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."
My current pet peeve is getting into delivery race-condition. They leave a note a the door - someone must sign but no option to sign and leave at front door? So then you miss day two, and when you get home from work you call, only to find that package won't be at local facility until after 8 blah blah... Spent extra for overnight shipping and you don't get package for three days.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
for Amazon to just leave the package at the customer's local post office or UPS office, or similar package handlers, then they could just go to the postoffice with a photo ID or driver's licence proving who they are and then pick up the package at their convenience, there is no way in hell am i going to let amazon or anyone else have access to my house like that
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
...what possibly could go wrong ???
In this case, nothing. The reporter just doesn't like the concept of in-home delivery, signed up for it anyway, and then wrote an article about how he doesn't like the concept because it was "creepy", even though in practice it worked out fine.
Here's the interesting thing about Prime. As a grad student, I have a university account, which entitled me to 6 months of "student Prime" for free. I put in the email -- they never verified it, just "turned on" Prime for 6 months (I set it to auto-cancel after the free trial was up immediately). Meaning that someone could just make up plausible-sounding .edu addresses and get free Prime for life.
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.
Tell them to leave it at a local pick-up. I do that and just pick it up on the way home.
Twinstiq, game news
I'm late to this party and I hope my question isn't redundant. (I'm asking for a friend)
What happens when you ARE home during the delivery? You might be relaxing in front of the big screen enjoying some righteous pron and getting your wrist exercise for the day. You might be doing your cosplay version of Princess Leia. You might be entertaining the stud next door through the back door. Or you might just be lying in your upchuck in a drunken stupor on the floor.
Not too worried about a delivery when I'm *not* home.
...omphaloskepsis often...