Amazon has a patent to keep you from comparison-shopping while you're in its stores

[Maxirad]

sfgate.com/business/article/Amazon-has-a-patent-to-keep-you-from-11225265.php

 

[SyroMalankara]

That is not new technology at all. Anyone logging into a 3rd party wifi can be blocked from any site the 3rd party provider deems necessary to block. If the person chooses to use their own internet - like 4G - then the block is no longer present. SanFrancisco being a tech hub, I’m surprised this shoddy article passed the editor’s desk.

 

[Crusaderbear]

I see nothing wrong with preventing the use of your complimentary in store service to shop at a competitor. Sounds like trying to stir up trouble for Amazon!

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

That’s the almighty Dollar at work here,

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It seems fair to me.

 

[FrDavid96]

Isn’t this a bit like shopping at Store A, picking up an item and walking over to the service counter and asking…
** “would you mind terribly if I borrow your telephone to call Store B to inquire if they have the same item at a better price?”**

How is it any different to borrow Store A’s wifi connection?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Isn’t this a bit like shopping at Store A, picking up an item and walking over to the service counter and asking…
** “would you mind terribly if I borrow your telephone to call Store B to inquire if they have the same item at a better price?”**

How is it any different to borrow Store A’s wifi connection?

True. Of course, if one really needed wifi for comparison shopping there is always likely to be a mcdonalds nearby and I am sure they have fewer restrictions on the use of their wifi. Given that wifi is so ubiquitous, this seems to be of little practical significance.

 

[upant]

my goal upon entering a store is how fast i can get out of it.

i always check if it is cheaper somewhere else before leaving the house.

sometimes i get real picky and factor in drive time and gas mileage.

obviously i don’t consider shopping a hobby; to me it is a chore.

ymmv if you are a hobbyist shopper.

 

[DeniseNY]

my goal upon entering a store is how fast i can get out of it.

i always check if it is cheaper somewhere else before leaving the house.

sometimes i get real picky and factor in drive time and gas mileage.

obviously i don’t consider shopping a hobby; to me it is a chore.

ymmv if you are a hobbyist shopper.

I would consider myself a hobbyist shopper, but for big ticket items (which is what I think of when speaking of comparison shopping), I do my research at home, too.

 

[pnewton]

I see nothing wrong with preventing the use of your complimentary in store service to shop at a competitor. Sounds like trying to stir up trouble for Amazon!

This seems to be the consensus here. Their wifi, their rules.

 

[Suudy]

It seems net neutrality may come into play here. Shouldn’t all ISPs treat all traffic neutrally? And isn’t providing internet access effectively being an ISP?

 

[FrDavid96]

It seems net neutrality may come into play here. Shouldn’t all ISPs treat all traffic neutrally? And isn’t providing internet access effectively being an ISP?

I don’t think so.

The neutrality rules apply to the actual providers. The customers can do what they want–and in this case, the customer is the store. My wifi blocks all kinds of connections to the internet, mostly for security reasons.

Again, I think this is more like borrowing someone else’s phone. If I allow someone else to borrow my phone, I can put whatever restrictions I choose (“no long distance” or “short calls only” etc.) even if government regulations might prohibit the phone company from putting the same restrictions on me.

 

[Suudy]

I don’t think so.

The neutrality rules apply to the actual providers. The customers can do what they want–and in this case, the customer is the store. My wifi blocks all kinds of connections to the internet, mostly for security reasons.

I agree. But an expansive understanding of net neutrality can be interpreted to mean anyone who provides access to the internet. And I wouldn’t put it past an FCC with the same folk who drafted net neutrality to make such an expansive ruling.

 

[Xystus]

I agree. But an expansive understanding of net neutrality can be interpreted to mean anyone who provides access to the internet. And I wouldn’t put it past an FCC with the same folk who drafted net neutrality to make such an expansive ruling.

If that were the case my employer would be breaking the law by not allowing me to access any website i wish. That is not the case, they filter webtraffic as they see fit.

 

[Suudy]

If that were the case my employer would be breaking the law by not allowing me to access any website i wish. That is not the case, they filter webtraffic as they see fit.

But your employer’s internet access is not open to the public for general use.

 

[Xystus]

But your employer’s internet access is not open to the public for general use.

You are changing your claim to which i responded. It was “anyone who provides access to the internet” but you now are adding a caveat.

my public library…“adheres to the standards of the Children’s Internet Protection Act and provides filtered access on all computers and the wireless network. The filter helps protect
from phishing scams, botnets and malware as well as blocking pornography, malicious and inappropriate content”

Would this be illegal with your view of net nutrality?

 

[Suudy]

You are changing your claim to which i responded. It was “anyone who provides access to the internet” but you now are adding a caveat.

my public library…“adheres to the standards of the Children’s Internet Protection Act and provides filtered access on all computers and the wireless network. The filter helps protect
from phishing scams, botnets and malware as well as blocking pornography, malicious and inappropriate content”

Would this be illegal with your view of net nutrality?

It’s not my view that matters. It’s the FCC’s. If they wanted to be expansive in their interpretation, then yes, that too would be illegal. But note, libraries are required to grant wide open access to those who request it (see here). Further, the Childrens Internet Protection Act applies only to K-12 schools, not public libraries, and is only a condition for federal funding.

Look, I’m not fan of net neutrality. I think it’s already too encompassing, centralizing too much control in Washington. And going back to my first point, I said I wouldn’t be surprised if the FCC took such an expansive understanding of net neutrality.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I think it’s quite an interesting story, and really kind of a warning shot for what’s about to come. Are you guys familiar with Amazon Go? For everyone who is not, I’d like to strongly recommend this commercial on YouTube, titled:

Introducing Amazon Go and the world’s most advanced shopping technology

youtube.com/watch?v=NrmMk1Myrxc

Seriously, it’s worth watching and pondering over, and it’s only a minute forty-nine seconds long. It’s an advertisement for a store Amazon is going to open here in Seattle, and I would argue the implications of what it portends are very stark and very ominous. Not everyone will view it that way, which was of course Amazon’s intention with this ridiculous ad, but I see it as a slick piece of social engineering aimed at fostering eager acceptance in people’s minds for future control systems that are coming down the pike. All these happy, smiling, fashionably attired consumers are assuring us that a cashless society based upon constant, total surveillance is something to look forward to. Indeed, we should all be bowled over and grinning ear-to-ear at the neat-o gee-whiz awesomeness of it all. Yay! We get to walk into some well-stocked store and stroll around like the smartly dressed sophisticates we are! And we don’t even have to pay!! It’s gonna be wild! Our smartphones will take care of it via our Amazon dot com accounts.

Or at least, it sure seems like that’s what they’re trying to normalize. And plus, I’m looking at Bezos’ scheme in light of his massive “Cloud Computing” business deal \ collusion with the CIA, and also in light of the whole “Russia hacked Trump into office” garbage that’s all over the news, which was originally spawned and set into motion by his Washington Times. Basically what I mean is, I’m not about to start viewing him as some kind of eco-friendly Whole Foods mascot who’ just trying to make a buck by selling people healthy food. He seems much more tied into dirty politics and Machiavellian profiteering, to me. And I’m wondering how all the people who work at Whole Foods are going to react if and when fresh local produce slowly becomes not so fresh and not so local. And too, I’m more than a little dubious about this remaining just some lone, weird store. In Seattle there are nine or ten Whole Foods around town, and they’re in the middle of constructing a new one on the corner of Madison and Broadway, which I mention because of it’s close proximity to the city’s best co-op, and because of all the other small local businesses I like around here which will likely be seriously hurt. So I do suspect these Amazon Go stores are going to expand all over the place. Seattle’s just a product testing ground, but the cancer will spread, and so will the acceptance and embrace of this. Anyway though, it’s really the idea of a cashless society that’s frightening, and the gradual move toward chipping the populace, beginning with everyone carrying around a smartphone to do their smartbanking on.