevity, headlines don't follow standard grammar rules, which creates ambiguity in this case. The headline could mean "Amazon [was] granted a patent" or it could also mean "Amazon granted a patent [to someone else]". The unambiguous way to state it in 4 words is "Patent granted to Amazon" which can only mean "[A] patent [was] granted to Amazon".

Prior art

[Aaden42]

Best Buy used to do this YEARS ago. Different prices if you flip from WiFi to cellular. VPN is your friend. And no, amazon.com, you may NOT use my location in the browser.

Re:Prior art

[nitehawk214]

Not quite. They were modifying their own website. not other store's.

And with Amazon's root certificates, they could do this on top of HTTPS.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[edtice1559]

Well, to be devil's advocate, if I were implementing this inside of my store, you can be pretty sure that I'd make sure that no 4G signals reached inside so my WiFi would be your only choice. Not that I'm advocating for this, but there's no point of deploying a solution when there's a trivial workaround.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[edtice1559]

Deploy a pico-cell that only carries 911 calls and no data. In terms of an escalation technical arms race there are plenty of things that can be done. I sure as heck hope this backfires and people simply walk out of the store to check the price and (maybe) walk back in. The downside to the retailer is that they may have the best price or at least one that's good enough that people would be a premium for instant gratification but since they are now already outside of the store, they may decide it's not worth going back in.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[jedidiah]

Forget security professionals. Most people are just plain lazy and won't go that extra mile to use the in store wifi. It requires an extra intentional step that most people simply aren't going to bother with.

Plus, American phone plans are BAD but not THAT bad.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

If you need to be a professional infosec guy to go grocery shopping, the world's already a lost cause.

AC is pissed off that I'm no longer trolling the trolls and I'm spending my time karma whoring.

Spend a pound to save a penny

[tepples]

First is to do the homework at home, check out the place w/ the best deal, and then go there, and not do one's comparison shopping in the store.

But then you have to make two round trips to the store instead of one: one to look for which product you want and one to make the purchase. Depending on how long it takes to ride the bus to the store and back and how much you make per hour at your day job, you might not come out ahead.

The other is to use one's cellular connection to do the online comparison on the phone and then decide who to go w/

But then you're paying for a cellular connection, and the difference in monthly price between a plan with voice, text, and data and one with only voice and text might exceed what you save per month through aggressive price comparison.

Re:Spend a pound to save a penny

[wed128]

Presumably, the data plan is useful for more than just aggressive price comparison. If comparing prices is the *only* thing you do with your data plan, then this simple math works. If it's not, then you're cost-benefit tree just got deeper.

RST injection based on SNI

[tepples]

At most you expose the hostname you connect to.

A competitor's hostname in the Server Name Indication feature of the ClientHello message is enough to inject RST. So is a competitor's hostname in a DNS request.

Re:What if I don't use your wifi

[Anonymous Coward]

Data plans don't help when the store is a Faraday Cage, and nothing illegal about that.

Re:clusless idiot

[tepples]

Of course I do. Competitor in SNI => inject RST.

Hacking

[uncoveror]

So, Amazon has patented a hacking method, a way to do something that should be illegal if it isn't already. Maybe they should patent a bank robbing method now.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[tepples]

Have U.S. carriers fully phased out legacy GSM and CDMA2000 voice in favor of VoLTE? Until they do, 911 calls go over a different frequency band.

How much does it save you per month?

[tepples]

Total Wireless has a 5 GB plan for $35 a month.

On T-Mobile's pay-as-you-go plan, I currently pay $3 per month for 30 minutes of voice, text messages, or a combination thereof. Does in-store price comparison save you anywhere near $32 per month?

Re:How much does it save you per month?

[XxtraLarGe]

On T-Mobile's pay-as-you-go plan, I currently pay $3 per month for 30 minutes of voice, text messages, or a combination thereof. Does in-store price comparison save you anywhere near $32 per month?

Sometimes, yes. I saved $40 on a telescope I bought for my wife at Christmas by scanning the item with my Amazon app. That extra $32 also gives you unlimited voice & text, so it's a pretty good deal compared to most others. Even with Tracfone, you can get a flip phone that will give you 90 minutes of talk time & 90 texts (which also roll over) for $9.99 a month.

Re:In Store WIFI

[tepples]

When cellular service costs $36 per month with data or $36 per year without, then yes, people will choose to make HTTPS connections over stores' open WLANs.

Re:VPN

[tepples]

I imagine that the terms of major movie studios' licenses to Amazon Video already requires Amazon to build technology to identify VPNs.

Oh, Amazon...

[tonymus]

I hope they don't block me trying to price check at a Whole Foods Market in the future.

I love the smell of the future in the morning...it smells like antitrust...

Re:Oh, Amazon...

[Obfuscant]

I hope they don't block me trying to price check at a Whole Foods Market in the future.

If you need to do an online pricecheck to know that you can buy stuff a whole lot cheaper someplace else, then I doubt you've figured out how to use this newfangled webby thing in the first place. Or you've never shopped anyplace but Whole Foods.

Re:Oh, Amazon...

[Obfuscant]

My point wasn't that I shop at Whole Foods,

If you aren't "tonymus", then I don't care what point you think you were making, I was replying to something he said, not you.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made that...

If you are "tonymus" now posting as an AC for some reason, then perhaps you could have been a bit clearer that you were not worried about shopping in a Whole Foods by NOT BEING EXPLICIT in referring to doing price-checks WHILE SHOPPING IN WHOLE FOODS. You know:

I hope they don't block me trying to price check at a Whole Foods Market [msn.com] in the future.

Like I said, whether or not you want to admit you shop there, if you need to DO a price-check while shopping in a Whole Foods then you are very very unclear on the concept of Whole Foods. Every price check you do while in WF, if you are comparing WF to other places, will return the answer "cheaper somewhere else". If you are doing price checks while in a WF that doesn't involve WF, then why the hell are you doing them inside the WF? Wait until you are outside.

No reviews? No purchase

[T.E.D.]

So how do they know why I'm looking at Amazon?

I typically look products I find while browsing up on Amazon not for the prices (I expect a premium to take it home now), but for the reviews. Something like an appliance or a car stereo has a huge potential for grief, so only a fool would buy one without making sure it doesn't have a big well-known issue.

If I can't look it up. I'll do it when I get home. If I remember. Most likely not, but if I do, I'll just buy it online at that point. Hmmm...perhaps this is a smart move by Amazon...

What about https?

[MobyDisk]

If only there was a secure version of the http protocol that prevented man-in-the-middle attacks...

Key pinning

[tepples]

If you have visited a particular website before, and its key is pinned, the browser will know not to trust Amazon Trust Services for that site.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[T.E.D.]

I've used it because I wanted to look stuff up (mostly reviews, not prices), and my tablet is much better for reading such things than my phone due to the extra screen real-estate.

I should say, I've tried to use it. Generally I don't usually bother because you can't really rely on a store having usable wifi, and its a PITA to drag around a tablet that I can't even use.

Re:In Store WIFI

[wed128]

Where is this cheap cellular service? not in the US...

This is Amazon protecting iteself

[achacha]

It benefits Amazon if someone price checks and orders from them, I suspect this patent is to prevent some retailer from getting such patent which can be used against Amazon. I suspect this is preemptive self-protection patent, but who knows.

Re:The Next

[green1]

I would ask how this works with https though?

How much do you really trust the "trusted" root certificates? I mean, telecoms have found they can screw with net-neutrality for profit, and now have government sanction to do so. What's to make you think that root certificate providers would be immune to the same temptation, or that the same government would see it in any worse light?

The answer is ...

[thadtheman]

use the neighboring Starbucks or McDonalds WiFi. What is more worrisome is if they were to patent a process where if you are at one of their brick and mortar stores, and you check Target's price they give you a false higher price. There is really only one thing I use public WiFi for. I check bus and train schedules. Here in Chicago the CTA keeps track with GPS so they give you a fairly reliable estimate of how long it will take. Oh and to check sites like slashdot while I'm waiting.

Chicken wire?

[TheOuterLinux]

Just use chicken wire like a Faraday cage and don't have public wifi.

How did they get a patent for this?

[toonces33]

Best Buy is already doing the same thing.

Re:In Store WIFI

[JohnFen]

Even better, just don't shop at Best Buy. They tend to be overpriced and provide substandard service anyway.

There's an ethic to this

[doubledown00]

I'm not saying people shouldn't shop around. I'm not even saying that people shouldn't price compare right there in the store. But using a store's own free wi-fi to undercut them.......man, that's low rent.

I know, I know. Slashdot being the Libertarian hands off paradise that it is I can already hear the replies. "If you don't want people using it to compete against you, don't offer it" etc etc. Mercenary culture in action.

Re:There's an ethic to this

[JohnFen]

I agree. A lot of the comments here imply (or outright say) that they have some sort of right to use the store's WiFi in any way they wish (the justification being that they can't afford the hit on their data plan to use 4G.)

That they don't see the deeply flawed morality of that stance is concerning.

Re:There's an ethic to this

[doubledown00]

Glad I wasn't the only one concerned about that.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[JohnFen]

Great plan... until someone dies in the store because calling 911 from a cell phone didn't work.

Wait, you mean the store itself doesn't have landlines that a 911 call could be made from?

Weird store.

Re:VPN

[JohnFen]

It's trivially easy to identify (and block) VPNs, and has been for decades. Personally, if I'm using someone else's WiFi and my VPN doesn't work through it, then I'm not using that WiFi.

Re:Nice, a patent overruling net neutrality laws

[JohnFen]

This patent is not really counter to what net neutrality is about, unless the store is selling you their WiFi connection with the intention of being your ISP.

New definition of MITM attack

[SuperKendall]

Turns out what we really should have been fearing all along was, "Marketing In the Middle".

Re:Amazon has more than 350 retail locations

[TWX]

Whole Foods is big, but they're not nearly as ubiquitous as other grocery stores. Arguably they border on the boutique when you consider the relatively few number of locations, the type of merchandise, and the prices. They do not cater to the mass-market crowd.

As for corporations, I learned to not idolize them when Sears started its long, slow descent into corporate suicide.

Re:In Store WIFI

[tepples]

T-Mobile USA offers a $3 per month plan that comes with 30 outgoing or incoming voice minutes or sent or received text messages or a combination thereof, with 10 cents per additional outgoing or incoming voice minute or sent or received text message, and no data. I put off longer calls until I get home to my roommate's landline, which has unmetered incoming, local, and toll-free calls, and I put off longer text conversations until I get to a WLAN, where I use an instant messaging application.

Re:In Store WIFI

[bluefoxlucid]

I just paid $164.80, including all taxes, for the next 12 months of cellular service (over T-Mobile's towers) with unlimited voice and SMS, 2GB of high-speed data per month, and unlimited throttled data after that.

I use some 300MB/month of data. If I turn off the Android Data Saver and use Spotify for ~1hr/day in the car, it racks up around 900MB-1.5GB/month. Mind you, I can't do regular 200-300MB LineageOS updates over LTE+ without massively inflating my data usage (it's about a gigabyte per month just for that), and I certainly can't drive down the highway with one hand on the wheel and the other holding my phone to watch 1080p Netflix all the time.

TOS

[laughingskeptic]

The WIFI access point will have a click through page with Terms Of Service that cover this.

Re:Does Amazon GRANT PATENTS now?

[desdinova 216]

I just presumed there was a "was"

JJJ

[jacekm]

In such case stop using store WiFi, use 4G cell network. Spying on cell exchange is most likely illegal for private business.

I think this patent has a different purpose

[plazman30]

I think Amazon got this patent so others can't stop people from walking into Best Buy and checking Amazon pricing. If Amazon has a patent on this, no one else can do this.

Re: Does Amazon GRANT PATENTS now?

[slazzy]

Amazon will now sentance you to 10 years hard labour for questioning their authority.

In my state spying on people is illegal

[WillAffleckUW]

So just use your cell service to pull up the data.

If they "change it", they get to go to jail. Prison. Real prison.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

You don't need to be a professional infosec guy to go grocery shopping, but if you're going to claim (as creimer does) that you're studying for infosec certifications and that you works in "IT security," then you should probably refrain from making public pronouncements like, "Public, unsecured wifi is sometimes just so darned convenient," if you want to retain a shred of credibility.

I'm sure hackers would love to know what I'm reading on The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Slashdot. The last time I checked on Slashdot about my credibility... I have no credibility. But, hey, don't let that stop you from complaining about me. It's not like you have anything better to do with your life.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[religionofpeas]

Wait, you mean the store itself doesn't have landlines that a 911 call could be made from?

I'm sure they do, but after you figure out that your cell phone doesn't work, ask for a bystander to try his phone, and then locate a clerk to make a call on the landline, critical time may have been lost.

wifi cannot triangulate on phones (my job, I know)

[Anonymous Coward]

> "the location may be triangulated utilizing information received from a multitude of wireless access
> points."

I work for a company who offers something like this as a product.

Be clear - you cannot triangulate on phones usng wifi devices. If the patent claims it, the patent is making claims they've not tested and/or are making speculatively in the hope that in the future they can (which I think is not permitted in patents).

The problem is signal strength and propagation.

Remember - a wifi device has no idea of the *direction* of a signal. All it gets is a signal, and it knows the strength of the signal and the time it occurred (and the time doesn't help you, because you can't sychronize time so closely between different wifi devices to *time* to arrival of the signal across devices, to perform triangulation that way).

So all you have to triangulate is signal strength.

The problem with this is the strength of a transmission from a phone varies *greatly* from moment to moment, and the variation is highly anisotropic - the signal might maintain its strength in one direction, while becoming weaker in another. If you're measuring location by signal strength, it "looks" like the phone is moving, when in fact all you're experiencing is radio noise, interfererence, people walking past and blocking the signal, etc, etc, etc.

Triangulation accuracy is not just poor, its highly erratic. It's not useful, because the data is too inaccurate and too dirty.

Nice

[nospam007]

Another use for my privateinternetaccess VPN app on my phone.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[JohnFen]

If your response to the inability to use your cell phone inside a store during an emergency is to ask bystanders to try theirs instead of going straight to an employee or security guard, then I think that's more on you than on the faraday cage.

That said, I don't think it's OK for public spaces to block radio signals (and, quite often, the law doesn't as well).

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

For someone who's concerned enough about his "personal brand" to submit bogus DMCA takedowns to dozens of websites, you seem curiously unconcerned about giving advice & making comments that reflect poorly on your abilities in the ONLY activity you engage in that nets you a living wage.

I see where your confusion comes from. My personal brand as an author is completely separate from my professional reputation as a remediation tech. The two don't mingle in the real world.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] you'll freely and happily make commentary here that trashes your own credibility and reputation in the field where you actually make (some) money.

That you think Slashdot is still relevant to a professional reputation is cute.

Re:Amazon has more than 350 retail locations

[0111 1110]

People don't price shop online before buying food. At least not yet. Maybe Amazon would like to change that. It's not about idolizing. It's about logic.

Online retailers will react

[mysidia]

By going SSL-Only.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

...which is why you have a website where you constantly mix the two together?

What does my author website have to do with my professional reputation as a remediation tech?

Re:In Store WIFI

[HornWumpus]

Fry's will get you with that.

You look up the price on their website. They have an apparent 'loss leader' deal. You head for the store to grab it before 'out of stock'...When you get there, the idiot says 'Whaaaat?'. So you try and find the price again, if using their WiFi, it's mysteriously gone...

Prior art, tough luck Amazon.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

That you think your idiotic shit-posts on a public forum, especially under a name that is trivially easy to match to your ACTUAL name, especially given your penchant for plastering photos of yourself all over the place - are irrelevant to your employability is even cuter, Christopher.

Over the last ten years, no employer has ever asked my author website — or any other social media website. Even when I put it down for my security clearance. the interviewer was more interested in the fact that I had multiple contract assignments in a short period of time and lived in my apartment for longer than three years. A two-hour interview lasted four hours because of those two items.

Re:Does Amazon GRANT PATENTS now?

[thomst]

Mod parent +1 Funny!

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

But I see your confusion, you think your delusions about your reputation are real.

At least I'm not a confessed murderer.

https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/2017/03/28/i-worked-with-a-murderer/

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[Obfuscant]

That said, I don't think it's OK for public spaces to block radio signals (and, quite often, the law doesn't as well).

The inside of an Amazon brick and mortar store is not a public space, it is private property, and as an example they can call the police and have you "trespassed" for any number of reasons. I.e., kick you out permanently.

What law do you think covers creating a Faraday cage?

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

And they'll trivially find your shitty blog, which is full of rants about Slashdot asshats being mean to you.

That's not the only blog I've written for over the last 20 years.

You keep telling us that you're a replaceable cog - so it's not as if they'd have trouble finding another candidate to do the job instead.

Correct. There's always someone better qualified than me that an employer could always hire. Usually it comes down to a coin toss. But when I do get hired, I've never disappointed an employer with my work performance.

Seriously, do you even lift, bro?

I do 150 pounds on the cable row.

Classic Defensive Patent

[LeftCoastThinker]

I highly suspect that this is a defensive patent. Specifically, if Amazon holds the patent, they can sue any other company that tries to enact similar blocking (like Walmart) of the Amazon site for infringement of their patent. Walmart has been working hard to try and catch up with Amazon because it is clear that just like video streaming, online shopping is eating a lot of retail market share.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

You often (clumsily) deflect the argument when it's shown that you've talked yourself into an impasse.

If it makes you feel better (I know this is very important on Slashdot), you won.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

So much for the claims of being a "miracle worker," eh? If they can always find someone better qualified, then that means you are literally the least-qualified applicant for any job you apply for.

I've yet to meet a better qualified candidate who was also a miracle worker.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[jonwil]

Same here, the free WiFi at shopping centres and retail locations and elsewhere is just too much of a hassle. My phone may not be as fast but its much easier to deal with, no need to visit some stupid page that may require you to create an account or register your email for marketing BS, no need to agree to pages of legaleze, no need to do anything else special.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

You don't dispute that you're a poorly-qualified candidate, but you still claim you're a miracle worker.

A miracle worker solves a problem that the IT manager doesn't know was a solvable problem. For example, I wasn't hired to clean up a storage closet filled with eight years of IT crap. I asked to move my desk into the storage closest and cleared it out in six weeks in between tickets. Not only did I complete the contract three months ahead of schedule (therefore putting myself out of the job), I also gave back 600-sqft of storage space. A better qualified candidate wouldn't have done that.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

Let's re-frame your "miracle" - you spent billable hours for the client doing janitorial work, instead of the IT work you were hired to do. In legal circles, I think they'd call that "fraud," not a "miracle." And that might also be the major factor in why your contract ended three months "ahead of schedule" - they decided to eliminate you and find someone else, because you proved yourself to be a useless janitor, instead of a valuable support tech.

You're that desperate to cast me a negative light? Then again, you have nothing better to do with your life.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[__aaclcg7560]

And weren't you not trolling the trolls or something?

Nope. I haven't called anyone an asshat today. Not that anyone tried to provoke me.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[JohnFen]

A store that is open to the public is a quasi-public space. It is private property, but allowing the general public to enter makes it a "public space" for a lot of (but not all) legal purposes.

Re:In store Wi-Fi? Seriously?

[JohnFen]

"What law do you think covers creating a Faraday cage?"

I forgot to address this. In the US under federal law, there is no law against this. However, some states, counties, and cities do have laws making it illegal to block cellular 911 signals. So it all depends on where exactly you are.

Make your own discount time

[herbierobinson]

One could set up a fake web site with really low discounts for them to respond to.

Let the lawsuits begin....

[DrStoooopid]

...they're trying to force a monopoly, which is exactly the opposite of what allowed Amazon to rise to power. Hypocrites.

That which is not urgent waits for home

[tepples]

For entertainment or information, I can download works over WLAN before I leave, and I can abstain from works published by companies that use a continuous connection solely for the purpose of digital restrictions management. Unlike cable, which allows 1000 GB/mo of high-speed data, unmetered cellular data plans deprioritize a user once the user hits 20 to 30 GB in a month. For communication, I can generally put off non-urgent communication until I'm at a landline or WLAN.

I concede that price comparison is more urgent than other information in that it directly depends on what I learn while I am out, such as what products are both in stock in a particular brick-and-mortar store and interesting to me. That's why I was asking what other sorts of urgent information are worth switching from 1000 GB/mo cable to 20-30 GB/mo cellular.

Ummm. So what? Except that....

[martinfb]

If you are in a store on their wifi, and check an Amazon site; which then senses what you are researching, triggering Amazon to now offer an even better deal (potentially allowing selling at a loss), it looks like you may have made out.

So, then, now Amazon has undercut a B&M competitor, further forcing a potential bankruptcy (via ever-increasing lost sales).
Which, in turn, reduces Amazon competition.
Which, in turn, allows the STRONG potential for another Amazon monopoly.
Which, in turn, allows Amazon to jack prices back up.
Which, in turn, reduces the general shopper's ability to get a reasonable deal!

Sounds to me like we, the people, need to make our government ("By the people, For the people") step in and update our laws?!
AND, B&Ms need to make their operations more efficient, so as to compete w/ Amazon.