[sjc]

As I stated before: I peek my head in on the "other side" every so often just for kicks. This thread seems to be gaining a bit of attention and is becoming quite heated:

http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdPage=1&asin=B000FI73MA&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2Y5YS3AXCUXRQ

 

[Sienna_98]

I have always been concerned about the lack of a password on my K2 because of access to my credit card via 1-click.  I think it should at least be an option.

With respect to Amazon's response regarding the theft, I think OP has not provided the whole story as OP indicates that Amazon is requiring that someone from SFPD to contact them.  I have a hard time believing that and would think a copy of the police report should suffice as it does in cases of a stolen credit card.

Anyway, I agree that it raises some interesting issues...

 

[Ann in Arlington]

I haven't read the thread because I just don't like going over there. But, based on the topic alone, here is what I think. Stolen Kindle. . .I would be really upset!

But, as soon as I determine my Kindle has been lost/misplaced/stolen. . . the first thing I'd do is go de-register it from my Amazon account. If the thief had had a chance to buy some books before I get to that, I would think Amazon would refund that money toot sweet. I mean, you have 7 days anyway to ask for money back and I can't imagine it being more than 7 days before I realized my Kindle was no longer attached to me. I would let them know it had been lost or stolen but I don't think they could do much else. I can't hold them responsible for the theft. . . .same as I can't hold the Martin company responsible if my guitar goes missing. Mind you, I'd file a police report, and make sure they have all the identifying information so that if it is recovered I get it back.

Sienna mentioned a password: I'm of two minds. I can see it as a way to keep a thief from using the Kindle to access my CC on Amazon. But, the only things they can buy are Kindle books. . .so as long as they don't know about the Nuclear one I don't think there'd be much problem since I'd have de-registered it myself right quick, alerted Amazon, and had any book purchases reversed. On the other hand, I think for me it would just represent another 30 seconds of delay before getting back to my book. I probably would not use it for that reason, and I'd be less happy with the Kindle if it was an 'always on' feature.

Just my thoughts, obviously. YMMV*, as they say. . . .

*Your Mileage May Vary

 

[vsch]

Ann, the way I read his original post is that Amazon did refund him for the 4 books purchased on his account and then he de-registered the kindle, but the thief re-registered the stolen kindle on his/her own account.

Amazon has allowed a stolen kindle to be re-registered by the guilty party. Therefore, Amazon has the name and address of the thief and doing nothing about it. Do they have a repsonsibility to do something about it? Therein lies the question.

 

[LauraB]

I think someone would have to prove the Kindle was stolen. Not just tell Amazon that it was stolen. Amazon should cooperate with police if contacted by the police. But otherwise it is just one customers word against another. Just because a police report has been filed doesn't prove guilt. Police reports are filed falsely. It isn't Amazons place to sort out the truth.

 

[GeorgeGlass]

I think a policy similar to that of most cellular phone companies would make sense. If it is stolen, and you provide a police report, then Amazon should put a "theft" flag on the device and not allow it to be registered.

The way it is handled right now, it makes it really easy to steal a Kindle and resell/reuse.

 

[RamTheHammer]

If Amazon blocked the Kindle based on the original purchaser reporting it stolen and the "new user" believes he/she got it legally they would contact customer support because of the block. Now what would Amazon do? They are in the middle with no way to know who is right. Best bet for both Amazon and the original user is to go by way of their Police Department and for Amazon NOT to block the Kindle.

My 2 cents.

 

[Ann in Arlington]

I agree with Red, though maybe prove is too strong a word.  If a police report is filed that should be sufficient to document the theft.  Granted, it could be filed falsely, but either way, what is Amazon's liability?  What does this guy want them to do?  According to vsch they believed him and he got back the money for the books that were fraudulently purchased.

vsch also says that the Kindle has been re-registered to the thief's own account.  I assume that tidbit was in the post in question (geez, I guess I should go read it ).  I would question how this person knows that.  Granting it is true, how do they know it's been re-registered by the thief.  Maybe the thief resold it right quick to an unsuspecting buyer who had no idea it was stolen?  But, again, what does he want Amazon to do?  Tell him who it is so he can go to their house and get it back?

Still, let's say that Amazon is contacted by the police and told "Kindle S/N # xxx has been reported stolen, here's a warrant the requires you to provide us any info you have in the event it is re-registered to another account."   I believe that they'd cooperate.  But of course they can't just release the info on the say so of Joe Blow. . .even if Joe Blow identifies himself as a police officer.

And I wonder if the interstate aspect of it would make for problems: Kindle stolen in Virginia, Amazon is in Washington state. . . .wonder if the FBI would have to get involved before they could get a good warrant.  I can see where "they" might conclude that it's a lot of effort and expense for, essentially, a $400 gadget and do nothing.

 

[Ann in Arlington]

If Amazon blocked the Kindle based on the original purchaser reporting it stolen and the "new user" believes he/she got it legally they would contact customer support because of the block. Now what would Amazon do? They are in the middle with no way to know who is right. Best bet for both Amazon and the original user is to go by way of their Police Department and for Amazon NOT to block the Kindle.

My 2 cents.

This brings to mind a situation that came up one time many moons ago when I lived in California. I was a tax preparer with H&R Block and it was when the whole e-file thing was just starting. Well, we had a fellow come in to file his return. . .straightforward, documentation appeared to be in order etc. When the office manager attempted to e-file it, she got a response that a return had already been filed. Now, it just so happened that the return that had been filed had ALSO been filed by H&R Block and even in the local district.

It turned out that an illegal worker had what he thought was a legal social security number -- and a really good looking SS card. All the preparer could tell him was that he couldn't file electronically because the number had already been used. And, because of confidentiality rules, the company could not notify that person whose number it was that someone was using their SSN illegally. Frustrating for the preparer involved , because she knew the person would find out when they started getting letters about unreported income on their return.

 

[GeorgeGlass]

If Amazon blocked the Kindle based on the original purchaser reporting it stolen and the "new user" believes he/she got it legally they would contact customer support because of the block. Now what would Amazon do? They are in the middle with no way to know who is right. Best bet for both Amazon and the original user is to go by way of their Police Department and for Amazon NOT to block the Kindle.

My 2 cents.

That's the way it works with cell phones, and there are few problems.

The burden would be on the purchaser of the used Kindle. You call up customer service beforehand with the SID and they can tell you if it's "clear" or if it's been reported stolen.

The policy set up the way it is now encourages theft because there's no measure to keep the thief from cashing in on the product and getting away with it. It's too easy for the thief.

 

[Betsy the Quilter]

I read the whole thread, I thought it was a quite rational discussion, could have been on KindleBoards, LOL!

According to the OP, he knows the K was reregistered because he personally knows someone at Amazon who checked.

I think an option to have the One-Click passworded would be a nice security feature. There have been parents here who have wished they could password One-Click on the Kindle they bought for their kid(s). But I agree with Ann, I wouldn't want it, so it should be optional.

I also think deregistration should not be able to be done from the Kindle. Yes, you could have problems with someone selling a used Kindle and not deregistering it, but that's between the buyer and seller and it's not Amazon's responsibility any more than it's Amazon's responsibility to make sure someone sells a working Kindle.

JMHO.

Betsy

 

[LauraB]

Yes, "prove" is a strong word, but I am having a vocab lock on my brain today , it's the best I could come up with, but glad to see you were able to follow my meaning anyway  .

 

[sjc]

Betsy: I too, read the entire thread ONLY because I did find it interesting; and they were "discussing" up until the poster who threw the f* word in very liberally.

I don't understand why the police can't make a 2 minute call while the guy is standing there waiting. The effort wasted explaining to him that they couldn't call and why; the police could have used that time to actually make the 2 minute call.

I think the perfect fix is to only be able to de-register through amazon directly and provide your personal information...and not via the Kindle...if they eliminate the deactivation feature from the Kindle, problem solved.

I once had someone hit and run my car (they backed into it) and when I called the police they said they were too busy to send someone out...that unless I got the plate# I was stuck. I told them that it was the man across the way's company and if they question him they can find out who it was. The reply: we are to busy for trivial matters. I was stuck with several hundred dollars in damage. FUNNY: I don't find paying my $7000 in city taxes, which pays their salary TRIVIAL.

 

[LauraB]

I think, once again, it comes down to the you don't need a computer for the Kindle advertisment.  If you can't register/deregister/change accounts from the kindle than you need a computer.  They could have a screen password lock, that you could set from the kindle. The Sony has one, and it is an option if you want to use it. Making it optional for the Kindle would be helpful.

 

[Betsy the Quilter]

OK, I take it back, I went and looked, and I hadn't read the whole thing, I got sidetracked by the comment box at the bottom!

I think, once again, it comes down to the you don't need a computer for the Kindle advertisment. If you can't register/deregister/change accounts from the kindle than you need a computer. They could have a screen password lock, that you could set from the kindle. The Sony has one, and it is an option if you want to use it. Making it optional for the Kindle would be helpful.

You could deregister via phone if you didn't have a computer, the same way I do all kind of financial stuff, they ask 257 personal questions only I would know.

But yeah, passwording the deregister would be smart, it's not something you would access often.

Betsy

 

[drenee]

If Amazon blocked the Kindle based on the original purchaser reporting it stolen and the "new user" believes he/she got it legally they would contact customer support because of the block. Now what would Amazon do? They are in the middle with no way to know who is right. Best bet for both Amazon and the original user is to go by way of their Police Department and for Amazon NOT to block the Kindle.

My 2 cents.

Anyone who receives (buys unaware) any stolen property loses it, and the money they spent purchasing the stolen property.
deb

 

[tashab]

I didn't read the whole post. but in the guy's opening argument, he says that now whoever stole his Kindle has access to his whole library... but I thought when a device is de-registered you lose all the books previously purchased on the other account?

Also, sorry dude, but you lost it. It's sort of his own damn fault for not paying attention to a $400 device. Why are you taking it to the supermarket anyway? regardless, it's not amazon's fault you lost it. they're not your babysitters. for all they know, you sold it to this person for $300 and you're trying to get it back to re-sell it again and this is a scam you're pulling.

 

[GeorgeGlass]

I don't understand why the police can't make a 2 minute call while the guy is standing there waiting. The effort wasted explaining to him that they couldn't call and why; the police could have used that time to actually make the 2 minute call.

Because it is never just a two-minute phone call. The police have way bigger issues to deal with than petty theft. Especially in a big city.

Would you rather them put aside a more serious offense to deal with someone who had their expensive toy swiped when they weren't looking?

If you want enough cops to deal with petty theft, you'll have to up your $7,000 in taxes. (And come on, you do not pay $7k in city taxes. I guarantee most of that money is actually school taxes.)

 

[RamTheHammer]

Anyone who receives (buys unaware) any stolen property loses it, and the money they spent purchasing the stolen property.
deb

While that is true - the buyer would lose eventually - is it Amazons job to do the "Policing". I don't think so.

 

[sjc]

George: My taxes per month are slowly creeping to become greater than my mortgage payment...and going up 4% again in July. I pay the city $6,882.68. per year...if you must know the exact figures. My mother-in-law just over $8,000. How they allocate it: I'm not exactly certain I'm sure school tax is included...however, I do know that the police and fire personnel are paid from those funds; including their retirement. I'm not knocking them, just stating that I'm a tax paying citizen just like anyone else. The above is just a side note. Now back to the issue at hand:

I agree that it was a petty crime. I do think that he should have been more careful with his goods. My only argument is that all issues would be resolved if Amazon would disable the deactivation feature directly from the Kindle. Amazon wouldn't have to police anything. The gentleman would only have to REPORT it as stolen, deactivate through Amazon...and stop the one click option. The Kindle would then be considered a useless Kindle. When the "thief" went to use it or "activate" it then Amazon would say That particular Kindle according to its serial number is non registerable. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm certainly not trying to stir the pot so to speak...
A. I buy a Kindle and Activate or "register" it. Amazon knows it is my Kindle. I am the only one who can order materials for it.

B. Now I want to sell it...or give it away. I must deactivate it through Amazon and remove my "one click" credit card connected to that Kindle.

C. Now the new user can Register with his or her info.

D. In the case of theft once reported stolen and deactivated wouldn't Amazon know that is the stolen Kindle via the serial number and just say that it is considered unregisterable to the so-called thief? They don't have to say it is stolen or anything; just that it is unregisterable.

Am I missing something?