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

481–490 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#481

Post by dragonwriter »

Jyaif wrote: post #308
netsharc wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in a "3rd world" country, I know the police there is useless, but it's interesting how things like resource issues (not enough manpower) is slowly turning living standards of rich countries like the US and UK towards "3rd world" levels.

Robbers and burglers basically have immunity now because the police is busy with... I'm not sure what.

> Robbers and burglers basically have immunity now because the police is busy with... I'm not sure what.

Robbers and burglars usually get attention.

Petty theft that does not involve robbery or burglary doesn't, but there is a world of difference between the three crimes.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#482

Post by jakobegger »

zamalek wrote: post #448
vorpalhex wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sounds like an urban legend.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#483

Post by mmcwilliams »

wool_gather wrote: post #374
mmcwilliams wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, New York and Rhode Island it's illegal to place a hidden video camera in a place where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These would be considered hidden video cameras. Not sure the severity of the charges in those states, but in other jurisdictions recording audio of conversations without all-party consent violates wiretapping laws and is a felony.

I'm skeptical this applies to someone coming onto your property (let alone coming with malicious intent). Do trespassers have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

I was referring to the parts of the video where they brought the device into their car or home. This was obviously designed to continue recording the thieves in those private places. It just seems like a bad idea to me.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#484

Post by EForEndeavour »

jboy55 wrote: post #443
dkonofalski wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would expect the fact that most packages are of low value to increase theft, not discourage it. Lower-value packages carry even less chance of repercussions, and incentivize thieves to steal even more packages to make sure their effort is worthwhile.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#485

Post by EForEndeavour »

peterangular wrote: post #441
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.

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 t…

> The police are a business

This is the problem.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#486

Post by Skywing »

mcv wrote: post #113
0898 wrote: post #96

I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but glitter is a microplastic – I hope we'll see it being used less in the future.

I want to upvote you for your concern about microplastics, but my rule is to downvote people who complain about voting.

Thank you for letting us know.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#487

Post by c22 »

dr_orpheus wrote: post #476
shaftway wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have had good experiences with people delivering packages and caring about how obvious it is that there are packages out. When I lived a row of townhouses, the front doors of the houses were very exposed and visible from the street. So if we didn't answer the door when a package was delivered, they would bring it around to our back porch and set it over the fence. However, this did result in one of the delivery dri…

One time UPS left a 2ft x 3ft x 1ft box under my doormat. I appreciated the effort, but the package was not inconspicuous.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#488

Post by btilly »

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.

I am trying to understand the mentality of someone who can say Like a massive HOA while thinking that this is a good thing.

Have you never dealt with an HOA in your life? Have you never known someone who has?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#489

Post by Axsuul »

overcast wrote: post #332
Rainymood wrote: post #16

I'm honestly really shocked by how casually people seem to steal these parcels, like what the hell?

People steal PLANTS from neighborhoods around here. Plants, planted into the GROUND. There are worthless people everywhere in this world.

My grandpa has pomegranate trees on his property that have been stolen from a few times. It's heartbreaking cause of the amount of work he puts into caring for them. And these trees are picked CLEAN with nothing left behind which is just cruel.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#490

Post by mmcwilliams »

spathi_fwiffo wrote: post #403
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".

Would be an interesting court case. There can likely be no expectation of privacy trespassing on someone else's property. but, for the package. Can you have an expectation of privacy when opening an unknown-thing? The device isn't recording until it is opened. I could see logical arguments on both sides. But, since the audio/visual recording doesn't start until they open the thing it might be on the safe-side of wire…

These are good questions, it's just my go-to line of thinking when I see surreptitious recording devices. Is this legal and is there liability?

Recording audio without two-party consent in my state is illegal and only just recently were there any court cases where recording police officers without their knowledge wasn't prosecuted as wiretapping.

Post reply on HN