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

211–220 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#211

Post by candiodari »

LinuxBender wrote: post #197
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?

How does Amazon and Google get away with it? When you put their listening devices in your home, do you sign a legally binding contract? Honest question, I've never bought one. If a contract is sufficient, does it have to be signed in writing or witnessed? If not, then could he have a sign at his door stating that acquiring the package provides consent to monitoring? Is there a lawyer here that could answer those ques…

(not legal advice and so on)

One of the first rules of the legal system is that you don't get to violate the law. This INCLUDES the situation where someone else violates the law first.

In many places this principle is repeated. For instance, you DO NOT get to bump someone's car if they run a red light for instance.

(and no, EVEN the situation where you literally had no choice still isn't an excuse. There is only the small "non-exception" that earlier laws can override later laws. For instance, keeping someone safe takes precedence over obeying traffic lights. If you can avoid an accident by running a red light you MUST do so. There is an explicitly defined order in which laws can override one another, even though I would strongly agree that it's not exactly a clear thing)

So the thief (or whoever) can sue this person for things like willful damage to property, violation of privacy, ... and that the package was stolen won't be a valid defense.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#212

Post by dylan604 »

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…

>it's easy to say, "police weren't interested"

I’ve had my house robbed, and had evidence from the bank when the robbers tried to use the checkbook to send money through Western Union. They had photos, state issued identification, address, etc of the people collecting the payments. The assigned detective would not read an email or respond to voice mails. The detective said he was too busy to read emails.

Not sure that’s the piece of evidence to hang my hat on that this might be a hoax.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#213

Post by decebalus1 »

I don't know what to think about this. It feels staged. I know, I know, the guy is legit, etc.. but I guess the internet made me a skeptic. People go to great lengths for making things viral. I remember various Reddit legit 'Gods of science', very popular IRL which were banned for having bot accounts upvoting their contributions so I trust nobody.

And if it's not staged, I see this as an open invite for vandalism, or worse. Those people were pissed and unscrupulous. What's stopping them from coming back and throwing a Molotov cocktail at your house or slashing your tires if you park on the street? First thing I thought about when seeing this video was:"THE GUY KNOWS WHERE YOU FUCKING LIVE".

Just ask a cop if he/she thinks this is a good idea. What was initially a crime of opportunity can now escalate to something much worse.

Also, what if the thief opens the package when driving and hits someone? I could easily see a lawyer or an ambitious DA going after the guy for booby trapping a package.

Bad idea all around.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#214

Post by tptacek »

criddell wrote: post #9

Do you think the bomb maker could be held liable if the package were to be opened in a moving car that subsequently crashed because of glitter getting in the driver's eyes? I'd be a little nervous about doing this myself.

Yes, if you create a hazard and then conceal it and by doing that harm someone else, you're going to be liable --- for the same reason that if you know about a hazard on your property, fail to correct it, post no warning, and it injures a burglar, the burglar will often have a civil claim against you (except here your liability is even clearer, since you deliberately created that hazard).

I would be less worried about the thief's car and more worried about the car the thief runs into.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#215

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

AstralStorm wrote: post #156
aqme28 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Too many things could have gone wrong here, but they did not. The design is subpar in my opinion, for somebody who worked on a Mars rover. Custom printed board plus a bunch of smartphones, seriously? What would you propose? The best design is often the easiest/cheapest one, and this looks like pretty simple.

Those are very much not cheapest unless he had them lying around. There are ready made cheap boards with identical functionality to a cellphone, few dollars a pop. And yes, they run Android. That said, this way he can claim it had something valuable inside in case it is still taken.

What hardware hacker doesn't? I have at least 2 Android phones and one Windows phone lying around my house in various states of functionality. Hell, I've got $200 Peltier coolers and $400 peristaltic pumps in boxes somewhere sitting unused.

I don't even know what this Mark person did, but going by comments here, if I wanted to build something similar, the only thing I'd have to go out and buy would be the glitter stuff.

Don't discount the stuff us weirdos have in our basements :-)

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#216

Post by mschaef »

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'd be honestly be concerned about retaliation. The people that got hit with the glitter bomb can probably trace back where they found it, and have already demonstrated a lack of strict attention to the law.

> it's their own car (could be a beater picked up for a few hundred dollars)

At least one of them was a fairly nice looking Lexus.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#217

Post by derefr »

vorpalhex wrote: post #140
MagicPropmaker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, thefts of under $950 are not felony crimes. And there's no more "three strikes". So you can steal packages for a living and, at worst, have to spend a week or two in jail over the course of a year. Not a bad living.

If I paid you $200, would you spend two weeks in jail? If getting that $200 meant risk to you (someone confronting you, someone else taking your money, risk of an officer giving you a beat down), would you still take it? It doesn't take a lot of risk to offset the "value" of stealing $950 labeled-worth goods (which will net you <$250 in cash).

The parent poster said that you’d spend maybe two weeks in jail over the course of the year. It’s not a balance of $200 vs. 2wks jail, it’s a balance of ($200 per package x many packages per day * 365 days per year) vs. 2wks jail.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#219

Post by kgwxd »

rdtsc wrote: post #173

This needs careful consideration if you ever decide to do it. Depending on the local criminal culture they could exact revenge. Then also know where you live and can do a lot worse things than taking a package. Police might later be involved but it might not be worth it. You are dealing with people who have no qualms stealing so it's not too crazy to expect other rash and illegal acts from them. I can also see some i…

Leave it on your enemies porch while they're away on vacation, then any revenge will be had on your enemy. Or your enemy opens the box.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#220

Post by LinuxBender »

candiodari wrote: post #211
LinuxBender wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Amazon and Google get away with it? When you put their listening devices in your home, do you sign a legally binding contract? Honest question, I've never bought one. If a contract is sufficient, does it have to be signed in writing or witnessed? If not, then could he have a sign at his door stating that acquiring the package provides consent to monitoring? Is there a lawyer here that could answer those ques…

(not legal advice and so on) One of the first rules of the legal system is that you don't get to violate the law. This INCLUDES the situation where someone else violates the law first. In many places this principle is repeated. For instance, you DO NOT get to bump someone's car if they run a red light for instance. (and no, EVEN the situation where you literally had no choice still isn't an excuse. There is only the…

I am not suggesting eye for an eye. My question is regarding: What is legally required to obtain consent to record in this case?
Post reply on HN