Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » The Revenge Of The URLs: Amazon Drops Colorado Affiliates To Fight New State Law
advertisement
advertisement

The Revenge Of The URLs: Amazon Drops Colorado Affiliates To Fight New State Law

Written by Evan Schuman
March 10th, 2010
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

After Colorado tried a creative approach to taxing E-Commerce purchases—forcing E-tailers to tell consumers how much state sales tax they owe—Amazon shot back Monday (March 8) by cutting off all its Colorado affiliates. Colorado’s governor issued a statement indicating understandable confusion, because the law doesn’t address affiliates and the Amazon move doesn’t spare them from the new requirements. The implication: that Amazon’s move was pure spite, designed to punish state businesses—and therefore the state–without helping Amazon.

Amazon’s E-mail said: “The regulations are burdensome and no other state has similar rules. The new regulations do not require online retailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clearly intended to increase the compliance burden to a point where online retailers will be induced to ‘voluntarily’ collect Colorado sales tax—a course we won’t take.” Said Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter: “Amazon has taken a disappointing—and completely unjustified—step of ending its relationship with associates. While Amazon is blaming a new state law for its action, the fact is that Amazon is simply trying to avoid compliance with Colorado law and is unfairly punishing Colorado businesses in the process.” The battle of E-tailers Versus State Sales Taxes continues.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...