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

441–450 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#441

Post by peterangular »

EForEndeavour wrote: post #313
jboy55 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, a video of a random figure with face obscured throwing a rock through your car window isn't going to get the police involved. Even with a GPS location of someone you pranked with a package, if there's no evidence directly tying the two incidents, the police aren't going to waste resources doing CSI on it. They'll just write you a police report so you can get your insurance paid.

Disturbingly, the accidental message of this glitterbomb booby-trap video is that you will probably not face legal consequences for stealing packages from peoples' property in broad daylight, so even the best security cameras are effectively useless.

This isn't something new... After having property stolen a few times in the US it's apparent that the police are not there to assist with petty crime _at all_. Even when there's video footage/evidence to be reviewed they can't/won't be bothered and will likely just send a LEO out to fill out a police report for the formalities.

The police are a business and if there's not money to be had (traffic citations, parking tickets, etc.), or violent crime happening, you are the lowest possible priority. Source: personal experience + have worked with a couple of police depts many years back (not as a LEO). The only exception here is if you're a reasonable sized business - they tend to take cases like retail/corporate break-in seriously.

TLDR: Agree. People wouldn't do this if there were a real legal cost.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#442

Post by scarejunba »

aaron-santos wrote: post #395
scarejunba wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, to do that you need to curtail people’s freedom. What I’m proposing is simply that we privatize large parts of society and exclude people from the private areas based on their tendency to be bad actors. It’s not about restricting freedom. It’s about enabling free safe association for everyone who opts in. Like a massive HOA.

Expect this to be immediately co-opted by political camps to exacerbate and codify divisions that exist today.

Is that so bad? We can protect human freedom through the US constitution.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#443

Post by jboy55 »

dkonofalski wrote: post #360
EForEndeavour wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disturbingly, the accidental message of this glitterbomb booby-trap video is that you will probably not face legal consequences for stealing packages from peoples' property in broad daylight, so even the best security cameras are effectively useless.

That was my takeaway from this. It just gives the package thieves more reason to do it because, even if they do get caught on video, there's nothing that's going to be done about it.

Well, if someone goes and grabs 10 packages, and they have 15 random things, 14 of those won't be worth selling for $. If I think about the last 10 things I've ordered, and my thinking of my last garage sale. Nothing was really that valuable that there would be an easy sell.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#444

Post by [deleted] »

scarejunba wrote: post #344
EForEndeavour wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, we could wall in the criminals and declare the inside of their "cells" to be the outside, thus walling them out.

Nah, to do that you need to curtail people’s freedom. What I’m proposing is simply that we privatize large parts of society and exclude people from the private areas based on their tendency to be bad actors. It’s not about restricting freedom. It’s about enabling free safe association for everyone who opts in. Like a massive HOA.

[deleted]

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#445

Post by [deleted] »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #350
samstave wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@jdb here on HN had, at one time, installed a very conspicuous camera housing on his house although it had no camera in it. Psychological deterrence.

It would be fun to have it do motion tracking (could use directional audio to track). It always freaks people out when a camera like device is following their movement.

[deleted]

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#446

Post by reaperducer »

samstave wrote: post #340
bovermyer wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One fun psychological hack for this - paint an eye above or on said locker. This is backed by research. For example: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-22270052

@jdb here on HN had, at one time, installed a very conspicuous camera housing on his house although it had no camera in it. Psychological deterrence.

a very conspicuous camera housing on his house although it had no camera in it.

Radio Shack used to sell these in the 80's.

A guy I knew who worked at one said easily half of the cameras in his mall were fake RS shells.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#447

Post by cwkoss »

gkfasdfasdf wrote: post #261

Tangent, but my son and I used Mark's video on building a pinewood derby car. He gives a list of 7-8 things to do to your car in order of effectiveness. A theme in his video is that the car doesn't have to look fancy to be fast. We implemented most of his recommendations and didn't have time to paint or decorate the car. We ended up winning and we were the most unadorned car in the pack. TLDR: Mark is legit.

I built an aluminum forge and made some castings following one of his videos. Only about ~$50 worth of parts needed (and $100+ in safety equipment to be safe)

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#448

Post by zamalek »

vorpalhex wrote: post #32
cphoover wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah... that's not the way the law works. I would love to see a thief try and bring that case... EDIT: NAL but... It's my understanding that the likelihood such a case is brought is small 1. Because it pretty much guarantees the alleged perpetrator will have charges brought against them and 2. Contributory negligence would make that case very hard to win. It is my understanding that yes there have been cases where suc…

IANAL but my understanding is that it's generally illegal to have any kind of "booby trap". The concern (and also legal test) is whether or not it would be likely to spring on a first responder. If you have your house fill with knockout gas whenever someone enters and a fireman needs to kick in your front door, you're going to jail. Someone entering illegally such a burglar still can bring a suit around a booby trap…

My brothers friend was sued for medical expenses by a perp who broke something falling over toys the kid hadn't packed away. More than a decade ago, but it does confirm your understanding of the situation.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#449

Post by reaperducer »

DickingAround wrote: post #269
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…

That is a real shame. If the police are not going to mediate property disputes between people, they take a lot of risk those disputes will escalate into violence. Perhaps really-good passive defense is enough (e.g. package lock boxes) but I also hope the police understand the deeper reasoning around their position and role.

If the police are not going to mediate property disputes between people, they take a lot of risk those disputes will escalate into violence.

They're too busy training on their new hand-me-down military gear. Local cops need tanks to keep you safe, citizen.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#450

Post by hyperpape »

weberc2 wrote: post #434
hyperpape wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proportionality is a thing. I think spraying someone with glitter is fine. Shooting someone in the back would not be innocent.

To be clear, we were talking about a theif getting a little glitter in their eye; I understand why shooting someone is controversial.

Your comment "And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent" sounded stronger. Glad to be in agreement with you.
Post reply on HN