Slashdot Mirror
Reporter Regrets Letting Amazon's Delivery People Into His House (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Washington Post reporter Geoffrey A. Fowler describes his short-lived experience with "Amazon Key", a $250 smart lock system with a security camera that grants Amazon's delivery people access to your home. The lock sounds "like R2-D2 with constipation," and at one point it actually jammed (though his persistent delivery person eventually got it working properly). The unlocking of the door triggers a live video feed of the delivery -- which is also stored in a private archive online -- plus an alert to your phone -- and the Post's reporter writes that "The biggest downsides to the experience haven't been the strangers -- it's been Amazon."
They missed their delivery windows four out of eight times, and though the packages all arrived eventually, all four were late by a least a day. But his larger issue is that Amazon "wants to draw you further into an all-Amazon world... Now Amazon wants to literally own your door, so it can push not just packages but also services that come through it, like handymen, dog-walkers, groceries, you name it." His ultimate question? "Who's really being locked in?"
The Post's reporter notes that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, "but I review all tech the same." He did identify some advantages to the $250 smart lock system -- the door can now also be unlocked with the Amazon Key app, and he can even share that access with his friends by giving them a special access code.
But he also notes that security researchers discovered a way to freeze Amazon's security camera, potentially allowing a rogue delivery person to lurk in your house. And all things considered, it was apparently all too creepy. "After two weeks, my family voted to remove the Amazon Key smart lock and take down the camera."
They missed their delivery windows four out of eight times, and though the packages all arrived eventually, all four were late by a least a day. But his larger issue is that Amazon "wants to draw you further into an all-Amazon world... Now Amazon wants to literally own your door, so it can push not just packages but also services that come through it, like handymen, dog-walkers, groceries, you name it." His ultimate question? "Who's really being locked in?"
The Post's reporter notes that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, "but I review all tech the same." He did identify some advantages to the $250 smart lock system -- the door can now also be unlocked with the Amazon Key app, and he can even share that access with his friends by giving them a special access code.
But he also notes that security researchers discovered a way to freeze Amazon's security camera, potentially allowing a rogue delivery person to lurk in your house. And all things considered, it was apparently all too creepy. "After two weeks, my family voted to remove the Amazon Key smart lock and take down the camera."
Nothing happened worth regretting. He pretty much just doesn't want to give amazon control to his lock because paranoia but that's the service he signed up for!
You sound petulant over it. 'Signature required' means someone has to physically be there to sign for the package. It doesn't mean you can just sign a slip of paper. Anyone could do that. If you're having consistent problems with delivery then perhaps you *should* start having them delivered directly to the deop where you can pick them up at your leisure.
Solution: Put a close-to-lock box on your front porch. Then go to Amazon, click on "track this order" and then click on the signature waiver.
I'm writting this as someone who would NEVER install a service like this, but it's quite clear that Geoffrey, the author of the piece, had already decided what to think of the service previous to reviewing it - very bad practice.
Out of all his complaints, the majority of it is due to early adopter grievances or unrelated crap.
For instance, he complains about not getting the delivery on the day promised. This isn't due to Amazon Key, it's due to the delivery service itself being late. Would installing Key change the speed in which packages would come? Doesn't sound like so.
On another part he talks about his door not being appropriate, having trouble with installation, and the door almost locking delivery service outside. Honestly, I think this is something people should expect - not all doors are made equal, not all of them are in a good enough shape to install electronic locks, and not all of them will work perfectly outright - this is a problem most electronic key installations could have.
Then he goes on a complete tirade about walled gardens and whatnot which should be quite obvious to anyone purchasing something like this - of course you are increasing the likelihood of getting Amazon stuff if you are buying a system from them to get access into your home. Much like the Amazon Dash Buttons and whatnot, it's meant to make it more convenient to get stuff from them. More importantly though, since you can share the key to others, this should stop no one from getting services from another company and just sending a temporary key to them instead.
Anyways, like I said, I'd never get something like this even if it was available for me, because the ammount of convenience it'd give me is not enough to counterweight privacy worries plus the fact that I'd never install IoT devices in my home without very strong justification - it's yet another thing connected to the Internet that will obviously need constant updates, maintenance and whatnot.
But there are legitimate reasons to have something like this, and they were mildly covered in the piece. Homes with people with limited mobility. People who are never at home and already had purchases stolen from their front porches. People who were already hiding keys in places for delivery people to get in because they have no other option.
I don't think anyone has to like this thing, quite the opposite. It's a system I'd only recommend for people who has had an unsolvable problem regarding product delivery for years. But the review was kinda crap.