That's exactly what the author wrote: They would have understood if Amazon had refused to deliver packages to a house where the owner threw racial slurs at the delivery people, but think that barring them from using their smart home devices was inappropriate.

The author said it's inappropriate "during their internal investigation". The way I understand it, he supports the actions of Amazon, but he wishes there was a presumption of innocence.

> I don't agree that it's Amazon's job to police how I use my own device.

That's not what the ban was about. His account was banned because they wanted to protect their drivers from future racist encounters.

Obviously, they should be very sure that something actually happened, before taking such a drastic measure. The minimum would be to at least hear both sides.

Then they should ban that delivery address and force them to use a locker or at most prevent an account from purchasing goods for delivery on Amazon.

What happens if an Amazon driver encounters someone else at your property or scans your item at the wrong address? What happens when you have no counter evidence or simply get stone walled by their CS?

The EULA/T&C likely “allow” Amazon to do this however the FCC and other regulatory bodies should start regulating the market to prevent stuff like this from happening.

Amazon seems to also be interested in getting into healthcare, insurance and banking sectors should they be able to completely blacklist someone and deny them access to prescriptions or their bank accounts even if they were racist assholes?

Perhaps the new swatting will just be people going to your house and yelling at the Amazon driver to get you banned.

But it's Amazon's job to ensure the safety of their drivers.

That literally that what he wrote.

But to block all of his Amazon Services doesn't help.