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

421–430 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#421

Post by tivert »

shaftway wrote: post #390
tivert wrote: post #256

If you're concerned about package thieves, just buy an outdoor cabinet and put it next to your door with a note asking that packages be placed in it. I use an Ikea Josef: https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/products/storage-furniture/outdoo... You don't even need a lock for it. If you can get the deliverymen to consistently place packages in it, the thieves will have no idea if there's actually a package at your door to steal…

Yeah, we had a package stolen off our porch, so we did that. It's a bench with a liftable top. The plan was to put a padlock on it. All of our packages are addressed to: Shaftway Place in Bench - Code 1234 24601 Where I Live St. My City, ST, ZipZipZip We order a lot of stuff, and probably average 3 deliveries per day. In the last 3 months we've had exactly one package placed in the bench. And we never even got around…

They key is to put yourself into the mindset of a hurried deliveryman and design your system around that.

I have a sign low on my door right where a deliveryman would leave a package that asks him to put it in the box (with a simple message in big text, a big red arrow pointing towards the box and a photo of it with a package inside). There's no lock to get in his way.

Deliverymen from all carriers use my box about 90% of the time they want to deliver to my doorstep.

For Amazon specifically (since their deliverymen are gig workers), I entered address-specific delivery instructions into their system, mainly so I could complain about their performance more effectively. I think the actual, physical sign is more effective.

I have a camera watching the porch and have a few videos of deliverymen doing a double-take on the sign, then putting the package in the box.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#422

Post by tomjen3 »

Guest10928391 wrote: post #180
weberc2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Booby traps are not "innocent". What happens if you stop responding and paramedics are sent to your property? They get paintballed because they approached your porch at night when there should have been no visitors? What happens if you put a car airbag in a booby trapped package, and someone steals the package and brings it home. Then later that day their child or spouse finds and opens the package not realizing it w…

Then the thief would be liable, same as if you commit an illegal act and get somebody shot.

Proving things in court is much less efficient, and more likely to harm those who are innocent, than to make sure the crime is punished immediately.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#423

Post by iamdave »

raverbashing wrote: post #368
rootusrootus wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some areas perhaps. In my neighborhood the police respond to any property crime, and pretty fast at that. But ... maybe we are just boring. Perhaps there are some areas in the US where this is a problem, but I don't know if it's safe to generalize that the US is degrading to third-world status just yet.

Well given the police in the US works at city level, if you are in a suburb that's not "the capital city" your police might be bored enough to go for every call, things like "suspicious person walking on street"

"suspicious person walking on street"

My dad used to say "there's few things more dangerous in the suburbs than a bored cop".

Been involved in some of those interactions while walking home in my own neighborhood. They're not pleasant. One involved handcuffs and a 30 minute sit on the curb while my backpack was searched. Yes I'm referring to these past incidents in plural for a reason. No, the complaints to the city and precinct didn't do anything.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#424

Post by jboy55 »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #367
jboy55 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the crime? Stealing something that is less than $1000? They could have stolen that from the front of a store and if they weren't detained by a store cop, the police won't do anything typically. If they plead guilty, they probably would just get a small fine, not worth the time of a detective to make the case.

> What's the crime? That's a ridiculous question. It's theft. Which is illegal. > If they plead guilty, they probably would just get a small fine 1) That's only if it's their first time. 2) It reduces future crime. With the current attitude (like yours) more criminals are incentivized to steal packages.

My attitude has no effect on crime.

I'm describing the reality of the world we all live in. Even if its not their first time, they'll be out in a day or two, maybe not even that. Its just packages, most of them under $100, no one in harms way, no drugs, no guns/knives. Even if they broke down your door when you weren't home and went inside to steal your package, there's going to be no APB on their license number, no road blocks, no helicopter sent out to see where they are.

My time in retail quickly taught me that unless you catch and hold a perpetuator, nothing will happen to them.

"We have them on tape! I ran outside and wrote down their license plate?"

"What was stolen?"

"$250 worth of goods!"

"Meh, we know the guy, but if its under a grand the DA won't do anything. Since we know him, we'll tell him to avoid your store, if he does show up again and steals something, we can get him on trespass and stealing, the DA might do something then.

The fact is some people live 100% on small thefts, small odd jobs paid in cash, some begging. They'll be living with their parents at 30-40, with no assets in their name, borrowing cars to get around. There is no down side in swiping a few packages besides the pain in turning that into cash, which is the only disincentive to them stealing.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#425

Post by dragonwriter »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #230
98codes wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of police response is par for the course in a number of cities these days.

Which makes no sense. You pretty much have a criminal case ready, there's video evidence. They will likely plead guilty without going to trial.

In California (and some other jurisdictions have similar rules), police cannot, by law make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor (with some specific exceptions, none of which is applicable to the pattern of offense at issue) unless the crime occurred in their presence, and prosecutors generally do not pursue misdemeanor warrants except in conjunction with broader investigations.

(If the offense occurs in the presence of a non-police witness, something that a casual observer would describe as a police arrest may occur after the witness reports to police, but that's actually a citizen’s arrest by the witness with police assistance. But a camera isn't a witness, and, as for police misdemeanor arrests, a citizens arrest for a misdemeanor also requires the offense to have occurred in the presence of the arresting party.)

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#426

Post by rootusrootus »

iamdave wrote: post #423
raverbashing wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well given the police in the US works at city level, if you are in a suburb that's not "the capital city" your police might be bored enough to go for every call, things like "suspicious person walking on street"

"suspicious person walking on street" My dad used to say "there's few things more dangerous in the suburbs than a bored cop". Been involved in some of those interactions while walking home in my own neighborhood. They're not pleasant. One involved handcuffs and a 30 minute sit on the curb while my backpack was searched. Yes I'm referring to these past incidents in plural for a reason. No, the complaints to the city a…

Ha, that's probably true. Though the last time I was walking down the street when a city cop rolled past, he waved. I waved.

I have lived some places where the police culture was more toxic, definitely.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#428

Post by apricot »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #404
kawfey wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned from Nextdoor, that a neighbor of mine put cat litter in an amazon box, and later found out her car's driver side window busted in and the litter dumped on the seat. I now just have packages sent to lockers and UPS/FedEX access points, and I know a few who have packages delivered to their office. The crappy part is that she captured clear detail of both events but police couldn't be bothered. Nest and Ring…

> there's still a ways to go before security camera footage can be sent to the PD and automatically identify the offender via facial analysis. Be careful what you wish for. I don't want the police to be able to perform accurate facial recognition at the kind of scale you're talking about, even if that would make it harder for thieves to steal packages.

What we want is immaterial in this case. The police will be able to do just that, very soon.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#429

Post by laurentl »

tptacek wrote: post #207
laurentl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. “Hello officer, I made a booby trapped package and I...” gets tased “argh no you don’t under- “ is handed off to the secret service I doubt the cops would look kindly on what is at best (funny) vigilante justice, at worse a violation of some federal law.

What federal law do you think this would violate?

I was thinking of what you can and cannot mail; specifically, that what he did could be construed as a letter bomb. Granted, it’s much much less dangerous, but the mechanism is the same. At a time when public figures get pipe bombs in the mail, rigging a package to “explode” once opened... I think there’s enough material for a humorless DA (or one with an agenda) to make hay, or at least for a uneasy explanation with some serious people. Obviously IANAL, and I don’t know if the federal laws on mail extend to packages left on the porch as the other poster pointed out, but still.

Source: what my teenage self thought was a hilarious prank got to the attention of the FBI. Although the matter was cleared up in the end, being interviewed by an FBI agent at 17 taught me not to count on the understanding and second degree of law officers.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#430

Post by LanceH »

mmcwilliams wrote: post #306
scarejunba wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No reasonable expectation of privacy in a security camera situation.

That's not entirely accurate. It depends on where you are and what the video camera is recording. I'm also not sure that creating a hoax device with the intention of surreptitiously recording individuals that also damages their property and releases a chemical agent would be considered strictly "a security camera".

I'm not sure you have an expectation of privacy with stolen goods.

Booby traps causing injury are illegal everywhere.

Calling a smell a "chemical agent" is just inflammatory. Everything is a chemical, sure, but there is no chemical reaction involved here. Would you call perfume a "chemical agent"? It's just something that smells bad.

The only danger would seem to be getting glitter in their eyes.

Post reply on HN