> Despite repeated warnings from the FBI and security industry leaders about the security and privacy risks of using these streaming devices, major e-commerce providers like Amazon, Best Buy, Newegg and others continue to sell hundreds of different models and brands
I scanned the comments and I didn't see anyone suggesting that these companies should share any responsibility for selling these harmful products. Why is it that they seem to get a pass? Would we feel the same about giant retailers selling tainted food, or unsafe children's toys?
One of the main value propositions for retailers in a world of endless cheap garbage being sold online, is to vet products so customers can trust that what their buying is from a legitimate company and not junk or stuff like these streaming sticks.
This is the problem with being an “everything store”. “Everything” includes a lot of things most consumers would like to be protected from, and assume they are due to the long history of retailers standing behind the products they sell. That history seems to have come to an end. They only stand behind it enough to offer a refund if there is a problem, not to ensure it’s good before selling it.
interesting bit of information: most EV mower companies now do not provide replacement parts - if a mower dies within warranty, a 'certified' warranty repair shop does basic troubleshooting, and if it's beyond a piece of cheap plastic, the mfr just ships a new mower to the 'repair shop'. Once out of warranty, you're on your own.
Just being realistic here; many of these are of Chinese make so how exactly would you stop it other than blocking them from being sold. They certainly don't advertise to the big box retailer that buys them "and it uses the customer's internet connection for fraud."
Hell, there's a section of comments that would probably going "hey, RELAX guy" because it's not US companies doing this. For any American companies that do this though, sure - block/suspend/prosecute.
If I open my own line of home improvement stores and do no oversight on what I sell and wind up selling really dangerous lawnmowers, I'm partly responsible.
Or if I open up a gas station and allow any company without oversight to sell "supplements" through my shelves and cops arrest me for selling heroin, I don't get a free pass.
Why should amazon or Walmart get a free pass just because they sell more items?
One problem I see with your analogy is that the dangerous lawnmower can cause an easily quantifiable harm.
You have to be able to show damages you incurred and assign a dollar value to them to sue people.
That doesn’t work at all for a something that sells your bandwidth to a proxy service. People wouldn’t even be aware that it was happening they weren’t told.
What about when the police show up because some highly illegal content was traced to your IP address? Will they believe that you were the unwitting victim of a rogue proxy server running on your streaming stick? Would you have even been aware of that possibility?
Except the devices are not dangerous. Its the software installed on the device. Consumers have a choice. Pay for the trusted Apple TV or Amazon firestick, or go the wild west and see what's on offer.
> Just being realistic here; many of these are of Chinese make so how exactly would you stop it other than blocking them from being sold.
You already answered it: block it from being sold.
1) Make Amazon responsible for the products they are selling. 2) Introduce a law banning malware tv sticks 3) Sue Amazon for a percentage of their yearly revenue when caught violating it 4) Amazon will finally start caring and do some kind of review on the crap they sell.
And if the first time you get it online it just updates itself to malware?
That's the biggest problem with any device that updates.
Yea, this will work for the moment and the seller will be covered in the sense that "well, it wasn't infected when we sold it".
But it is a retailer's responsibility to know what they are selling. If it was added after they started selling it and hidden in secret, sure a retailer might have an excuse. But it isn't really hidden, most often its put in their marketing materials as a benefit and have been knowingly doing it for many years now.
US retailers can be told they can't sell it here. If you buy it outside of that, well that is buyer beware, but 99% of people aren't buying things from Alibaba or ordering from some random foreign store, they are buying them off US Amazon, Walmart, big box retailers, etc. You don't have to ban things consumer level to deal with 99% of it, you just gotta tell big corporations no and stop dismissing any ideas that put responsibility or liability on big business.
The problem is that Amazon, Walmart & friends have said the "we are a platform, not a retailer" magic incantation, which means that through the power of friendship and unicorns they are now suddenly no longer responsible for the stuff they sell.
And the "retailer" on record is of course not a real company. They'll just pay some third-party to file a bunch of paperwork in Delaware, pay the $110 fee, and let it go bust if anyone tries to investigate it or make it liable.
I would very much be in favor of grocery stores sharing responsibility (and regulatory penalties) for selling tainted food! It's kind of mind boggling that this is controversial. "Buyer beware" is not an acceptable basis for society to function.
I can't think of a case where a supermarket, upon becoming aware of a problem with a food product, didn't immediately pull it from the shelves, post a notice to customers, and offer a full refund to anyone who had purchased it.
This is why I hate the "marketplace" of these stores. In many cases these products never hit their inventory at all, they are functioning like a search engine and payments processor.
Probably because we have little to no way to punish those companies. We can't even stop DJI from shipping their drones under other brands to get around the ban.
Our government chooses to not punish those companies. Unfortunately, the lawmakers have decided that the donations to their PACs are more important than actually doing something about it.
Probably because most people don’t equate the damages from causing bodily harm to whatever these ad clicking networks do.
Voters don’t like seeing themselves or their kids get hurt, but they do like lower cost live sports.