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

461–470 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#461

Post by Jernik »

LanceH wrote: post #430
mmcwilliams wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone could be allergic to this stink bomb, I know that it's unlikely, but you still have to consider that when thinking about possible liability issues

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#462

Post by jakobegger »

dingaling wrote: post #354
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.

> but people usually aren't home when the packages get delivered I still don't understand why this hasn't been 'disrupted' by a company providing evening deliveries. They could do business delivery during the afternoon and then switch to residential. Nightcall! I'll even throw a name in for free.

Because then they would have only 2 or 3 hours to deliver all their packages? (I'm assuming most people would want to get their packages between 8pm and 10pm)?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#463

Post by ataturk »

flareback wrote: post #100
ataturk wrote: post #43

I would like people to stop doing this childish nonsense. There is a guy who does "Operation Krampus" every year and brags about putting gifts out filled with cat shit. And people think he's so funny and cool. Thing is, he could be spending his time doing something uplifting and productive instead of being a low-life asshole himself. It's not funny, first of all. It's childish. It isn't in keeping with the spirit of…

While yes he could be volunteering but it's hard to "forget about the lowlifes". These people are stealing and you don't really just forget about packages disappearing off your porch. You may not agree with his tactics but I don't believe his pranks are furthering to "tear down our society" especially not anymore than the criminals that are stealing. Also, I found his prank funny.

I can't believe I got downvoted for what I said. This country is truly lost.

Stealing is bad, I am not defending thieves in any manner. What I am saying is that people are spending time and effort in all the wrong ways, an idea I stand by.

Bullshit glitter bombs are not making our lives better--going out and volunteering and helping kids not become fucking miserable thieves is how we move forwards.

By the way, glitter bomb guy now has to worry about his house burning down because one good turn deserves another and you have NO IDEA how the criminal mind works and what lengths people will go to fuck with you if they have a vendetta that you caused with your shitty little glitter bomb. You start something, you better be ready to end it.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#464

Post by dvtrn »

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.

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.

Have these people been convicted of crimes?

Because if they haven't, then yes, actually you are absolutely advocating restricting freedoms, and stumbling dangerously close to advocating redlining which has been illegal in the US for decades.

Edit:

Pardon my double post, I think a page got stuck loading on me somewhere.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#465

Post by weberc2 »

stanleydrew wrote: post #129
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".

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.

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

That depends. Are we talking about a thief who was accidentally killed in a brawl with the property owner (or the troublesome death-by-glitter scenario that some in this thread are so concerned about)? Or a property owner who subdues, binds, and executes the thief? I'm open to arguments that it should be illegal to use lethal force against thieves when it's 100% clear that the thief poses no physical danger to the victim. I also believe that the property owner generally bears responsibility if their traps or other defenses are mistakenly employed against an innocent party. But in general, any injuries a thief incurs during a theft should be his own responsibility, and I'm okay with a world in which thieves live in fear of committing thefts.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#466

Post by weberc2 »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #184
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".

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

It is by definition. You're simply mistaken.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#467

Post by kbenson »

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.

At the point we're talking about a fake camera, directional audio is probably overkill. Just put one of those cheap motion trackers up that turns on lights and hook it up to a relatively loud actuator that shows that camera moving very slowly for 3-4 seconds.

Sound to draw attention if they didn't already see it, movement so they think it's smart enough to track them or someone is controlling it, and it looks like a camera so they think they are being recorded.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#468

Post by samstave »

theon144 wrote: post #382
rdtsc wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ooh! I'll take the package and the fancy tracking camera" :-)

takes out a screw-driver, begins lengthy and conspicuous disassembly process (-:

Actually I've always wondered about such a heist.

If I were going to pull off a heist in broad daylight, I'd get some cones and print a Rolex logo on a safety vest and pull a van up to the Rolex town clock in Carmel and "take it in for repairs" in broad daylight.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#469

Post by weberc2 »

hyperpape wrote: post #450
weberc2 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Granted. Trying to be terse but nuanced. Glad we got it sorted though.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#470

Post by topspin »

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 get it all the way to the porch? I've had USPS people leave packages in the driveway because walking the 25' feet from the vehicle to the porch is too much to expect.
Post reply on HN