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

901–910 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#901

Post by entity345 »

mmcwilliams wrote: post #495
arkades wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thieves are the ones bringing the camera into their privacy zone, not the person who made the package. The thief, in committing the theft, explicitly consented to taking an unknown item into their possession.

But the person who built the device did so with the intention of recording people in private spaces. The person committing the theft did not explicitly consent to being recorded in a private space. They are still being recorded unknowingly by a device designed to do that. What I'm saying is; the thief broke a law but the person making the recordings could have also broken laws as well. Two wrongs don't make a right,…

This device does not place a hidden camera where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Someone STEALS that device and moves it. The device's owner isn't breaking any law.

You are looking for problems where there are none.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#902

Post by tripzilch »

The fart spray was the most brilliant part of the contraption, imho. If you look at the video, you can see he pulled the trick numerous times with the same (costly) device, mainly because the thieves were disgusted by the smell and threw it out before they discovered there were four phones in the package.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#903

Post by tripzilch »

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…

> since the author of this post already had video of these theives, there needs to be a platform to post these videos for the public to crowdsource the identity of these people.

No, what you need is a functioning police force. Not vigilante justice.

Edit: You could also make a public platform where you would crowdsource generating the political pressure to make the police work better, as well as monitoring them for doing their jobs. This has the advantage that the people put in the spotlight have a public function already, and that it's a more democratic process.

The main problem I have with your proposal is that it results in the doxxing and witch hunt of people caught on camera and even if mostly effective/just, this will eventually backfire because of the thirst for revenge and spectacle and because we can't have nice things.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#904

Post by krageon »

ben_w wrote: post #626
alangibson wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existence proof. Law enforcement looks the other way and we do nothing about it. Not being OK with something and passively accepting it is functionally identical to being OK with something.

I don’t know what to do about such things. One of my exes is certain what to do, which is why she’s campaigning for the fourth largest political party in America. Me, I could work on AI to fully enforce all laws, but I suspect that would have unfortunate side effects like accidentally returning to feudalism after all but a few thousand Americans end up with multiple millennia of prison time because the laws themselve…

Move to a different country. Work hard and be an asset somewhere you do agree with society's laws, then help that country improve it's lot so more people can benefit. Why should a country be different than a company?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#905

Post by tripzilch »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #790
nicoburns wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Because pretty much the only situation in which I'd be tempted to shoot another person is if they also had a gun (otherwise they're pretty likely to shoot me). If I'm unarmed, then I'm likely to be safe, even if I do get robbed.

Here's an example: https://youtu.be/TmWnvN_XsMY

Of course this is the pretty example that got on TV. The scenario that ends ugly, deadly and gruesome doesn't get posted to YouTube and (fortunately) not linked on HN.

It's a nice justice boner but it doesn't mean this is the usual outcome.

Especially without military training like this guy had.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#906

Post by tripzilch »

kortilla wrote: post #832
adrianN wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works reasonably well for the majority of the developed world. What's different about the US?

Does it? “The majority of the developed world” has about as much violent crime or more depending on which country you examine. The only difference is that of course there is a lot less involving guns.

Yes it does, and no they do not.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#907

Post by tripzilch »

kortilla wrote: post #830
bradknowles wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have the stats handy at the moment, but ISTR that the number one way that police officers get shot/killed is by having their own gun taken away from them by criminals and then used against them. Now, granted, many police officers don’t have anywhere near as much gun training than your average NRA member, but I submit they still have way more training with guns than the average person on the street. Given that…

The people that attack police have little overlap with those who attack regular people. Also, keep in mind police have their guns visible where they can be easily grabbed. You’re confusing open carry with concealed carry.

What does the gun do when it's concealed then?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#908

Post by tripzilch »

ben_w wrote: post #626
alangibson wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existence proof. Law enforcement looks the other way and we do nothing about it. Not being OK with something and passively accepting it is functionally identical to being OK with something.

I don’t know what to do about such things. One of my exes is certain what to do, which is why she’s campaigning for the fourth largest political party in America. Me, I could work on AI to fully enforce all laws, but I suspect that would have unfortunate side effects like accidentally returning to feudalism after all but a few thousand Americans end up with multiple millennia of prison time because the laws themselve…

I don't know, did you try having more guns?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#909

Post by tripzilch »

krageon wrote: post #904
ben_w wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what to do about such things. One of my exes is certain what to do, which is why she’s campaigning for the fourth largest political party in America. Me, I could work on AI to fully enforce all laws, but I suspect that would have unfortunate side effects like accidentally returning to feudalism after all but a few thousand Americans end up with multiple millennia of prison time because the laws themselve…

Move to a different country. Work hard and be an asset somewhere you do agree with society's laws, then help that country improve it's lot so more people can benefit. Why should a country be different than a company?

I prefer my countries better than a company.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#910

Post by tripzilch »

cat199 wrote: post #782
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…

> Crowdsourcing criminal investigation, even a passive element of it like identifying mugs from home security footage seems like a rabbit hole I'm not sure we're prepared to go down sooo, like, down with trial by jury?

Very different topic, but sure. Many well functioning legal systems in the world don't have it.
Post reply on HN