Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 487 posts

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#351

Post by reducesuffering »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #293
reducesuffering wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Bay, also Gen 2 Prius (#1 target). Luckily, I had insurance to cover both, but still $1k of deductibles and premiums. I also had a shield installed after the first time, as they're supposed to slow down enough to deter most, but alas it was still hit again. Now, I have to garage the car at night by constantly moving home gym equipment, so my life is still somewhat negatively impacted to this day.

> Yes, Bay, also Gen 2 Prius (#1 target). Yea, they have the most PM of all cars on the road in the US; Toyota over built them as they were to be the California car and as you know many are still on the road as result of this over-engineering despite this high theft issue. At least you got to keep yours, I bought mine as a salvage buy-back from it's original owner (2008 with only 72k miles) but it had a check engine…

Stolen summer of 2020 and 1 month ago. I guess I got lucky with supply avoiding 2021. Yes, Geico insurance covered both of them as I had comprehensive for $21 / 6 months, with high $500 deductible (bills were $2.5k and $3k). My rates didn't go up either (truly don't know what Geico actuaries are doing here).

Yes, I could sell it, but ultimately there's no better value until EV's are cheaper in a few years. It's an $8k car with a new battery that will likely go another 120k miles at 43mpg with $5 gas prices...

Did you encounter any research on what the best shield would be? I still haven't re-shielded it.

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#352

Post by WalterBright »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #176
catiopatio wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It basically mandates KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures for companies that buy or sell catalytic converters, and it makes buying or selling a catalytic converter without documentation that it was obtained legally a crime. This is worse than the original problem. When did we become so comfortable with the government mandating presentation of papers and tracking of private transactions? Effective, privacy-preservin…

Ever been to a pawn shop? Everything in a legit operation runs through this process. >> The choice is between law enforcement actually doing their job, or invasive and ineffectual laws like this. I'm on guard for overreah all the time, but I'm OK with showing ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, fly on a plane, sell items that should rarely be done in bulk outside of rare conditions, like a bunch of catalytic converters.

In Washington State, there's a new law where I not only have to show ID to buy booze, I have to have my ID scanned.

So now, the government keeps track of what and how much booze I buy. Ugh.

This is beyond stupid, as people stopped thinking I might be under 21 back when the buffalo roamed.

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#353

Post by beenBoutIT »

mattzito wrote: post #171
catiopatio wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well did that prevent 9/11? The decrease in domestic terrorism is due to societal changes and better old-fashioned policing of home-grown extremist groups. We didn’t somehow make it impossible (or even difficult) to improvise large explosives.

Well, those folks had to spend a few years planning, take flying lessons, dry run everything a few times, and then pull off the most complicated and coordinated terrorist attack in US history. The actual bomb planning for the Oklahoma City bombing was less than a year and involved two people. So, seems like the bar was raised quite a bit.

You're giving the 9/11 terrorists far too much credit. They were supported/financed by the Saudis[0] and America dropping the ball was the only reason they succeeded.

It's not so much a big victory for the terrorists as a big black eye for America and our intelligence agencies.

One of the 9/11 pilots was reported to Federal agencies multiple times[1] and the hijacking still took place.

[0]https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabi...

[1]https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91659&page=1

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#354

Post by WalterBright »

tptacek wrote: post #194
catiopatio wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s gotten considerably worse over the past 20 years; we’re asked to present ID and tracked in government databases when purchasing allergy medicine .

That's because the allergy medicine might as well just be methamphetamine. That's really more or less what it is, modulo a reduction step. Nobody cares about your allergies, and if you go to buy Sudafed, they're just going to sell it to you. The only thing that will trip you up is if you go from store to store collecting lots of it.

And yet this has had no effect on the meth epidemic.

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#355

Post by heleninboodler »

WalterBright wrote: post #352
skeeter2020 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever been to a pawn shop? Everything in a legit operation runs through this process. >> The choice is between law enforcement actually doing their job, or invasive and ineffectual laws like this. I'm on guard for overreah all the time, but I'm OK with showing ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, fly on a plane, sell items that should rarely be done in bulk outside of rare conditions, like a bunch of catalytic converters.

In Washington State, there's a new law where I not only have to show ID to buy booze, I have to have my ID scanned. So now, the government keeps track of what and how much booze I buy. Ugh. This is beyond stupid, as people stopped thinking I might be under 21 back when the buffalo roamed.

I assume this hasn't taken effect yet? I bought booze today in WA without showing ID.

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#356

Post by WalterBright »

Symbiote wrote: post #339
catiopatio wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It basically mandates KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures for companies that buy or sell catalytic converters, and it makes buying or selling a catalytic converter without documentation that it was obtained legally a crime. This is worse than the original problem. When did we become so comfortable with the government mandating presentation of papers and tracking of private transactions? Effective, privacy-preservin…

Let's up the ante and see where you stand. In Britain, criminals were stealing the thick, copper cables used for power and signaling of the railway. They wrapped a chain around cables near a road crossing, attached it to a truck, and dragged a significant length of cable away, to sell as scrap. That naturally means the railway can't be used for many hours, occasionally over a day, and costs a tremendous about to repa…

Hmm. I wonder if steel cables would work well enough?

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#357

Post by WalterBright »

heleninboodler wrote: post #355
WalterBright wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Washington State, there's a new law where I not only have to show ID to buy booze, I have to have my ID scanned. So now, the government keeps track of what and how much booze I buy. Ugh. This is beyond stupid, as people stopped thinking I might be under 21 back when the buffalo roamed.

I assume this hasn't taken effect yet? I bought booze today in WA without showing ID.

They always make me give them ID to scan.

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#358

Post by heleninboodler »

Test0129 wrote: post #277
catiopatio wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridiculously targeted laws like this are quite a new invention. I see that the “[feeling of] safety above all” contingent is quite voracious about defending this latest government intrusion, so I’ll stop giving them comments to downvote.

I don't think a law like that is really a problem. There are already laws on the books similar to it (pawn shop laws and such) where KYC is a big thing to prevent the fencing of stolen goods. It can be as simple as this: 1. Joe brings in a cat 2. Store takes the cat, but writes down Joes important information (DL #, name, address, etc) 3. If Joe brings a new cat in within some reasonable time period factoring in poss…

> There is absolutely no "intrusion" to speak of here.

Well, there is, actually. I think it's a bit histrionic to worry about it, but we definitely have intruded on Joe's freedom to buy and sell cats. Maybe he's into cat arbitrage. Maybe he makes them himself. Maybe he's got a lot of cars he doesn't need to drive and is strapped for cash. The point of the sticklers for freedom here is that regular citizens shouldn't need an explanation for why they're buying or selling a particular thing to another private party, and therefore tracking the fact that they did is an intrusion.

It's not technically wrong. It's an intrusion. It just happens to be an intrusion I think is reasonable.

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#359

Post by heleninboodler »

vkou wrote: post #309
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She gave up on some of the backlog because the evidence was stale and there were bigger fish to fry. It’s not “giving up” rather declaring bankruptcy so you can focus on more current and serious crimes. This is what happens when you are passed a 3 year backlog from your predecessor.

> She gave up on some of the backlog because the evidence was stale and there were bigger fish to fry. She attacked that exact same line of reasoning when running for election. Unsurprisingly, once actually elected, as everyone had said all along, it turned out to be the only way to go forward. And, of course, the promised reductions in crime are, well, not exactly in any hurry to materialize. On the one hand, it's a…

The opponent was advocating for not prosecuting any misdemeanors as a matter of policy. There's a big difference.

Edit because I happen to have the interview bookmarked: Nicole Thomas-Kennedy was the opponent, and in her own words[1], "the goal is to end misdemeanor prosecution."

[1] https://publicola.com/2021/10/18/publicola-questions-nicole-...

Re: Justice Department announces takedown of catalytic converter theft ring

#360

Post by vogt »

googlryas wrote: post #336
insaneirish wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really wish the cops would download a list of who installed this app and find their location data on top of a map of reported thefts... Uh... So, I too found the website and couldn't believe how brazen the business is. I too was surprised about the app. If I downloaded the app because I was so surprised, should my name be given to the police as part of this investigation? That's ridiculous.

Sure, why not? It's not like anyone is saying merely installing the app makes you guilty of anything. It's just a lead. Police chase leads all the time and then abandon when they determine the person isn't involved in the crime.

>Sure, why not?

Well, for starters, to prevent the police from kicking my door in and shooting me or my pets simply because I was placed on a list of people who downloaded an app. Simply "police chase and abandon leads all the time" is not a strong enough rationale to justify the original suggestion to me.

Post reply on HN