Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#121

Post by igneo676 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #72
empath75 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the first minute of the video. The police don't care.

Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable. I wonder if an industry of decoy packages will spring up, maybe "sticky" or "smelly" glitter. Or heck just go full ink bomb. I wonder where the law stands on this? Can you really be liable if someone steals your property then causes property damage using it?

I think the technical answer here is yes but, given the fact that the police themselves were too occupied to pursue the original thieves, I find it equally unlikely they're going to pursue the vigilante

IANAL - but I'd suppose they could sue you and may even win but it's not going to do much for their public image in the best case and the worst case they get prosecuted for theft.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#122

Post by auiya »

mankyd wrote: post #95
kwhitefoot wrote: post #80

Why not use the sort of dye that banks use to protect ATMs?

Fart spray and glitter are temporary and relatively harmless. Permanent dye in someone's home are car is just being a jerk.

We sure wouldn't want to upset people stealing our belongings.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#123

Post by mcv »

Someone1234 wrote: post #72
empath75 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the first minute of the video. The police don't care.

Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable. I wonder if an industry of decoy packages will spring up, maybe "sticky" or "smelly" glitter. Or heck just go full ink bomb. I wonder where the law stands on this? Can you really be liable if someone steals your property then causes property damage using it?

  > Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable.
This makes me wonder: who is responsible for the lost package? I would expect, if the deliverer can't prove they delivered the package (because they didn't get a signature), they're responsible for the loss and need to pay for the loss.

The recipient certainly can't help that someone left a package outside. If the loss is for the recipient, then I can certainly understand the vigilantism, but that's a pretty awful system.

I'm glad I can usually pick up my packages at my neighbours'.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#125

Post by ocdtrekkie »

kaivi wrote: post #101
cosmotron wrote: post #73

What are people's thoughts on if this is staged? Considering the views / subscriptions are the main motivation here, it might justify the expenses poured into this project – that is, it would be quite a waste if all that effort went into the build just to have no one actually take it off the porch. If actors were used, it would explain the lack of police involvement (it's easy to say, "police weren't interested" ). A…

I've had the same thought when I first saw it. Some suspicious things: thieves talking to themselves, that lady throwing the box into her own garbage bin, zero attempt at disassembly or closer inspection of the box, no police involved. Also GPS is just not that good for locating anything of that size in given circumstances, and it would not have worked in the parking garage. Too many things could have gone wrong here…

A lot of people talk to themselves. Most small-time thieves are not known for incredible intelligence. If you look close enough to realize it has cameras, you might realize you are on video and should get rid of it quickly. Consumer products are far more reliable than rolling your own solution nine times out of ten. Had he failed to recover the device, the video still would've been pretty cool.

If it's traceable, throwing it in your own trash isn't much worse than throwing it elsewhere, since it already has the coordinates of your house anyways. GPS works fine on small packages and a lot of businesses/products exist specifically to take advantage of this. Also note that as full-featured smartphones, he's likely got the full power of Google Location Services in play, which can identify what floor of a building (or parking garage) you're on, and of course, even if it failed to get signal in the parking garage would surely show location up to the parking garage. Inside a parking garage, a bright white box is not hard to find. Also, he has four GPS devices facing different directions, so he's got a lot of backup for failure here.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#127

Post by CPLX »

chrisseaton wrote: post #82
mcphage wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally because people don't want it. Shipping used to be a lot stricter about signatures, etc, but people usually aren't home when the packages get delivered, and package theft isn't a significant enough problem to make the extra security worth the inconvenience.

> package theft isn't a significant enough problem This guy had his package stolen many times in a short space of time. Seems like the problem is pretty bad?

He left a bright white box out that looked like it contained electronics in a very exposed spot easily visible from the street. Typically it's a more subdued brown box and the delivery guys will try to tuck it in a little so it's not quite as visible. He was hoping for this outcome and that affected the results.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#128

Post by Firebrand »

cosmotron wrote: post #73

What are people's thoughts on if this is staged? Considering the views / subscriptions are the main motivation here, it might justify the expenses poured into this project – that is, it would be quite a waste if all that effort went into the build just to have no one actually take it off the porch. If actors were used, it would explain the lack of police involvement (it's easy to say, "police weren't interested" ). A…

Mark reportedly lives in California, a two-party state. Wouldn’t he be running afoul of wiretapping laws, regardless if he’s recording criminals?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#129

Post by stanleydrew »

weberc2 wrote: post #99
txcwpalpha wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noone said anything about sympathy. And lack of sympathy is irrelevant to legal liability.

Ok, let me spell it out: that the law protects criminals and punishes innocent citizens in such cases is indicative of a problem with the law. And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent".

If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable?

The point is that at some point an "innocent" citizen crosses a line and is no longer innocent. We are just debating where the line should be.

Post reply on HN