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

321–330 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#321

Post by btbuildem »

vorpalhex wrote: post #140
MagicPropmaker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, thefts of under $950 are not felony crimes. And there's no more "three strikes". So you can steal packages for a living and, at worst, have to spend a week or two in jail over the course of a year. Not a bad living.

If I paid you $200, would you spend two weeks in jail? If getting that $200 meant risk to you (someone confronting you, someone else taking your money, risk of an officer giving you a beat down), would you still take it? It doesn't take a lot of risk to offset the "value" of stealing $950 labeled-worth goods (which will net you <$250 in cash).

You're asking on HN, so the answer is probably a "no".

Relative value of time and money might be different outside of this bubble.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#322

Post by rtkwe »

chrisseaton wrote: post #35

I don't understand why the delivery people just leave packages on porches? Why not leave somewhere safe and out of view? Or leave it with a neighbour?

Packages used to require signatures more often but it's a pain to both parties because that requires either evening deliveries to catch people at home more often or for people to stay home which is only an option in a small number of jobs. So now it's only for very expensive items generally.

As for delivering to neighbors you have the same problem of actually finding a neighbor that's home and then you've got the chance of dishonest neighbors.

Most packages I get delivered they will tuck it in the most out of the way part of my side porch so they do try but only to the point it causes them hassle. If it's a flat envelope package they'll tuck it between my storm door and the actual door too provided it's unlocked (sometimes).

It's really a question of priorities I think and the raw numbers where package theft is relatively rare. For the delivery company their job is done when the package hits the correct doorstep so there's not a huge incentive for them to go around hunting for a neighbor to give it to or find a clever hiding spot, both of which would eat up time.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#323

Post by scarejunba »

mmcwilliams wrote: post #306
scarejunba wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Ah sorry. I was imagining we were talking about the porch camera.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#324

Post by ironcan »

dylan604 wrote: post #212
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…

>it's easy to say, "police weren't interested" I’ve had my house robbed, and had evidence from the bank when the robbers tried to use the checkbook to send money through Western Union. They had photos, state issued identification, address, etc of the people collecting the payments. The assigned detective would not read an email or respond to voice mails. The detective said he was too busy to read emails. Not sure tha…

This is something you hear all the time, why?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#325

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

If the camera is visible and not pointed where it can see inside a neighbor's window, you're fine for video. For audio you probably want to restrict it to inside your home.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#326

Post by technofiend »

isoprophlex wrote: post #277
larkeith wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciated the last person's reaction: to check out the mechanism.

Too bad the fart spray seemed to have ran out at that point. I was waiting for the guy to be sprayed...

Maybe version two will have a fart spray auto loader.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#328

Post by dawnerd »

stingraycharles wrote: post #224
Rainymood wrote: post #16

I'm honestly really shocked by how casually people seem to steal these parcels, like what the hell?

As a European, I'm surprised that the postal services in the US just leave the packages outside, rather than ringing the doorbell and/or delivering it to a neighbor. Over here in The Netherlands, pickup points are common (my local groceries store is one), you can choose your delivery time (also in the evening) and they will deliver it to a neighbor when I'm not home. Why not avoid this whole problem with any of these…

Half the time they'll just leave a not in the post box saying delivery attempted and to pick it up at the post office. Most new communities are switching to locking post boxes which have parcel lockers so that does help a lot. Problem is theres usually only two parcel lockers and during holidays they just toss the box at your door.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#329

Post by scarejunba »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #317
scarejunba wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> ubiquitous accurate facial recognition You mean like the system in China? No thanks. Never underestimate the propensity of any government to violate human rights when given the power to do so. If a choice has to be made between the two, a government that respects human rights is far preferable to a country without crime among citizens.

Yeah, dude. It would be awesome. I could instantly know if you’re a douche or a nice person, refuse service to you because you parked across a handicapped spot for no reason, or just choose to have conversations with the best people and ignore all the boring dudes.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#330

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN