Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves • Hacker News Board

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#231

Post by derefr » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #133

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?

The United States is big, with many different areas that have different levels of crime. Sometimes with affluent areas in walking distance of destitute areas, which is a whole other problem. One location being robbed repeatedly is not surprising, and not significant. If it were, Amazon would be requiring signatures instead of just sending you another one when something goes missing.

Amazon requiring signatures wouldn’t much help in preventing the problem. They’d just get a signature from the thief “just returning home” in the front yard, find out later that it wasn’t a match, and then... nothing, really. They’d know the buyer wasn’t liable, I guess? Doesn’t do anything for them, loss-prevention-wise; they still owe the buyer the thing they ordered.

What Amazon is doing is much more clever: whenever possible, they’re now recording the serial number of the product they ship to you. This way, if the police find it when busting a fence, they can (hopefully) get the fence’s providers out of them and then actually bust them, too (because now they have real physical evidence—along with testimony—that that particular person stole a particular thing.)

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#232

Post by stupidbird » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

cosmotron wrote: post #73

What are people's thoughts on if this is staged? Considering the views / subscriptions are the main motivation here, it might justify the expenses poured into this project – that is, it would be quite a waste if all that effort went into the build just to have no one actually take it off the porch. If actors were used, it would explain the lack of police involvement (it's easy to say, "police weren't interested" ). A…

Feels real to me generally — actors are usually easy to spot, and these would be surprisingly good actors.

The police are not going to do anything in my experience.

I literally caught someone in the act of stealing a package and the police specifically told me to do nothing and file a report. I submitted clear video of a face and apparently this was a known thief to others in the neighborhood, so I even gave them the person's name. They're still stealing packages 6 months later. The police tell me there are warrants pending.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#233

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:00 PM UTC

hossbeast wrote: post #102

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…

You did not watch the video. Some of the theives caught on video live in nice homes. And yet they're stealing packages from a stranger's doorstep. Why?

Probably because they think they won't get caught. Having things doesn't necessarily mean you also have morals or ethics; it just means you have more to lose.

Stealing a package might not even be the worst thing they did that day. Maybe they also fired all their company's in-house maintenance staff, and replaced them with contractors that cost half as much, in order to get a one-time bonus of $500. Maybe they pitched a censored and backdoored search engine for China, because Google backed down on that (for now). The world is full of heels.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#234

Post by hjek » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

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.

Good point.

There's plastic free glitter[0], which I've seen used at environmentally considerate festivals. He should use that for his pranks.

I hope campaigns against single use plastic become more mainstream soon, and that will not happen without it being talked about more, so thanks for raising the point.

[0]: https://www.ecoglitterfun.com/the-eco-bit

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#235

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #72

empath75 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the first minute of the video. The police don't care.

Given the police's complete inaction vigilantism was inevitable. I wonder if an industry of decoy packages will spring up, maybe "sticky" or "smelly" glitter. Or heck just go full ink bomb. I wonder where the law stands on this? Can you really be liable if someone steals your property then causes property damage using it?

[deleted]

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#236

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

j_m_b wrote: post #222

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.

IANAL... but banks use dye packs. This seems very close to that.

[deleted]

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#237

Post by cypherpunks01 » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

LinuxBender wrote: post #197

Firebrand wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark reportedly lives in California, a two-party state. Wouldn’t he be running afoul of wiretapping laws, regardless if he’s recording criminals?

How does Amazon and Google get away with it? When you put their listening devices in your home, do you sign a legally binding contract? Honest question, I've never bought one. If a contract is sufficient, does it have to be signed in writing or witnessed? If not, then could he have a sign at his door stating that acquiring the package provides consent to monitoring? Is there a lawyer here that could answer those ques…

Not a lawyer. Consent to recording does not need to be made by written contract.. Simple transactional agreement, like saying "OK" on the phone, or by purchasing a device intended to record you, is sufficient.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#238

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #169

adrr wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The delivery company sometimes takes pictures of the package left at the door. The customer is ultimately responsible for the package, not the shipper. It's the customer who files the police report.

It seems extraordinarily harsh to punish the recipient for the bad practices of the delivery service. Is there any legal jurisprudence about this? It feels to me like the delivery service should be responsible.

Responsible for what? They delivered the package to the location that it was supposed to be delivered to.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#239

Post by gnopgnip » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

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.

The risk is minimal, you would have to open the box while driving for it to go off.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#240

Post by everyone » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

What I found interesting was that none of the people looked poor. Many of them had cars, they seemed to have nice houses, they were all well dressed.

I reckon they are just average victims of 'asperational' media and general consumerism and materialism, that is quite rampant in modern society. I reckon they just want the latest gadget, or intend to sell it in order to get another useless status symbol of some kind.