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

861–870 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#861

Post by zanny »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #783
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even if you brought the thieves to justice you would never recoup your costs. // Assuming the video in OP is genuine the thieves, IIRC, are pretty well off. They certainly have assets that could be forfeit -- nice cars, comfy furniture, smartphones, etc.. These people don't appear to be stealing through necessity.

Exactly. Small claims court at a minimum. They might even get a summary judgement if they have person's face, voice, address, bedroom, and so on to point identification is solid. Two of these were straight-up in their house with pictures of what's in it. Realistically, present the stuff to the judge who might order police to collect remaining evidence. From there, they can be arrested, sued, stuff seized, or whatever…

The original posts problem wasn't a matter of "taking the thief to court" it was getting the police to actually find out who it was. You need someone to id them, but OP couldn't even get the video released to him so who knows if a lawyer or private investigator could get it.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#862

Post by kamaal »

criddell wrote: post #9

Do you think the bomb maker could be held liable if the package were to be opened in a moving car that subsequently crashed because of glitter getting in the driver's eyes? I'd be a little nervous about doing this myself.

You would have to prove, that you firstly stole the package(then you open a pandoras box of previous crimes), then prove that the person put it in the package(Very hard to prove, like whats the evidence).

At the end you would just end up going to the police confess the crime, open the door to be prosecuted for other crimes. And yet end up proving nothing about the other person from whom you stole.

It would be shooting in the foot at epic proportions.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#864

Post by captncraig »

nkrisc wrote: post #753
will_brown wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s fantastic. My very rough ideas are definitely more along the lines of identification and not vigilanteeism...However I am with you 100% and am pro glitter bomb.

I think even just the sink bomb part that instantly emptied as soon as it was opened would have the same effect. It's probably easier to build and could all be done mechanically. You can get some pretty foul stink bombs, then triple it. If it made their car unsellable out their house miserable I'd call that a success and no one got hurt.

There's a line that might open you up to being sued over it. Ridiculous as that would be, I wouldn't really be surprised if the right lawyer in the right court could pull it off.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#865

Post by mdorazio »

alkonaut wrote: post #829
mdorazio wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please provide a citation on this.

This is Swedish law (or at least clear authority guidelines). I can’t find an English link but if you absolutely don’t believe me I could translate (but just want to make sure you didn’t think I was talking about US law before I waste that effort :D )

Ah, ok, I thought you were somewhere in the US, in which case whoever told you you couldn't have an outdoor camera was lying to you. Thanks for clarifying.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#866

Post by mdorazio »

arkades wrote: post #856
mdorazio wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's how that would go in court... Thief: Your honor, this man illegally recorded me in my home without my consent. Judge: You mean the package you stole recorded you for the purpose of identifying you as the thief? Thief: ... Judge: Get the hell out of my court room. Even in two-party consent states, I can't envision any situation in which a person would actually be punished for recording in this way. Remember tha…

In fairness to the other side, I think the glitter-in-the-eye part is where an issue might arise. I don't agree that the privacy thing would hold up for shit, but courts have ruled against folks setting up booby traps on their property in the past.

100% agree. Any kind of booby trap that does more than make annoying sounds is a liability, even if it's in your own home. It's also important to note that in two-party consent states the camera footage wouldn't be admissible in court for prosecuting the thieves, so as an actual deterrent that part is pretty low unless you're going for social shaming or something.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#867

Post by kazga »

rdtsc wrote: post #590
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 completely understand. My car has been broken into multiple times. Thieves stole my wife's credit card and went on a shopping spree. The store had footage but the police refused to do anything. It could be worse course, but it's very disappointing when this happens. Not sure what your options are - move to a relatively wealthy suburb probably with a well funded police department where they might not be lazy enough…

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised how many people leave their credit cards etc. in their cars.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#868

Post by unreal37 »

MagicPropmaker wrote: post #738
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…

You can get the business to hand over their records by suing "John Doe" in court, getting a judgement, and then getting a subpoena. The banks losses aren't yours but you can sue for your uninsured damages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena Call an attorney!

He is an attorney...

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#869

Post by iamdave »

MacroChip wrote: post #857
dang wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Get out of your bubble? Swipes like that break the HN guidelines. Can you please edit them out of what you post here? Your comment would be better without that sentence, and maybe also the patronizing bit at the end ("these kinds of posts always illicit irrelevant responses"). https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think this is good feedback. I'm surprised that you got 2 negative responses to your suggestion. You never said that you disagree with the comment. You were requesting that 1 or 2 sentences could have been rewarded.

Disagreement with interpretation of moderator action != negative response to the suggestion that makes up that action.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#870

Post by tivert »

NullPrefix wrote: post #744
tivert wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've heard, they typically trail a block or more behind the delivery truck, which means they can't often see the exact houses that get packages. Their goal isn't to see where they're delivered, but to get to them before anyone else does. If they trail too closely, they'll make the deliveryman suspicious.

And what the deliverman is going to do? Slow down his deliveries?

> And what the deliverman is going to do? Slow down his deliveries?

Call the police, obviously. Everyone has a mobile telephone these days.

Doing so even makes sense from a business perspective, as the carrier may have to pay the insurance on all the stolen packages.

Post reply on HN