Amazon Fires More Employees For Leaking Customer Data (Again) (gizmodo.com) 22
Ring isn't the only place where Amazon employees have been fired for accessing user data. Amazon itself also fired several employees this week "after they leaked private customer data to an undisclosed third-party," reports Gizmodo.
They note that Amazon also fired more data-leaking employees at the end of 2018. An Amazon spokesperson confirmed the news with multiple outlets after several customers received notifications from the company warning that their e-mail addresses and phone numbers had been leaked "to a third-party in violation of our policies," per a screenshot shared by TechCrunch. The email goes on to say that the Amazon employee -- singular -- responsible has since been identified and fired. However, a later company statement appears to imply there were multiple Amazon defectors behind the leak:
"The individuals responsible for this incident have been terminated and we are supporting law enforcement in their prosecution," an Amazon spokesperson told Gizmodo via email.... It all makes for an embarrassing start to the new year given Amazon's myriad customer data breaches that wrapped up 2019.
In one case, the Wall Street Journal found evidence of several Amazon employees hawking customer data to sellers in exchange for bribes.
They note that Amazon also fired more data-leaking employees at the end of 2018. An Amazon spokesperson confirmed the news with multiple outlets after several customers received notifications from the company warning that their e-mail addresses and phone numbers had been leaked "to a third-party in violation of our policies," per a screenshot shared by TechCrunch. The email goes on to say that the Amazon employee -- singular -- responsible has since been identified and fired. However, a later company statement appears to imply there were multiple Amazon defectors behind the leak:
"The individuals responsible for this incident have been terminated and we are supporting law enforcement in their prosecution," an Amazon spokesperson told Gizmodo via email.... It all makes for an embarrassing start to the new year given Amazon's myriad customer data breaches that wrapped up 2019.
In one case, the Wall Street Journal found evidence of several Amazon employees hawking customer data to sellers in exchange for bribes.
Amazon Fire tablet (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Amazon Fire tablet (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Were losers tempted to join Amazon because of the Fire brand interfering with firings?
Eh (Score:2)
Not news (Score:1)
Ahem.. (Score:3)
Amazon is like Alibaba, but worse
Wait, I thought management carried "responsibility (Score:3)
Aren'n bosses and managers always repeating the mantra, that they deserve a higher salary, to tell you what to do, and even take part of the money you made, "because they carry the risk and responsibility"?
Where's that risk now, Bezos? Where's that responsibility? ... plus damages on top?
Self-pardonning, non-admittance of failure, and an imaginary lukewarm handshake? Is that all that people get?
How about you eat your own dog food, and give us your head on a platter? Or you give back the money for things you didn't do (like take responsibility and stand in for hiring morons),
Seriously, all this is, is the Mafia head keeping on doing what he does, while symbolically firing a couple of pawns.
Nothing will change. Nothing is supposed to change.
Question (Score:5, Interesting)
The usual rule when someone looks for a new job is the previous employer can't really say much other than, "Yes, they showed up every day." In cases like this, is a company allowed to tell the prospective employer what the former employee did?
I don't mean in cases of what might have happened, but in cases like this where there is clear cut, unequivocal evidence the person violated policy or did a criminal act.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies are "allowed" to say whatever they want about a former employee. The problem is that they can be hit with an expensive lawsuit even if what they say is true. Why should they do that just to help a competitor make better hiring decisions?
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon can afford an expensive winning lawsuit once in a while...
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon can afford an expensive winning lawsuit once in a while...
I can afford to throw $500 in the toilet once in a while ...
Yet I don't do it, because, like Amazon risking litigation with ex-employees, there is no reason to.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason to sue bad employees, it scares future bad employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the good ones will go somewhere else, so yeah, you're right. All your employees will suck, and they'll also all be scared.
Neither side of that is good for production.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a law in the USA or in most states. It's a popular policy, wth many reasons. Refusal to take responsibility for a recommendation, and refusal to admit that a former employee was incompetent, or was fired for anti-union or age discrimination reasons, are several of them.
Re: (Score:2)
True but they didn't say "law," they said "rule."
And it is the usual corporate rule. And it turns out, corporate executives aren't allowed to make up any old rule they want, they have a duty of loyalty to the corporation. They can only institute the policy that benefits the corporation. For many types of policy, that just means they have to phrase everything correctly. But in cases like this, it means they have to get legal advice. Corporations can't form their own opinions, like a person would, so in regul
Re: (Score:2)
> And it is the usual corporate rule.
I agree. It's important to understand where the rule is. It becomes equally important to understand how to circumvent the rule, to discover why someone has no references from a set of short roles or a single long term role. I'll admit that reaching out via LinkedIn and fellow alumni has been extraordinarily useful in getting good candidates who'd suffered personal disasters and in keeping out candidates who simply lied about their skills. And yes, I've gotten referra
Re: (Score:2)
In cases like this, is a company allowed to tell the prospective employer what the former employee did?
No, a company can't be trusted to make that sort of determination in a legit way. They don't even have the resources to be able to say they really know what happened to the level of proof that they would need in order to go saying things that will harm somebody's future employment.
Instead what they do is what the story says; "we are supporting law enforcement in their prosecution."
If they're convicted, that's how prospective employers will find out what they did. If they were not convicted, why does the com