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

571–580 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#571

Post by pixl97 »

ljm wrote: post #502

I appreciate this is HN so the main thread of conversation is going to naturally tend towards security and tech. How to protect your stuff with cameras and GPS trackers and what not. Is such blatant parcel theft not indiciative of a greater societal illness? Not simply poverty and drug abuse. I find myself trying to imagine why I’d drive through suburbs with a partner in crime and nab the odd parcel from a porch alon…

> not indiciative of a greater societal illness?

Pretty much been a thing since people have large enough societal groups (larger than Dunbar's number), that some anonymity is allowed. We just get to share these events via our high tech electronic networks and everyone gets to see it.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#572

Post by dragonwriter »

dalore wrote: post #557
will_brown wrote: post #512

I just told this story on HN, but my car window was smashed on 10/13/18 and the theives got my wallet and house keys. They used my credit card at foot locker (~$500), The Store Manager confirmed two guys made the purchase and corporate said they would turn over the video if police just ask. A month later the bank fraud dept informed me someone was trying to cash a fake check ($1,600) against my account at an ATM usin…

I guess wouldn't you file suit against the police as they are now responsible?

> I guess wouldn't you file suit against the police as they are now responsible?

The police (and government agents more generally) are not legally responsible to victims for decisions not pursue crimes, or not to prevent predictable future crimes.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#573

Post by shaftway »

lucb1e wrote: post #497
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…

> average 3 deliveries per day Wow. I really wonder what the environmental impact is of just one household doing this. I think I order something once every.. two months maybe? Three? And if I could get the desired electronics in a local store, I probably would. Edit: To reply to the three initial comments at once, I see your point. I was thinking "but it's not just about the last mile, it's about getting that package…

Yeah, we don't go out to shop much. There are reasons. We tried bundling up Amazon purchases into one big purchase per week, but it'd still come in {n} boxes via {m} carriers. And that's just from Amazon.

I wish there was a way to centralize it into a single staging area for the region and then deliver things in batches, but that won't satisfy the "I NEED IT ASAP" kinds of people.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#574

Post by stanleydrew »

weberc2 wrote: post #465
stanleydrew wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 let…

It comes down to proportionality.

I don't think anyone would disagree that generally stealing is wrong and people who do it in general deserve to face consequences. But the consequences should be proportionate to the crime. I don't think anyone deserves to die for petty theft, regardless of circumstances.

It seems like you are suggesting that if someone takes a $50 package off of my front porch, and then I come outside to confront them, and in the altercation this person makes a threatening gesture towards me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force.

That seems like a disproportionate escalation to me.

Anyway I think we just disagree about some of these proportionality issues.

If someone steals something, that doesn't mean they automatically lose all of their rights to life and property simply because in your mind they are now a "criminal".

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#575

Post by VonGallifrey »

CPLX wrote: post #127
chrisseaton wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> package theft isn't a significant enough problem This guy had his package stolen many times in a short space of time. Seems like the problem is pretty bad?

He left a bright white box out that looked like it contained electronics in a very exposed spot easily visible from the street. Typically it's a more subdued brown box and the delivery guys will try to tuck it in a little so it's not quite as visible. He was hoping for this outcome and that affected the results.

He did this after he got his normal deliveries stolen as well. Which where presumably packaged in a subdued brown box and then delivered in that same easily visible spot.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#576

Post by Falling3 »

freehunter wrote: post #569
dalore wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess wouldn't you file suit against the police as they are now responsible?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect citizens [1]. You cannot sue the police for failing to respond because they legally don't have to respond. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...

Such an important case that most people have no idea about.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#577

Post by dragonwriter »

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

The police exist to maintain order on behalf of the State, the civil justice system exists to mediate property disputes between people. There is sometimes some synergy between the functions, but they are very different.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#578

Post by iamdave »

blueboo wrote: post #539
iamdave wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there needs to be a platform to post these videos for the public to crowdsource the identity of these people. And then what? Will the platform also have a portal that will let people en masse vex the local PD with messages containing links to the video until the precinct assigns an officer to the case? What happens next? Is there going to be a timer or some kind of SLA on the platform that notifies people in the crow…

If we as a society are OK with qualified law enforcement looking the other way, then we're OK with passing the buck to the unqualified. Yes, it's a "rabbit hole [we're] not sure we're prepared to go down". We're not prepared. We're going down it

If we as a society are OK with qualified law enforcement looking the other way, then we're OK with passing the buck to the unqualified.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc make for valid public policy it does not.

What source do you point to that we as a society are OK with qualified law enforcement looking the other way?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#579

Post by Clanan »

will_brown wrote: post #512

I just told this story on HN, but my car window was smashed on 10/13/18 and the theives got my wallet and house keys. They used my credit card at foot locker (~$500), The Store Manager confirmed two guys made the purchase and corporate said they would turn over the video if police just ask. A month later the bank fraud dept informed me someone was trying to cash a fake check ($1,600) against my account at an ATM usin…

I'm sorry you're going through this, but I think it's prudent to consider the converse of the situation you're desiring. What if CrowsourcedCriminalMugs.com did exist, and your face was erroneously added to it? Isn't this whole idea just a form of high-tech mob justice?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#580

Post by quotha »

rdtsc wrote: post #359
quotha wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what needs more careful consideration is deciding whether or not to steal parcels!

The point was that the package owner can make the situation worse for themselves by engaging in a revenge scheme. It highly depends on the local criminal culture. I some countries, I can see a gang deciding that the homeowner needs to be "taught a lesson". Police might catch them even, but the package owner might be in the hospital or morgue by then.

Yeah, in some countries the criminals are taught a lesson.
Post reply on HN