Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves • Hacker News Board

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#301

Post by rtkwe » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #179

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.

Anyone can file a police report. The sender and the sender's agent (shipping company) own the package until it is delivered. That's why the sender insures it and insurance payments go to the sender. But often it is more complicated than that, because there's a commercial contract between the sender and the recipient that also has to be taken into account. I'd call it a legally grey area, with the commercial sender of…

> I'd call it a legally grey area, with the commercial sender often likely filing an insurance claim and re-sending the lost merchandise.

Really I think that's more a customer service nicety than anything the company would be legally required to do. Seems like everyone has done their part to fulfill their obligations once the package hits your doorstep.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#302

Post by scarejunba » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

mmcwilliams wrote: post #286

rdtsc wrote: post #173

This needs careful consideration if you ever decide to do it. Depending on the local criminal culture they could exact revenge. Then also know where you live and can do a lot worse things than taking a package. Police might later be involved but it might not be worth it. You are dealing with people who have no qualms stealing so it's not too crazy to expect other rash and illegal acts from them. I can also see some i…

Another thing that's risky about this approach is, depending on your jurisdiction, recording an individual (audio or video in some cases) without their consent is a felony.

No reasonable expectation of privacy in a security camera situation.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#303

Post by mmcwilliams » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

entity345 wrote: post #295

mmcwilliams wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing that's risky about this approach is, depending on your jurisdiction, recording an individual (audio or video in some cases) without their consent is a felony.

Where is it a felony to have a CCTV?

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.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#304

Post by rtkwe » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

seattle_spring wrote: post #279

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dye pack is designed to protect the cash by rendering it unusable, not to injure or otherwise affect the person stealing it.

Does glitter cause injury?

We're in a universe where yes it did because the package was opened while driving or just happened to spray glitter in the thief's (or potentially a third party not associated directly with the theft) eye.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#305

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #154

Jonnerz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just label the box with "DO NOT TAKE IN A CAR"

Right, thief should have read the EULA

[deleted]

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#306

Post by mmcwilliams » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #302

mmcwilliams wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing that's risky about this approach is, depending on your jurisdiction, recording an individual (audio or video in some cases) without their consent is a felony.

No reasonable expectation of privacy in a security camera situation.

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".

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#307

Post by EForEndeavour » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #300

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…

Maybe with ubiquitous accurate facial recognition we could name and shame these individuals. You could then be walking around and identifying criminals as you go, denying them service, food, shelter, or water. We could create isolated communities of criminals, wall off the rest of the world, and deliver ourselves from evil.

Better yet, we could wall in the criminals and declare the inside of their "cells" to be the outside, thus walling them out.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#308

Post by Jyaif » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #293

DickingAround wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#309

Post by entity345 » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

mmcwilliams wrote: post #303

entity345 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is it a felony to have a CCTV?

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.

Well that's quite different from putting a CCTV on your front porch... which isn't a felony.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#310

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

netsharc wrote: post #293

DickingAround wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

In some areas perhaps. In my neighborhood the police respond to any property crime, and pretty fast at that. But ... maybe we are just boring.

Perhaps there are some areas in the US where this is a problem, but I don't know if it's safe to generalize that the US is degrading to third-world status just yet.