A car that costs thousands of dollars is a little different. That's why cars have titles. You don't officially transfer anything when you sell a phone or a Kindle, other than a bit of cash and the device itself.
You would hand your American-style locked-to-a-carrier cell phone, that you're paying a monthly service contract on, to another person for a sum of cash? Without wiping your address book, without de-registering the device from the provider account, etc.? Really? And you'd keep paying the contract for the cell phone you don't have anymore?
I can see why you'd imagine that cars are different because of their high value. That's not what I was getting at, though.
I chose cars as an example because of the registration. Even the lowest value cars are tied to an elaborate network of rules - tax laws, operation and licensing laws, environmental laws, financing and insurance contracts, and property rights. A cell phone is a lot like that; without those ties to the network, the cell phone is worthless. A Kindle is a lot like that too.
I'm not arguing that Amazon should necessarily get involved or that they should necessarily have a "find my Kindle" feature. But if law enforcement requests information that Amazon has already promised to hand over to law enforcement I can't see any excuse for not making good on that promise.
Even if you think requiring a warrant is the best policy, the story here is that Amazon now claims the information is lost, permanently beyond the reach of a warrant or anything else.
I don't think Amazon needs amateur defenders and in this case I don't think they even deserve them. Do you think that if the FBI knocks on Amazon's door and demands account information for all customers who read certain books (on doing chemistry at home, on radical fundamentalist religions, etc.) that they will chase the FBI away, or is it more likely they'll cave instantly, without even asking about a warrant? I find it far-fetched that Amazon is refusing to help with petty thefts as a way of looking out for our privacy. They're just doing what most businesses do: the easy thing.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. I never said anything about wiping data or canceling a contract because that's totally and completely irrelevant. The point is a car title shows proof of ownership. Beyond paying a bill, you don't have that proof of ownership for a cell phone. But even last month's Verizon bill isn't proof to Verizon or Apple that I didn't just sell my iPhone today. You certainly don't have anywhere near that proof of ownership with a Kindle.
Amazon isn't doing the easy thing. Amazon is doing the thing that isn't going to make them liable. If they don't hand over personal information, it's going to piss off an internet commenter. If they hand over information (not required by law), they are opening themselves up to liabilities as a result of releasing private information.
If law enforcement follows the proper channels, it's a non-issue. If we're arguing that an Amazon rep provided the wrong information to the customer, well, then there's nothing to argue about.
I find it mildly humorous that we jump from an individual claiming their Kindle was stolen to the FBI requesting information from Amazon. I'm not arguing what Amazon should or shouldn't do. I'm simply sharing my perspective on why they don't do it for everyone that comes asking.
I'm afraid I don't understand your point. I never said anything about wiping data or canceling a contract...
You said:
You don't officially transfer anything when you sell a phone or a Kindle...
But that's not really true. That's my point. You would follow some procedures, involving the phone company officials (not government officials) to avoid paying the buyer's phone bills or Kindle bills. In this way, the phone and the Kindle are like a car. The transfer of ownership requires official help because the Kindle, the phone, and the car are in a sense just nodes on a network. Other goods, from pencils to diamond rings, are fundamentally different, and don't require the involvement of officialdom when they change hands.
You believe that you can cleave the car example off as a special category of property, different because it's encumbered by government papers. My point is that a lot of electronic gadgetry is already encumbered in the same way. The papers don't have to be government ones.
I don't see the problem as one of proof of ownership. Information that could have helped an investigation supposedly existed, was offered, then the offer was rescinded, then the information was "lost." If a police department had behaved this way, the readers of HN would call it corruption.
You would hand your American-style locked-to-a-carrier cell phone, that you're paying a monthly service contract on, to another person for a sum of cash? Without wiping your address book, without de-registering the device from the provider account, etc.? Really? And you'd keep paying the contract for the cell phone you don't have anymore?
I can see why you'd imagine that cars are different because of their high value. That's not what I was getting at, though.
I chose cars as an example because of the registration. Even the lowest value cars are tied to an elaborate network of rules - tax laws, operation and licensing laws, environmental laws, financing and insurance contracts, and property rights. A cell phone is a lot like that; without those ties to the network, the cell phone is worthless. A Kindle is a lot like that too.
I'm not arguing that Amazon should necessarily get involved or that they should necessarily have a "find my Kindle" feature. But if law enforcement requests information that Amazon has already promised to hand over to law enforcement I can't see any excuse for not making good on that promise.
Even if you think requiring a warrant is the best policy, the story here is that Amazon now claims the information is lost, permanently beyond the reach of a warrant or anything else.
I don't think Amazon needs amateur defenders and in this case I don't think they even deserve them. Do you think that if the FBI knocks on Amazon's door and demands account information for all customers who read certain books (on doing chemistry at home, on radical fundamentalist religions, etc.) that they will chase the FBI away, or is it more likely they'll cave instantly, without even asking about a warrant? I find it far-fetched that Amazon is refusing to help with petty thefts as a way of looking out for our privacy. They're just doing what most businesses do: the easy thing.