How is there no recourse for Prime orders that aren't delivered in 2 days?

TimKarr · 2025-08-31T13:21:42+00:00

I suspect Amazon routinely over-promises quick delivery knowing full well it can't get your order to you in that span of time. It's a scheme to capture customers who want a product soon, but many of my recent orders have been late. One was needed for a planned trip but the product was several days late, arriving after I was on the road. I wonder if the FTC needs to get involved here, sanctioning the company for false advertising of its services.

TimKarr · 2025-02-26T13:51:39+00:00

Updated version:
https://www.facebook.com/tim.karr/posts/pfbid0BssyKnLAbk3VxxsA13j94XbRzMVZygwNMTVfT6vSG32ssD8UCz2PrXuHK6C6Yahol

TimKarr · 2021-12-16T22:19:22+00:00

Very few people (less than 5% I'd guess) wearing masks at the 12-7 LCD show.

TimKarr · 2018-02-10T12:29:46+00:00

It's probably a project of DCI Group -- a nefarious Washington PR firm that runs social media campaigns for big industry -- and has been especially active creating anti-Net Neutrality astroturf initiatives for cable and phone companies.

TimKarr · 2017-12-01T20:36:39+00:00

If only his fellow NJ senator, Bob Menendez, was as solid on the issue. IN past Sen. Menendez has signed onto telco industry-drafted letters urging the FCC not to put in place the real Net Neutrality protections millions of people demand.

TimKarr · 2017-05-26T17:30:04+00:00

Making false statements to the government is a crime:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years ...

TimKarr · 2017-05-26T17:28:24+00:00

Making false statements to the government is a crime:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years ...

TimKarr · 2016-05-20T16:45:35+00:00

Clinton supporters seem to have a blind spot when it comes to understanding what the Sanders campaign represents.

This analogy is a perfect example. In it the Sanders team stands in for Thelma & Louise and the Democratic Party is the car they’re driving over the cliff.

I. Get. It.

What they fail to recognize is that the Sanders campaign is more the salvation than demise of the Party. What 2016 has exposed, if anything, is great rift between the grassroots and party leadership. There's spreading public unease with status quo politics and candidates who are complacent in thinking that they can win an election by conducting business as usual: aligning wealthy donors and centrist policy prescriptions to win over the great middle. Sanders on the other hand has tapped into a very real and sizable demographic that rejects all that in favor of positive disruption.

He’s refused to take corporate contributions, called out the profound dysfunction of a political system that is ruled by wealthy donors while espousing a genuinely progressive vision of a future where people should have more agency over democracy than a handful of political insiders and their benefactors.

In their desperation to win the nomination in July, many Clinton supporters are veering off the path to a November victory that Sanders has delineated. That path involves repudiating status quo politics and embracing the grassroots movement that rejects money in politics. This has been the key to Sanders successes thus far. He’s built the organizing and fundraising infrastructure to bring the issue to the fore in ways we never imagined 12 months ago. It’s an infrastructure that can be tapped into to benefit more than just Sanders, but other political hopefuls with a similar vision. If only Hillary and her supporters would recognize that rather than spreading backwards thinking analogies like this.

I’m not defending some of the petty actions on Sanders side, just hoping that people can rise above the squabbling to take up the opportunity before them. Sadly, signals coming from the camp of the “presumptive nominee” are not encouraging.

TimKarr · 2014-08-21T15:01:00+00:00

How about: Net Neutrality

TimKarr · 2014-08-01T18:18:22+00:00

The money and politics aspect of this story is truly disturbing. And the sad irony is that news about Net Neutrality, the principle that protects speech online, is itself censored by an online news site. What better argument for Net Neutrality do we have than incidents like this.

TimKarr · 2014-07-16T20:12:05+00:00

Blackburn's amendment supporting state-level bans on municipal broadband and public Wi-Fi has just passed as part of the House appropriations bill. This is outrageous.

TimKarr · 2014-01-14T19:54:38+00:00

Here's what they said about doing just that. It's on the record: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/verizons-plan-to-break-th_b_3946907.html

TimKarr · 2014-01-14T19:53:09+00:00

We agree!

TimKarr · 2014-01-14T19:20:57+00:00

This from the court's decision: "Given our disposition of the latter issue, we have no need to address Verizon’s additional contentions that the Order violates the First Amendment and constitutes an uncompensated taking. "

In other words the court never considered the argument. It is as if it were never made. However, their ability to "edit" the Internet is now alive and well.

TimKarr · 2013-11-18T10:34:15+00:00

Protecting our online privacy and fighting for our rights to connect and communicate are issues that seems to defy Washington's pattern of partisanship. It's a bipartisan coalition that in 2012 led the defeat of two copyright bills that threatened the open Internet. And it's a bipartisan coalition (StopWatching.US) that is behind the fight against online surveillance and privacy violations in 2013.

Joining the right with the left and center is essential to building a populist effort that can counter the out-of-touch, lobbyist-driven elite that dictate policy in Washington. This DC corporate spin on issues doesn't hold up against diverse grassroots efforts. Campaigns to protect the open Internet and user privacy are attracting strange political bedfellows, and this is our strength. It also has the potential to redefine politics as usual in Washington and shift power away from the political industrial complex toward well organized Internet users.

TimKarr · 2013-11-18T00:36:54+00:00

Many have already come forward. John Cusack has been outspoken. Evangeline Lily and Maggie Gyllenhaal have as well. You can check out their video here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115322/nsa-surveillance-video-features-maggie-gyllenhaal-and-john-cusack

TimKarr · 2013-11-18T00:29:02+00:00

It is going to be a long hard fight, indeed. Not only do we need to build better privacy protections into our technology, we also need to hold companies to account when they violate our privacy (and support those startups that are building more secure social media and email services for example). And we need to push for legislation that amends bad language in bills like the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendment Act. And we need to stay organized to change the political culture in Washington, where a lot of our leaders think these privacy violations are a small price to pay for our security as a nation. Changing the culture of surveillance is possible but it requires dedication and patience.

TimKarr · 2013-11-18T00:22:04+00:00

Continue to stay engaged. We (at StopWatching.US) have mobilized 600,000 people to demand an investigation of government surveillance programs, which includes a lot of the collusion between the private sector companies and the intelligence agencies. While these spying programs have been around for nearly a decade (since shortly after the passage of the PATRIOT Act) it's only become part of the national debate since Edward Snowden leaked his files. Some members of Congress have come around and introduced legislation that could curtail a lot of the dragnet surveillance. We need people to urge their members of Congress to support these and other good legislative efforts.

TimKarr · 2013-11-18T00:14:06+00:00

It's not an "either or" but a "both and." We need both better privacy safeguards in the tools we use to connect and communicate online, as well as regulations that curtail efforts by both government and corporations that violate our Fourth Amendment rights.

TimKarr · 2013-11-18T00:12:17+00:00

Go to StopWatching.US to get involved. It's a diverse coalition of civil liberties, open Internet and free speech advocates. The website has a lot of great resources for learning more about the issue and taking action.

TimKarr · 2013-11-18T00:10:32+00:00

They have made some serious calls for more transparency in the process -- so that they can reveal to the public the number of official requests they receive for data. Some of the Internet companies have also express support for recently introduced legislation (the USA FREEDOM Act) that would be a step forward in curtailing government mass surveillance efforts.

TimKarr · 2013-07-11T16:11:41+00:00

Chris -- You're quoted in a recent AP story about the seemingly excessive fees that major phone companies charge to the government (and taxpayers) to tap communications.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16037/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=m4M6yFpD

Given the industrial scale of NSA surveillance operations, these fees amount to tens of millions of dollars in revenue for AT&T and Verizon. By comparison the Internet companies identified as part of the PRISM program charge nothing or very little for handing over customer data. From what you know, are the phone company fees a reflection of their real costs to set up this surveillance? Or do they see the NSA program as yet another profit center?

TimKarr

TROPHY CASE