Amazon and the Apple Macbook Fraud | Hacker News Reader

Amazon and the Apple Macbook Fraud

cryptome.org

34 pointstombrossman20 comments

It seems like the author was dealing with an Amazon storefront, not "Sold by Amazon.com". so this isn't exactly surprising. Many storefronts are just one guy doing business so of course they would get orders wrong, promise things and generally be all around incompetent.

Amazon has a huge branding problem around communicating to it's users the concept of Amazon.com vs storefronts. I've seen multiple places where educated users report bad experiences with Amazon and 90+% of the time, it's with a storefront.

The author also sounds like he's trying to do some self-promotion:

> FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION (images attached also)

> From Alan Turnbull, http://www.secret-bases.co.uk

> * World Exclusive *

> The Customer "B" is Secret Bases author Alan Turnbull, infamous for exposing the MI6 Chief's family on Facebook and many other internet/tech related exclusives in the media.

Author feels that there is a link between Amazon and both storefronts. IE Laptop purchased from store A Returned. Same laptop sold as new from Store B. Author checked original storefront name with original customer after finding customer's PII. Author feels Amazon is creating fake store fronts for some reason. Author also investigative journalist in need of new scoop.

So is it Amazon's responsibility to police other storefronts? They certainly have liability if they know storefronts are engaging in illegal activity. Is Amazon's legal strategy to ignore requests from help from customer (as author alleges.)

Amazon had "Apple" iPhone chargers that were counterfeit labeled as "Apple" for sale for years. Based on the reviews and prices (not 1 cent anymore) I assume this problem is fixed.

There is an exploitative/arbitrage gap with Amazon where you can list counterfeit items as the real thing. Some categories are plagued by this. The iPhone charger issue makes me think Amazon intentionally ignores some of this behavior given how damn obvious it was for so long.

In this stories' case the big question is what is going on with the storefront name change? Are there loopholes which allow sellers to indefinitely break the rules and continue to do business on Amazon?

By the way, I think this presents a very important technical problem -- how do you detect counterfeit goods? Read this story in for a more dangerous area of counterfeiting: http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/processors/the-hidde...

> He tries but doesn't ensure his data is fully deleted, but Amazon say they'll organise that (?!)

What am I missing here? Why did customer "A" put his personal data on a laptop he did not intend to use?

He probably went through the initial iCloud setup before his realization.

When you log in with iCloud credentials (which you are asked for during the initial computer setup), if you've got it fully integrated, it would sync a whole lot of your personal data, including mail, contacts, calendars, documents, photos, etc..

Alright, ok, still - for an article that was put on cryptome, the whole thing seems pretty staged. If you buy from kinda-sorta Amazon, put your data on a device you don't want, send it back without checking you erased the data, just kinda-sorta trust that they will do it for you...

At some point this seems less like a * World Exclusive * FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION and more like... fishing for drama.

There was a hacker news article a while earlier about a reseller of garage/estate sale music being put out of business because Fulfilled by Amazon doesn't necessarily send the item you put in the warehouse to the customer.

Seems like that's the same root cause here - something that is marked as new by Amazon seller, but is in reality an RMA item that hasn't even been properly repackaged for sale.

>There was a hacker news article a while earlier about a reseller of garage/estate sale music being put out of business because Fulfilled by Amazon doesn't necessarily send the item you put in the warehouse to the customer.

If I remember right, this was the story in question:

http://www.startupnation.com/start-your-business/plan-your-b...

Some other seller was sending shrinkwrapped "new" counterfeit versions of the same movie titles to the warehouse for fulfillment, while he was sending used copies. They were getting co-mingled in Amazon's warehouse because as far as Amazon was concerned they were just instances of the same piece of inventory.

Then some DVD distributor buys one of his items, receives a counterfeit one from Amazon's warehouse. Not only did they report this to Amazon to get the unfortunate person's seller account revoked, but they sued him as well.

> Furthermore, and perhaps even more damning, the original Amazon Marketplace supplier "Concept Tech - fulfilled by Amazon" changes its name to "Xtra Cubby" a few days after the situation is highlighted. Suggesting that fake Marketplace shop fronts are being used by Amazon.

I'm really confused by this. How does this suggest that there are "fake marketplace shop fronts" (could the seller not just coincidentally have changed their trading name?) and - even harder to understand - that these "fake" storefronts are being operated by Amazon. Am I missing something obvious?

The idea is that two stores shouldn't be able to sell one unique product. I would argue otherwise..

`Fraud` seems like exaggeration to the point of falsehood here. I'm not in the retail business but I was under the impression that there was nothing improper about restocking and reselling non-defective returned-as-new goods. For anything less personal than a hamburger I'm not offended by the idea that another customer briefly touched the product I bought so long as it's physically clean and in 100% new condition.

It was clearly an error to fail to wipe the system but it's just as clear that this was a routine oversight (on both customer A and the vendor's part), not malice.

Usually open box deals are (or ought to be) sold up-front as such, with a nominal discount for the customer.

This smacks of a publicity stunt. He carefully manages to pull in Amazon and Apple into a story about how there appears to be a mislabeled package after the author did business with a storefront.

> The Customer "B" is Secret Bases author Alan Turnbull, infamous for exposing the MI6 Chief's family on Facebook and many other internet/tech related exclusives in the media.

Christ, what crap.

I think the author needs to let his ego down a little and stop jumping to conclusions with no evidence.

I guess the first customer should have had to pay a heafty restocking fee or worse, since they returned the laptop not in new condition. I think the first customer got away with a lot, aside from being foolish in not wiping their personal data from the system.

Restocking fees are illegal in the UK for online or telephone sales. In fact ordering online in the UK gives you very good consumer protection thanks to the excellent Distance Selling Regulations. You have the right to cancel an order from an online store for any reason up to 7 working days after receiving the goods.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-s... for more info.

Fraud? or just a mistake? Seems a bit far to jump to the conclusion that some conspiracy is going on. Especially since I've heard nothing but good experiences regarding Amazon's return policies. Like returning a MBP that's already opened...

So an Amazon customer "Concept Tech" who sells goods through Amazon (anyone can do this) was reselling returned and barely used products as new.

Why is this news?

It's not just news. It's a "world exclusive" apparently...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com