Comments on: In the “Cassandra” department http://futureoftheinternet.org/in-the-cassandra-department Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:25:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Catie http://futureoftheinternet.org/in-the-cassandra-department/comment-page-1#comment-12369 Catie Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:30:27 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=874#comment-12369 In some ways, I feel that Amazon is being unsympathetic here. However, in some ways, I don't feel like they're doing anything wrong. For example: if you buy a bike from a bike store, you don't lock it up properly, and someone steals it, you don't go back to the bike store and ask the previous owner to destroy its tires so the thief can't ride it. Once you've purchased the bike, it stops being the property of the bike store and starts being your property. If it gets stolen, the responsibility is not on the bike store to recoup for your loss. Playing both sides of the argument, though, one could say that the Kindle doesn't completely belong to the buyer once it is bought, because Amazon can still remotely alter it. If you have the power to change that, does it mean you still own it? I think Amazon is baulking for two reasons: 1, the kindle thief (or whomever they sell the stolen Kindle to) can still buy books. By disabling the stolen Kindles, Amazon loses revenue. 2. If you start here, where does it stop? Does Amazon become liable to send you another Kindle if yours is stolen? Will disabling stolen Kindles remotely be some kind of slippery slope for them? I think Amazon should disable stolen Kindles, but the consumer is stupid if they think that Amazon is going to be "nice" to them. In some ways, I feel that Amazon is being unsympathetic here. However, in some ways, I don’t feel like they’re doing anything wrong. For example: if you buy a bike from a bike store, you don’t lock it up properly, and someone steals it, you don’t go back to the bike store and ask the previous owner to destroy its tires so the thief can’t ride it. Once you’ve purchased the bike, it stops being the property of the bike store and starts being your property. If it gets stolen, the responsibility is not on the bike store to recoup for your loss.

Playing both sides of the argument, though, one could say that the Kindle doesn’t completely belong to the buyer once it is bought, because Amazon can still remotely alter it. If you have the power to change that, does it mean you still own it?

I think Amazon is baulking for two reasons: 1, the kindle thief (or whomever they sell the stolen Kindle to) can still buy books. By disabling the stolen Kindles, Amazon loses revenue. 2. If you start here, where does it stop? Does Amazon become liable to send you another Kindle if yours is stolen? Will disabling stolen Kindles remotely be some kind of slippery slope for them?

I think Amazon should disable stolen Kindles, but the consumer is stupid if they think that Amazon is going to be “nice” to them.

]]> By: Michael Hills http://futureoftheinternet.org/in-the-cassandra-department/comment-page-1#comment-12259 Michael Hills Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:25:24 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=874#comment-12259 I applaud Amazon for refusing to take unilateral action on disabling Kindles. They did take a lot of criticism for remotely removing books, and perhaps they have learned a lesson. Trying to decide what is an "appropriate" or "unappropriate" use is a slippery slope of any remote kill feature. Sure a thief should not be able to use a stolen Kindle, but what's to stop those who love to send phony DCMA notices from sending fake stolen Kindle notices. Best not to have the feature at all, and if the feature already exists best to never use it. In the end the best philosophy is to give the user complete control over their devices. I'd accept a tool that would allow a user to install a program on their own computer that would allow the user to register and then remotely kill any Kindle they own, but Amazon should never take that power into their own hands. I applaud Amazon for refusing to take unilateral action on disabling Kindles. They did take a lot of criticism for remotely removing books, and perhaps they have learned a lesson.

Trying to decide what is an “appropriate” or “unappropriate” use is a slippery slope of any remote kill feature. Sure a thief should not be able to use a stolen Kindle, but what’s to stop those who love to send phony DCMA notices from sending fake stolen Kindle notices. Best not to have the feature at all, and if the feature already exists best to never use it.

In the end the best philosophy is to give the user complete control over their devices. I’d accept a tool that would allow a user to install a program on their own computer that would allow the user to register and then remotely kill any Kindle they own, but Amazon should never take that power into their own hands.

]]> By: Manuel Delgado http://futureoftheinternet.org/in-the-cassandra-department/comment-page-1#comment-12241 Manuel Delgado Mon, 21 Sep 2009 06:02:04 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=874#comment-12241 Amazon probably don't want to deal with the trouble of authenticating reports of stolen devices. They face lawsuits if they remotely disable the wrong Kindle... or the Kindle of the wife of an angry husband. Amazon probably don’t want to deal with the trouble of authenticating reports of stolen devices. They face lawsuits if they remotely disable the wrong Kindle… or the Kindle of the wife of an angry husband.

]]>