
An Amazon Order Might Lock You Out of Trusted Traveler Programs - vezycash
https://lifehacker.com/your-amazon-order-might-lock-you-out-of-trusted-travele-1821964978
======
dragonwriter
Its interesting how most of the commentary here is about Amazon, not about
being denied status under a public program for “having a violation of customs
laws on your record” when not only were you never convicted or found civilly
liable for any such violation, and not only were you never actually even
_charged_ with such a violation, but you also never had any notice or
knowledge of a customs violation having occurred, and the actual violation was
a hostile party attempting to defraud you.

Amazon is certainly at fault for the process which enable their platform to be
used for fraud, but the core of this story is the government punishing people
for offenses they not only didn't commit, but didn't know about _and_ of which
they were the intended victim.

~~~
appleflaxen
Exactly right. The constitution declares that due process is a right, and in
my (IANAL) mind, this is a violation: "you can't travel because you bought an
off-brand bag" (a trademark issue!). The reality is that the real harm to this
individual is small, and the normal individual has an outsized cost to fight
this injustice.

The unfortunate consequence: more erosion of rights at the margin. Not to be
hyperbolic, but it really is just one more microstep along the slope toward
fascism.

We laugh at them when online videos surface, but the people who are willing to
inconvenience themselves in order to peacefully oppose these kinds of actions
are everyday heroes.

~~~
jessriedel
> "you can't travel because you bought an off-brand bag"

Denial of Global Entry status is not a prohibition against air travel. It
means you don't get expedited screening.

~~~
Arainach
Making things excessively difficult/painful without technically banning them
has been found unconstitutional plenty of times as well:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-
ab...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-
abortion.html)

We may not be quite at that point with air travel yet, but each year the TSA
finds new and innovative ways to slow down the process and increase all-around
misery.

~~~
simonh
Ok, but that would apply to any traveller, not just ones that have been
flagged.

~~~
syshum
Exactly, Personally I believe the "Trusted Traveler" program should be
unconstitutional on is face, every citizen should be a "trust traveler" until
such time the government as a clear and articulable reason to consider them a
safety risk, at which point it should enter into some kind of Administrative
or Court process where I person can defend themselves against set accusations

Treating everyone as a Terrorist, then "clearing" some people that choose to
pay the government money, and go through their privacy invading process should
be Unconstitutional and abhorrent to all free people

~~~
intopieces
The typical screening does not treat everyone as a terrorist. After all, the
US has a no-fly list. That list, of course, comes with its own host of issues,
but let’s be more precise.

Airport screening sucks and is theater. Global Entry is extortion. No doubt.
But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.

~~~
wfo
>But current screening measures are not unconstitutional.

That really depends on what nine partisans in fancy robes think, a group whose
makeup changes over time and who can change their minds.

I think what GP was getting at is that it seems so fundamentally unjust that
it _should_ be unconstitutional (which is what anyone who is not a
constitutional law scholar means when they say unconstitutional), not a claim
about legal opinions of powerful judges.

~~~
CPLX
There isn't much of an articulable case for these rules to be
unconstitutional. It's not analogous to freedoms people have in their personal
life.

They're using the Federal aviation system, public property airports, being
routed by the FAA, and so on. It's much more analogous to requirements for
auto safety and licensing.

The government can't mandate the color of your shirt in your own home, but
they can mandate the exact shade of your turn signals when you're on public
roads.

I'm not a fan of our current security state, it's insane. But air travel isn't
a private act, it's important to calibrate the conversation to the issue
actually at hand.

~~~
jgowdy
I’ll jump in here. I believe the constitution does provide a right to travel
both domestically and internationally.

When I choose flight as my mode of transport, and I choose to do business with
a private company, (entering into a private contract with that company to
convey my body from one location to another), I believe the government
demanding that I be searched and inspected and scanned in order to allow the
private company and I to conduct our private business of providing me with
transportation is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have an
affirmative grant of power over my right to travel, and two because I have the
right to travel. All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved
for the states or the people.

I feel like this fallacy that travel is a privilege comes from the whole
“driving is a privilege” concept. But keep in mind, while driving is a
privilege (under STATE law), riding isn’t a privilege, it’s a right. I may
need the blessing of a STATE government to drive a car across state lines, but
I don’t need the blessing of state or federal government to ride as a
passenger in a vehicle across state lines. In the case of the flight, I’m not
engaged in a regulated activity of flying a plane, I’m merely a citizen
exercising their right to travel.

------
kstenerud
Amazon has become an extremely unpleasant place to shop in the past two years.
The proliferation of garbage sellers makes it hard to find anything.

It used to be that you could avoid most of them by just ignoring anything with
less than 10 reviews, but with Amazon's latest change to factor in number of
reviews for their "sort by average review" list has let the genie out of the
bottle. Now you'll see literally THOUSANDS of 5-star reviews on their garbage,
completely drowning out the real stuff :/

It's to the point now where I'll only purchase known brand-name items from the
manufacturer, and hope to god it's not a scammer using their name, or some
typosquatter, or their supply chain hasn't been polluted by counterfeits.

And it's only getting worse. Now I try to buy direct from individual websites
like it's 1999.

~~~
defo_nonconvex
I went into a Decathlon for the first time the other day, after long assuming
Amazon would always be cheaper for outdoor+active wear...so wrong. Totally
surprised at a high street store having a huge range of better quality
merchandise, at lower prices, and no need to shop around amongst all the
clones with very similar appearance, but varying quality. My faith in the
bricks-and-mortar stores has been partially restored.

And for safety-critical purchases...no way am I risking buying something like
angle grinder discs or fire extinguishers off Amazon. Fake headphones mean a
bit of distortion, fake discs might mean a lost eye.

So now its just low-cost, low-risk purchases where I don't care too much if
the item is junk.

On that note, where do people buy electronic hardware if not Amazon/PC World?
E.g. for SD cards - Amazon carries the risk of counterfeits, and PC World
carries the high street premium.

~~~
carlmr
I still buy on Amazon, but only what they sell directly. Nothing 3rd party.

~~~
teh_klev
Isn't there still a danger of co-mingling fake stuff with what looks like a
genuine item sold by Amazon?

~~~
samfriedman
If you inspect the account/brand listed as the seller, it is much harder to
get fooled by a counterfeit. Amazon-brand items sold by Amazon are pretty hard
to mistake, in my experience.

~~~
extrapickles
Co-mingling breaks that. What happens is even though you buy from seller 1,
they will send you seller 2s item if its in a warehouse closer to you.

The only way to avoid this is to by things only sold by 1 seller.

------
kogepathic
I'm sorry but this is utter stupidity.

Punishing consumers for ordering a product for which the supplier/supply chain
sent a counterfeit which was flagged by customs is just dumb.

Importing and selling counterfeit products is already illegal. If the person
has a 20' shipping container full of counterfeit product, maybe investigate it
and level penalties.

But to disqualify someone from an entry program because of one counterfeit
product, when clearly no one from Amazon, CBP, or the manufacturer put in any
effort whatsoever to investigate, is just wrong IMHO. The article states the
manufacturer took the lazy route and punished the innocent customer because
going after Amazon and someone in China would be more effort/expense.

Guilty until proven innocent. Ridiculous.

~~~
nerdponx
As far as I understand, in the USA it's not actually illegal to buy
counterfeit goods, only to sell them.

~~~
jdietrich
If you purchase counterfeit goods via mail-order from an overseas seller then
you're technically an importer, which is very much illegal.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
No, you bought it from "Amazon".

Amazon is incorporated in the US.

Amazon's distribution centers reside in many states.

In Indiana, since they have a presence, they are legally obligated in
collecting sales tax.

My bank statement shows "AMAZON", not 3rd party importer.

I find your claim of "technically an importer" to be completely bunkum. The
importer here is Amazon, and full blame on import fraud should be levied
against them. I have no issue in giving a grace period to get "shit in order",
but they've known about this for quite some time. Enough's enough. (Claiming
that I buy stuff from Amazon makes me an importer would __also __make me an
importer buying crap from Walmart.... And yet we don 't see that, do we?)

~~~
buttcoinslol
> I find your claim of "technically an importer" to be completely bunkum

You may well find his claim to be bunkum, but he's correct. If you purchase
something from a third party seller in a different country on Amazon's
platform, and the seller ships it from their country to your country and it
passes through customs, you are the importer.

Walmart imports goods from China and gets them through customs and then sells
them, so you are not importing things when you buy them from Walmart, unless
you purchase something from a foreign country from a third party seller on
their marketplace platform, just like Amazon.

~~~
crankylinuxuser
If:

The sale is made to Amazon, The product goes through Amazon's warehouses, and
Taxes are paid to Amazon...It's an Amazon Sale and they are acting as the
importer for these goods.

Now, Alibaba/Aliexpress on the other hand, I do agree wholeheartedly with you.
Because you are ordering from a Chinese company, ordering Chinese goods with
no regard to US copyright/patent/trademark law.

~~~
mirimir
I've purchased stuff from Chinese sellers on Amazon, and it's been sent
directly to me from China. Actually, I didn't even realize that the seller was
Chinese, until I saw the three-week delivery estimate. And there was no
indication that Amazon was involved after I ordered the stuff.

~~~
slantyyz
On the Amazon product page, you'll usually see a "Ships from and sold by" line
for products not fulfilled by Amazon. If it's fulfilled by Amazon, the line is
usually "Sold by [seller name] and Fulfilled By Amazon".

While not in huge text, it's pretty visible.

~~~
mirimir
I get that. Maybe this was before "Ships from and sold by". So it just showed
"Sold by". This was several years ago.

------
virgilp
If I understood correctly, this was actually Rimowa who flagged him? Ie not
Amazon, not the US customs? Hell if I'd ever purchase anything from them again
if I was affected by something like this; the news should really be "Beware
when purchasing Rimowa products, you're exposing yourself to unnecessary
risk".

~~~
bald
I was also surprised, and then read again more carefully. The article says:
"Rimowa likely had an opportunity to take some kind of action [...] they chose
the easier target: Reed" which for me sounds like this conclusion is only
speculation.

I bet it was rather CBP directly who flagged him.

~~~
Spoom
It was almost certainly CBP who flagged him.

They have his address in a database for a trusted traveler program.

They were the ones who intercepted the shipment.

They checked the destination address on the shipment and cross-referenced it.

I'm not sure how Rimowa would be involved, frankly.

~~~
bonestamp2
Typically, the company will get involved when they know who is importing or
exporting the product and they will notify CBP so the shipment can be seized.

We don't know if they were involved, but it's possible Rimowa knew who the
exporter was (from seeing the fakes online and ordering one themselves) and
CBP then seized the package when it was imported. The article says, "Reed
never received the suitcase" which indicates that the shipment could have been
seized upon entry (because they were tipped off by Rimowa to look for packages
from that exporter). Now they knew who the importer was (Reed) and they added
his name to a database of illegal importers.

Since it was just one suitcase, it probably wasn't worthwhile going after him,
but now his name was in the database (likely because they think it will help
them catch more illegal imports). The tricky problem arises because there is
likely no distinction in the database between one guy who didn't know he was
ordering one counterfeit product for himself versus someone who imports
container after container of counterfeits for resale. CBP enforces the law by
seizing the product and it's up to the company to sue the importer. It's
clearly a broken system with nasty ramifications for the people who got
scammed.

------
jaclaz
>... making every trip you take during that time a frustrating experience.

Well, actually the "normal" experience that everyone but the ones that were
granted the "privilege" have.

I mean, the decision (provided that the reason is actually the counterfeit
suitcase) seems silly, but it is not like they took away his driving license
or passport, or however limited his freedom.

I have no data, how many people are in the "Global Entry" thing?

And how many international travels per year would justify applying (and the
background check and the in-person interview)?

[https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-...](https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-entry)

What is the actual difference in practice? Like half an hour to pass customs
on average?

~~~
baobrain
WARNING: ANECDOTE

From my experience entering the country from LAX and BOS, passing through
security at many airports around the country, Global entry is extremely
convenient if the airport is large and busy (LAX) but not that much more
convenient if there isn't a large crowd. (BOS)

TSA-Precheck on the other hand is a godsend for almost any average-large city
airport.

~~~
harper
i was most scared to lose precheck tbh

------
outworlder
This is worrying.

So, some time ago, I was looking to buy lemongrass seeds. The lemongrass that
is sold on either supermarkets or farmers markets usually has the leaves cut.
And that’s precisely the leaves my wife looks for, to make tea.

Okay fine, let’s grow our own. We had little success growing from existing
lemongrass, so why not try from seeds them.

Couldn’t find seeds on Home Depot. Found a seller on, guess what, Amazon.

There was no indication that the seller wasn’t in the US (but in retrospect,
no indication he was) so I ordered without thinking much about it.

Fast forward a couple of months, I received the open packet (sans seeds) and a
document indicating that import was not allowed. They also had lab test
results attached, which indicated lemongrass seeds (by their scientific name)
and some other seeds I can’t remember mixed in.

Now, all of this was legal, it’s just a customs rule violation(given the right
paperwork, one should be able to import seeds, as I undestand it). Imagine
what would have happened if the seller also had planted pot in the field, and
got some of those mixed in...

~~~
cowboysauce
>Imagine what would have happened if the seller also had planted pot in the
field, and got some of those mixed in...

Your story would be completely unchanged. Customs would seize the package and
you would receive a letter saying that they seized contraband and that would
be the end of it.

People have packages of drugs seized at customs without any consequences.
Unless it's a massive amount or it happens frequently, nothing would happen to
you.

------
bonestamp2
I sometimes buy things on amazon assuming it is coming from amazon directly
and only later realize it was being drop shipped from overseas.

I used to think that wasn't a big deal since I really only check the estimated
arrival date if I need something in a hurry. But, as of this article, it is a
big deal no matter what because it changes who the importer is...

If something ships from Amazon then it was Amazon or a third party who
imported the goods. If it ships directly to me from another country then I am
the importer and I am on the hook for customs issues that I am not in control
of (ex. is it OEM or is it counterfeit).

Amazon needs to make it very clear who and where each item is being imported
from when it's not shipping from a warehouse in the same country as the
delivery address. They have to stop pretending they are walmart or target in
the cloud and that every purchase is a safe purchase.

------
gtirloni
_> So what happened? It’s impossible to say for sure (CBP doesn’t release
specifics)_

I wonder how they know it was the suitcase that's causing this when... CBP
doesn't release specifics.

~~~
ghaff
I re-read the article. It's unclear to me that CBP explicitly told him that he
was being denied renewal because he had tried to import a counterfeit good. It
may be the case but he doesn't come right out and say "they told me..." As
opposed to him just assuming that this must have been the issue.

------
reacweb
IMHO, amazon is guilty. Amazon has imported a counterfeit merchandise without
checks on the seller. Putting the blame on the final client is unacceptable.
We have a similar issue when banks are stolen and call it identity theft. The
bank is guilty of not checking correctly the identity before giving money.

The client should never have to endure bad consequences because of bad
behavior of Amazon or banks.

~~~
moftz
Amazon didn't handle any of the merchandise. It's Amazon Marketplace so it
works like ebay, they just host the listing and process payments while the
seller does all the shipment and the buyer is the one actually importing the
counterfeit goods (this is what is illegal in the US). I don't think Amazon is
the one at fault for the crime necessarily but they should be proactive in
taking down counterfeit listings to prevent this. I've bought things on ebay
before for what seemed like a fair price and it turned out to be counterfeit.
I don't blame ebay for that but I wouldn't be happy if the same post was still
up after I reported it for counterfeiting.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't think Amazon is the one at fault for the crime

Responsibility for a wrongdoing is not always restricted to one party; in this
case there is one party active trying to commit a fraud involving counterfeit
goods, and one profiting from a system which is structured so as to enable
that fraud and make it difficult for the target to detect or avoid (which may
initially have been innocent, but has been maintained that way long after the
operator had information on which they reasonably should have known that was a
recurring and significant issue.)

~~~
lsaferite
So you are saying any marketplace (e.g. Ebay) is actually responsible for a
merchant using them to facilitate fraud? Why stop there? Let's find the
merchant processor complicit and the shipping company and the ISPs. Heck, I'm
sure we could extend the net further if we wanted. Point being, unless the
marketplace is actively courting merchants they _know_ are perpetuating fraud,
then how are they at fault? If they get a report of a seller that is selling
counterfeit goods, they take them down. What more do you expect of them?

~~~
dragonwriter
> So you are saying any marketplace (e.g. Ebay) is actually responsible for a
> merchant using them to facilitate fraud?

No, I'm saying a marketplace that knows, or reasonably should know of an
ongoing pattern of fraud enabled and protected by features of its marketplace
that does not take reasonable steps to mitigate that fraud but instead chooses
to continue to allow and profit from it bears responsibility for it.

------
1024core
> so it’s more important than ever for you to pay close attention to the items
> you’re buying—especially if they’re being shipped to you from overseas.
> Watch out for massive discounts, learn how to spot fake reviews, double
> check who you’re buying from, and don’t hesitate to reach out to Amazon
> customer service if something seems amiss.

So it's _my_ responsibility now to go into the minute details of these things?
Why isn't CBP doing its job? Shouldn't _they_ be looking carefully before
denying TT status? Shouldn't _they_ be paying attention to what _they_ are
doing?

I feel like more and more these government agencies just shrug and do the most
expedient thing possible, even if it means screwing others over.

------
akerro
Also, remember to never search for pressure cookers and backpacks led if you
want to save yourself some troubles and prevent being listed on the watchlist
another time (you're already there, yes you, you Linux user!)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-
polic...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-
terrorism-pressure-cooker)

~~~
sofaofthedamned
Was 2013 before all Google searches were secure? Unless your workspace is
doing MITM they wouldn't see the search now. Though, obviously you'd have to
trust that Google wouldn't dob you in either.

~~~
pps43
I thought it's standard practice to MITM at the workplace. How else can you
flag exfiltration of sensitive information and stop incoming malware? Add a
certificate to browsers on employee's computers, encrypt on proxy after
inspection.

~~~
rkeene2
This still breaks TLS, since it will fail with client-supplied certificates
and so can't be used if you need to support TLS.

~~~
jessaustin
Computers owned by the firm have extra CAs installed. All browsers allow
admins to add CAs. Unsophisticated users will never know that e.g. BlueCoat
shitboxes (and everyone who has pwned those shitboxes) are reading all their
TLS traffic.

~~~
rkeene2
But the web servers on the other side of the TLS connection are not managed by
those same system administrators and therefore they will not accept
certificates provided by such proxies, breaking TLS.

~~~
jessaustin
To the external server, the shitbox is the user. To the user, the shitbox is
the external server. Talk to IT/Networking people at any large firm; this is
how it has worked for years.

Client certs are a different thing entirely, and unrelated to this discussion.

~~~
rkeene2
How are client certificates, a mandatory feature of TLS and specifically what
I mentioned, and what you are replying to, unrelated to this discussion ?

~~~
jessaustin
What is this "mandatory feature" stuff? We're talking [0] about employees on
websites "protected" by TLS, and expecting privacy while doing so. If they
order hemorrhoid cream on Amazon, their browser talks to the shitbox, the
shitbox talks to Amazon, and client certs have nothing to do with that. The
browser verifies that it trusts the shitbox, and nobody else verifies
anything.

One supposes there might be some banks or B2B sites that might use client
certs, but they're such a minority that no one ever heard of them.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16186735](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16186735)

~~~
rkeene2
Client certificates are a mandatory feature of TLS that any TLS server could
request and the proxy would be unable to handle the request, as it (and
ideally the client) has no access to the private key. Therefore, these types
of proxies break TLS by being unable to support mandatory features.

Separate from that, client certificates are certainly common, being used for
authentication, in the US Federal Government, which issues tens of millions of
certificates for this purpose as well as smartcards, since George W. Bush
banned passwords with HSPD-12.

~~~
jessaustin
The shitboxes _definitely_ "break" TLS. That's why firms buy them in the first
place. A firm that was using smartcards with the characteristics you describe
would presumably figure out something other way to pretend to prevent data
exfil.

------
bitL
Amazon allowed an influx of shoddy Indian/Chinese sellers that sell
counterfeits like crazy, and then started treating honest 3rd parties as
guilty-by-default, and being very nazi about it - you talk to ML bot all the
time, they won't tell you what the problem is, you just have to figure it out
on your own what got you banned for no reason. Now they are increasing Prime
for fun...

------
dwg
Making "legitimate" purchases on Amazon gets more difficult every day. The
obvious solution is to buy directly from brands, but I keep using Amazon
because it's less risky than spreading personal and credit card details across
many sites. There's also Amazon prime... Hopefully better e-commerce solutions
can eventually take over this trust, and more brands choose to sell direct.
This would really help with the growing counterfeit problem.

One-time-use credit card numbers also help. I used this feature all the time
when Discover offered it, but unfortunately they stopped. Now companies like
privacy.com now offer it as a service, but adoption is probably slowed down by
needing to trade-off rewards for privacy.

It's yet another reason why I hope cryptocurrencies succeed. In the future I
want to pay for anything without the seller having access to my personal
information. Even if you trust the merchant, it's too tempting for thieves.

Maybe someday someone will also solve the issue around shipping details. Like
a DNS for shipping addresses. That would be awesome.

------
jsjohnst
I’m shocked there’s 59 comments on this and almost nobody is saying the
obvious, “what proof of any kind exists that this is the reason he was
denied?”. This is pure speculation and I’m predicting it’s totally wrong.

~~~
harper
FWIW the officer told me in the interview.

~~~
jsjohnst
It must have been a market place order then because otherwise you wouldn’t be
listed on the customs form. That changes the story portrayed in the article
and should’ve been noted (not your fault there of course unless you didn’t
mention it to the person writing it). The article still has a ton of
conjecture otherwise (for example, that the baggage company had any
involvement in your outcome) that is suspect at best.

------
cm2187
Surely this only applies to amazon market place? Any sold or fullfilled by
amazon would have already cleared customs by the time your name appear on the
package? Not that it protects against being sold counterfeit goods but at
least you are not involved on the step where it crosses the border.

------
uptown
Not germane to the matter at hand, but an interesting side-note is that Harper
Reed was also CTO for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.

~~~
harper
probably not related. probably. ;)

------
confounded
I've been offered free access to the 'Global Entry' program as part of my job,
but I've been wary because don't want the side-effects of the "rigorous
background check".

As a green-card holder I'm already pretty wary of them being able to search my
devices or deny me entry, and I'd rather that the CBP hadn't enriched all my
identifiers and got a fat-little-file on me beforehand.

Given an interest in debating politics online, I wouldn't be surprised if GE
membership would increase the chances that I get stopped regularly.

Does anyone on HN have any knowledge or experiences about what kind of thing
goes into the GE "rigorous background check"?

------
gnu8
We need to start sanctioning the people who come up with this stuff. Lock the
people associated with the CBP out of flying on any US airline, or purchasing
anything from an online merchant.

------
walterbell
Wouldn't this apply to Walmart, eBay or any 3rd-party marketplace?

~~~
leereeves
Does Walmart allow 3rd party sellers?

~~~
ilamont
Far more difficult to get into. It takes months to review applications, and
they reject a lot of them.

~~~
strictnein
Wish Amazon did this.

------
mirimir
It's funny to see an inline Amazon Prime ad in an article that sheds such poor
light on Amazon.

It's also troubling to see inline ads at all, but hey.

------
stmfreak
This only reveals further the complete joke that is the TSA. Protecting us
from small-time importers of counterfeit goods? Oh my!

------
vxNsr
C-c-c-c-class action anyone?

This seems ripe for a class action lawsuit against either amazon or the USCBP
(are you even able to sue them). Obviously suing each brand wouldn't work
because there just wouldn't be enough litigants for a class action, but maybe
we can hold amazon responsible for this and make them change somethings?

~~~
ashelmire
Of course you can sue CBP. [https://holdcbpaccountable.org/category/all-
cases/](https://holdcbpaccountable.org/category/all-cases/)

------
Myrmornis
> When in doubt, buy luxury and big brand name items directly from their
> stores and websites.

Be scared, and prostitute yourself.

------
thebiglebrewski
Wow the government being inefficient and dumb, color me surprised. Sadly this
is the world we live in though. I wish we could trust government agencies to
be more competent but so far my experience has been really subpar.

------
Paul-ish
I wonder if you could order counterfeit goods in someone else's name (eg
celebrity or politician) and get them disqualified from the trusted traveler
program. It's not hard to get a CC with an arbitrary name.

------
fastaguy88
Alternatives to trusted traveler -- no-longer trusted travelers (no Global
Entry) can now use Automated Passport Control, an App for your smart phone,
which at Dulles last week, was faster than Global Entry.

~~~
ianhawes
I'm not sure if this is the same as "Mobile Passport", but Mobile Passport
allows you to complete the kiosk information on your phone and in most
airports (IAD/BWI tested) if you tell the usher (non-CBP employee with the
airport) that you're doing Mobile Passport, they let you skip to the
immigration counter bypassing several long lines.

~~~
fastaguy88
They seem to be functionally the same, though CBP has different web pages for
the two programs.

------
zupa-hu
Essentially, this brain-hack is motivating people to prefer buying from
original manufacturers and big brands over cheap foreign imports.

Whether it's artificially designed or not is a different question.

------
hoveringcto
Did they simply take the name/address from the label or did they actually go
to Amazon for billing information? You could just have all your packages
shipped under a different name.

------
Hello71
Hm... So does that mean you have a good shot at barring someone else from
using trusted traveler programs by just ordering some counterfeit goods for
them?

------
jrnichols
And yet people think that we need to use the same types of list for firearm
ownership & purchases. That's frightening to me still.

------
monksy
If the conterfit goods thing was really their excuse, they should just
eliminate anyone that has travelled to China and bought anything.

------
tritium
Oh god, I wonder if that’s what’s going on with a hard-to-find audio CD that I
tried to order a while back...

------
mwexler
I love Global Entry, but the mysterious and varied ways you can be denied for
the mildest of issues is really frustrating.

------
Friedduck
Imagine what the MPAA will do if they find this as another means of
disincenting piracy.

------
chopin
I am astonished that the OP comes to his conclusion. Since when is it a good
idea to:

\- skip due process

\- punish people on unverified accusations

~~~
pjc50
He never says he _likes_ the way the system works, but realistically as an
individual you can't change Amazon and you can't change Customs.

~~~
CPLX
You could change Amazon. It seems to me that this person has an articulable
case against Amazon for damages, and filing suit would certainly be a way to
get higher level attention. Though if I were him I wouldn't do it either do
the hassle.

------
branchless
$700 for a suitcase. Good grief. Surely far more likely to draw the attention
of an unscrupulous baggage person.

~~~
teh_klev
If you do a serious amount of travel each year there's no substitute for a
good quality piece of luggage. I know this from personal experience from years
back where cheap stuff just falls apart.

~~~
virgilp
You can get a Samsonite piece of luggage for less than half that amount,
though. And it's decent quality - definitely not the kind of cheap stuff that
falls apart.

~~~
teh_klev
Sure, but some people are happy to pay extra, maybe it's the brand, or the
style, or that one unique feature not available from another less expensive
brand.

If you're on the move a lot then you and your luggage become engaged in a
deeply personal relationship :)

