Technologies
Amazon lockers are popping up in odd places. They aren’t always welcome
The company has installed lockers in places like a park’s path and an obscured side of a gas station, blocking walkers and tempting criminals.
Amazon installed a clutch of metal lockers outside a Fresno, California, gas station convenience store built in 2019 so customers could pick up packages they didn’t want delivered directly to their homes. The shiny lockers shared a computerized screen and sported the e-commerce giant’s ubiquitous smile logo.
The problem, according to a Fresno city councilmember’s complaints last November, was that they were placed along the side of the building, out of sight of security cameras. It wasn’t hard to predict what happened next: Someone tried to get into the lockers.
The attempted break-in should have been a palm-to-forehead moment for Amazon, says the councilmember, Miguel Arias, because that unmonitored location was sure to tempt criminals. After all, the lockers could collectively hold thousands of dollars of merchandise, far more alluring than the inexpensive bags of ice typically found in vending machines in front of the pumps.
“I don’t know how they landed on a gas station,” Arias said of Amazon’s decision to install the lockers. “It’s where you get a beer on your way home after hours, not a place where you go to get your $500 iPhone.” (The convenience store, a local chain called Johnny Quik, didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
Fresno isn’t alone in experiencing frustration with Amazon lockers as the company installs them across the country to thwart thieves looking for its easy-to-recognize packages on neighborhood stoops. Chicago residents were baffled when a set of Amazon lockers were installed directly onto a walkway in a city park, partially obstructing a path and adding corporate branding to leafy municipal amenities. Photos of the lockers were widely shared on Twitter and Reddit. Businesses have also had second thoughts after striking deals to host the lockers.
The Chicago conflict taps into larger objections to corporate intrusion onto public property. Corporate names have been added to subway stations and high school sports stadiums. Even the National Parks Service has pondered naming benches and interior spaces after corporate donors. Transit agencies cover buses and fill train stations with ads.
An Amazon smile in a Chicago park might strike some as a small, if obtrusive, element of the tapestry of corporate messaging already in the public sphere. Still, activists and civic planners question whether parks should be added to the list of corporate logo-filled locations. Park space is supposed to serve everyone, not just Amazon customers, said Jennifer Minner, a professor of city and regional planning at Cornell University.
“Installing lockers that essentially serve people who are spending money is taking away a broader public benefit that serves more people,” Minner said.
Most locker placements are uncontroversial, and lockers at bus depots and 7-Elevens rarely raise eyebrows. Nevertheless, an awkwardly located locker plays into a broader image problem Amazon has had in managing local relations. The company has been blamed for putting Main Street booksellers and local retailers out of business with predatory low pricing. And community activists have raised concerns about working conditions for Amazon’s subcontracted delivery drivers and at its warehouses — which are sometimes set up in the disused malls it’s blamed for putting out of business.
Amazon didn’t provide information about whether it implements safety and crime prevention measures around its outdoor lockers, or whether that’s the responsibility of the organizations hosting the lockers. But Av Zammit, an Amazon spokesman, said in a statement that the company values community feedback. Amazon is reviewing the locker placement in Chicago “to ensure they are all located in appropriate areas that serve both customers and the community,” he said.
Amazon spokesperson Alyssa Bronikowski provided further comment. “We have been working closely with the Chicago Park District since 2020 to add Amazon Lockers following requests from the district for this added benefit for the community,” she said. “The focus of our partnership has been to provide park patrons and community members with access to a secure and convenient delivery option.”
Amazon launched its lockers 10 years ago in Seattle, New York state and the Washington, DC, area. Since then, the lockers have been part of its Amazon Hub service, which includes Whole Foods locations where Amazon customers can pick up their packages at the counter. As of 2019, Amazon said it had installed lockers in more than 900 cities and towns in the US.
Some high-rise apartments also have lockers installed so tenants don’t have to wait at home for a delivery or depend on an apartment manager to give them their packages. Amazon Locker Plus locations offer self-service kiosks as well as an Amazon attendant to help. UPS also offers delivery lockers with its Access Point Program, and some third-party companies offer lockers that accept packages from multiple carriers. Walmart installed parcel lockers in its own stores, but recently began phasing them out.
Locking out porch pirates
Amazon markets the locker installations as a way to combat porch piracy, another problem the company helped create. The lockers also serve as a source of income for public agencies and businesses that host them, though in many cases the rent Amazon pays isn’t disclosed. In Jacksonville, Florida, for example, Amazon partnered with the transportation authority to install lockers at bus terminals and transportation hubs. The agency didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The company struck a similar arrangement in Johnson County, Kansas, with local 7-Eleven stores. 7-Eleven didn’t respond to a request for information on how it handles the safety of outdoor lockers.
Neither partnership has prompted complaints about safety or vandalism.
Still, the placement of Amazon lockers hasn’t always gone smoothly. Staples and RadioShack ended agreements with the company in 2013, removing a service that had invited a competitor into their stores. A set of lockers at Sacramento State University in California was removed two months after it was installed in 2014 because the campus bookstore had the exclusive right to serve as a bookseller at the college.
Few installations have gone as poorly as a recent placement in Chicago’s Brands Park.
In photos posted online, one monolithic segment of lockers appears to consume roughly a third of the walkway and create a blind corner. The placement is near a fence that would make it difficult for a delivery person to unload a dolly of packages while still leaving room for park visitors to get by, especially a visitor who’s in a wheelchair or pushing a stroller.
Community members quickly objected. A petition calling for the removal of the lockers appeared on Change.org and racked up more than 13,000 signatures. (The goal was 15,000.) Alderwoman Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, who represents the ward that includes the park, complained about the corporate logo marring public property even though the city was getting rent for the placements.
Rodriguez-Sanchez said on Twitter that the Amazon-branded behemoths are “a slap in the face,” in part because they would net the parks department roughly $137,600 in the first year, at most.
The lockers have been removed from Brands Park, as well as another Chicago park. The program, which had already led to the installation of lockers in 49 parks and aimed for a total of 102 lockers locations, is on hold while the parks department reviews Amazon’s plans.
There’s also the question of how safe Amazon customers might feel going to a park after work, potentially in the dark, to pick up a valuable package. In Fresno, city councilmember Arias said the lockers at the Johnny Quik have become an amenity for his constituents because the convenience store increased safety by installing additional lighting and security cameras. Still, he wondered how no one thought of that concern to begin with.
“You can credit Amazon for a lot of innovation in their logistical delivery system,” Arias said. But the initial installation showed “a lack of understanding of the local community.”
Technologies
China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration
European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.
BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.
The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.
Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.
However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.
Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.
European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.
Technologies
Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge
Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.
Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.
Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.
The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.
Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield
Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.
In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.
If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.
But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.
That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.
Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.
CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.
“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.
AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.
GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.
Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.
In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.
And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.
The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.
For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.
Technologies
Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network
Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.
Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX
Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.
Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.
Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.
What is Starshield and how does it function?
Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.
SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.
In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.
SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.
On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.
How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?
While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.
Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.
Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.
SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
-
Technologies5 years agoiPhone 13 event: How to watch Apple’s big announcement tomorrow
