Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves • Hacker News Board

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#181

Post by otterley » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:29 PM UTC

Firebrand wrote: post #128

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?

Wiretapping is the recording of a telephone conversation (or modern equivalent). If it’s not a telephone conversation, it’s not subject to the law’s consent requirements.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#182

Post by Someone1234 » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #78

Someone1234 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The law says booby-traps are illegal. Depending on the damage/injury you cause, you will be prosecuted. Two wrongs etc etc

Here's the legal definition of a booby-trap:

> A booby trap may be defined as any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury

It doesn't apply.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#183

Post by duiker101 » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

jayess wrote: post #33

PakG1 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but is that seriously a legal risk? The guy would have to explain he stole it.

Here in the USA, everyone is litigation crazy, so an enterprising lawyer would probably happily file a suit against the maker if someone was injured because of it.

What if I just buy something very stupid that could scare someone but I actually wanted it for myself? Or what if I actually bought the same device in the video but I wanted it for some other use or for checking out how it's made?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#184

Post by txcwpalpha » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

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".

It is absolutely not categorically innocent. I don't know why you think it is.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#185

Post by learc83 » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #23

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #10

Anyone else found it unsatisfactory that there was nothing about forwarding the footage of the thieves to the police?

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

He says he took the first video to the police. That video was of pedestrians walking up to the house. No real way to track them.

In later videos he had license plates--that's an easy arrest, and I'd bet they'd take that video a bit more seriously.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#186

Post by xenadu02 » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

I recommend package drop boxes if package theft is a problem for you: https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=17572893011

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#187

Post by craftyguy » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

ttty2 wrote: post #172

What if somebody was driving and while it opens he has an accident and is dead and/or kills somebody? What would happen?

Driving a car while opening a package is not exactly a safe activity to do in the first place, regardless of what is in the package.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#188

Post by EGreg » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

francislavoie wrote: post #141

Firebrand wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure, but do you really think the criminals will present him with a lawsuit... when they literally stole from him?

What if the DA does?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#189

Post by AstralStorm » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

mankyd wrote: post #153

auiya wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I won't deny the criminality. I'm still not going to cause them thousands of dollars in damage over it.

Use UV active dye (usually transparent otherwise) so they get shiny. Say, a package gets wet itself.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#190

Post by nothrabannosir » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

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…

If this was staged, this guy is a fantastic actor. The shot of him “being out of his comfort zone” when retrieving the box, in particular, would have my sincere respect if it were not genuine. That is professional grade acting. Something you generally don’t find in YouTube click bait fakes.