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

431–440 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#431

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

beached_whale wrote: post #380
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…

I wonder if this would make a good startup. Allow people to share footage of thieves stealing goods. Allow varying levels of geolocation and let people suggest identities. Not sure what other precautions would be needed to protect from misidentification.

> let people suggest identities

Have we learned nothing from Reddit circa 2013?

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#432

Post by tptacek »

laurentl wrote: post #429
tptacek wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What federal law do you think this would violate?

I was thinking of what you can and cannot mail; specifically, that what he did could be construed as a letter bomb. Granted, it’s much much less dangerous, but the mechanism is the same. At a time when public figures get pipe bombs in the mail, rigging a package to “explode” once opened... I think there’s enough material for a humorless DA (or one with an agenda) to make hay, or at least for a uneasy explanation with…

Leaving a package on your own doorstep is extraordinarily unlikely to be construed as "mailing" it.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#433

Post by iamdave »

rootusrootus wrote: post #426
iamdave wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"suspicious person walking on street" My dad used to say "there's few things more dangerous in the suburbs than a bored cop". Been involved in some of those interactions while walking home in my own neighborhood. They're not pleasant. One involved handcuffs and a 30 minute sit on the curb while my backpack was searched. Yes I'm referring to these past incidents in plural for a reason. No, the complaints to the city a…

Ha, that's probably true. Though the last time I was walking down the street when a city cop rolled past, he waved. I waved. I have lived some places where the police culture was more toxic, definitely.

It's definitely a YMMV kind of thing.

I'm not going to go on some kind of "all cops are bastards" bend here, cause that's not the case and this isn't the forum for it, but I've had more bad experiences with the police than good ones.

None of them resulted in an arrest or charges filed (this is excluding moving violations because death, taxes and speeding tickets; I was a 23 year old driving a Mustang lol) since none of the interactions involved me doing anything illegal. After a few experiences like that you learn to keep an eye on a police officer when you see one, but there's no urge to make your presence overtly known to them either.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#434

Post by weberc2 »

hyperpape wrote: post #191
weberc2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let me spell it out: that the law protects criminals and punishes innocent citizens in such cases is indicative of a problem with the law. And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent".

Proportionality is a thing. I think spraying someone with glitter is fine. Shooting someone in the back would not be innocent.

To be clear, we were talking about a theif getting a little glitter in their eye; I understand why shooting someone is controversial.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#435

Post by technofiend »

cwkoss wrote: post #406
beached_whale wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this would make a good startup. Allow people to share footage of thieves stealing goods. Allow varying levels of geolocation and let people suggest identities. Not sure what other precautions would be needed to protect from misidentification.

How does it make money?

Rental fees from people who want to put out exactly these kind of packages to deter theft. You'd need a high deposit to cover loss of the device. On the other hand mass-producing it would certainly allow both economy of scale and substituting lower cost parts than (for example) an off-the-shelf cellphone for video capture and streaming.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#436

Post by cwkoss »

Guest10928391 wrote: post #180
weberc2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let me spell it out: that the law protects criminals and punishes innocent citizens in such cases is indicative of a problem with the law. And yes, defending your property from theft is categorically "innocent".

Booby traps are not "innocent". What happens if you stop responding and paramedics are sent to your property? They get paintballed because they approached your porch at night when there should have been no visitors? What happens if you put a car airbag in a booby trapped package, and someone steals the package and brings it home. Then later that day their child or spouse finds and opens the package not realizing it w…

"A reasonable person would not suspect glitter to cause bodily injury" seems like a good defense. Setting a trap that can maim is obviously dumb, for the reasons you mention.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#437

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

cwkoss wrote: post #406
beached_whale wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this would make a good startup. Allow people to share footage of thieves stealing goods. Allow varying levels of geolocation and let people suggest identities. Not sure what other precautions would be needed to protect from misidentification.

How does it make money?

You can pay to remove videos of you off the platform, revenge porn site style.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#438

Post by jboy55 »

dylan604 wrote: post #339
jboy55 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't press charges yourself. You can go directly to the DA with your evidence and hope they press charges, but there is no role for you as a citizen to instigate a criminal preceding. https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/12/pressing-charges-w... You could sue them in court.

Getting robbed is just the opening salvo in getting fleeced. The second round is the insurance company. Yes, I know insurance fraud exists, so one way the insurance companies "protect" themselves is to issue a check for a fraction of the value of the items stolen. They know most people will not replace the stolen items. If you do replace the items, then you have to re-submit your claim with the receipt to show it was…

My 'sue them' should have almost had a /s on it. It would be pointless suing someone with little or no assets. Its the only thing you can do, by yourself, within the courts as a private citizen.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#439

Post by root_axis »

ryanmercer wrote: post #283
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…

>What are people's thoughts on if this is staged? Well one, he's not a prank channel. He's a serious professional that even showed video of people stealing his package that started the whole idea. He then went as far as to machine parts, have a custom pcb manufactured etc. Then he contaminated cars and residences with glitter, yeah good luck talking random friends to let you bomb their cars and houses with glitter. I…

Nothing you've listed here precludes fakery.

> good luck talking random friends to let you bomb their cars and houses with glitter.

Right. Typically you pay an actor to do fake things that a real person would not be on board with.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#440

Post by txcwpalpha »

weberc2 wrote: post #434
hyperpape wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proportionality is a thing. I think spraying someone with glitter is fine. Shooting someone in the back would not be innocent.

To be clear, we were talking about a theif getting a little glitter in their eye; I understand why shooting someone is controversial.

You understand why shooting someone is controversial, but you don't understand why recklessly causing someone to go blind is controversial?
Post reply on HN