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

751–760 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#751

Post by JshWright »

kortilla wrote: post #724
yardie wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he’d be dead and the perp would have 2 guns. Why is the solution to more gun violence more guns?

Getting a CCW involves training to use the gun properly to shoot assailants. People with CCWs are more likely to win a standoff than random criminals with stolen guns and no training. If the assailant also had a CCW, he would know how stupid it is to approach someone else with a gun.

Only in the most restrictive states is training required, and even then it's generally just a class about the laws and regulations. That's not going to help you in a "standoff".

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#752

Post by tzs »

web007 wrote: post #653
khazhou wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully you don't keep your wallet and keys in your car anymore! If thieves broke into my car, they'd get some old CDs, leather gloves, and a skateboard I have no emotional attachment to. Seriously people: your car is not secure storage.

Other than the particular crime, please explain how your statement is different from "If you didn't dress so provocatively, you wouldn't have been raped."

His statement was prospective. Your quote is retrospective.

Same reason it is OK to tell people that avoiding smoking reduces their chances of getting lung cancer or that wearing a condom reduces their change of STDs, but it is not OK to tell someone with lung cancer that it is their fault for smoking or to tell someone with an STD that it is their fault for not wearing a condom.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#753

Post by nkrisc »

will_brown wrote: post #693
cr0sh wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that it would have helped in your case, but we've had porch pirates in my neighborhood. We had a recent one steal some packages. I found out about it on Nextdoor. I wasn't affected by it (I have my packages delivered to my work), but I watched the thread with interest. The neighbors had cameras - they got good pictures of the vehicle, the woman who stole the packages, etc. Multiple neighbors did this, coordinatin…

That’s fantastic. My very rough ideas are definitely more along the lines of identification and not vigilanteeism...However I am with you 100% and am pro glitter bomb.

I think even just the sink bomb part that instantly emptied as soon as it was opened would have the same effect. It's probably easier to build and could all be done mechanically. You can get some pretty foul stink bombs, then triple it.

If it made their car unsellable out their house miserable I'd call that a success and no one got hurt.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#754

Post by redeemedfadi »

NotHereNotThere wrote: post #662
redeemedfadi wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full disclosure: I work on this: https://www.getboxlock.com/

I honestly don't really see this working? What incentive does the delivery driver have to spend more time scanning the box (place the label in view for the barcode scanner), unlock, open the door, place box, relock it I can 100% imagine the driver just putting the box on top and leaving, or trying quickly to scan and have it fail then again put the box on top.

This is probably the biggest roadblock to this product's success. However BoxLock is in talks with all the major carriers to provide training. The carriers themselves are incentivized to use BoxLock because it provides a guarantee that the package was delivered successfully and securely. They don't want packages stolen either.

You can add delivery instructions to most shipments that tells the delivery driver to use BoxLock.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#755

Post by redeemedfadi »

tlrobinson wrote: post #460
redeemedfadi wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full disclosure: I work on this: https://www.getboxlock.com/

Neat. Does it somehow know which barcodes belong to your packages, or could a thief rip a barcode off any package and use it to unlock it?

Yes, it knows which packages belong to you. It will only unlock if the package is being delivered to that specific lock and the package is "out for delivery".

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#756

Post by kristofferR »

omegaham wrote: post #714
roseburg wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most departments are understaffed. Turns out all the negative press against police is having long term impacts on how many kids want to grow up and become a police officer. Also property crimes always take a backseat to more violent crimes.

Also, the background check process is intense , (and deals with the exact same understaffing problems) and it turns out that most people aren't willing to wait for nine months to get vetted for an entry-level job.

It's insane that police officer is an entry level job, no wonder you have so many issues with the police in the US.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#757

Post by xyzzyz »

bphogan wrote: post #646
jacquesm wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police and profitability should not be mixed. Whether it costs $50 or $500 / hour to work on a case technically should not even be an issue. The cumulative effect of a lot of small-time crime on a society can be as large as a bank robbery, even if the robbery is a much more serious crime by itself.

But it is an issue because it's tax dollars, and people don't like paying taxes.

Very, very, very little of the taxes are spent on law enforcement. You could quadruple their budget, and nobody would notice the tax increase.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#758

Post by khazhou »

web007 wrote: post #653
khazhou wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully you don't keep your wallet and keys in your car anymore! If thieves broke into my car, they'd get some old CDs, leather gloves, and a skateboard I have no emotional attachment to. Seriously people: your car is not secure storage.

Other than the particular crime, please explain how your statement is different from "If you didn't dress so provocatively, you wouldn't have been raped."

Telling someone to "not dress provocatively" harms their identity and right to self-expression. It devalues them as a independent human being, reducing them to perpetual victimhood. The crime against which it "protects" is heinous and life-altering and, sadly, our culture still has a somewhat permissive attitude towards it in some situations (e.g., on college campuses).

If anyone's right to identity and self-expression is exemplified by keeping wallet and keys in their car, then, yes, I suppose they should certainly assert their rights by keeping valuables in their car!

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#759

Post by King-Aaron »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #710
Sabinus wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country seems to manage it.

Yeah I grew up in a country where it backfired royally, and now I concealed carry and stopped a murder-in-progress with it when the cops were still 10 minutes away, so y'all can fuck off with your statist ideas and cherry-picked examples for things that have no global correlation.

Sounds like you thrive on anecdotes. You should move to Australia, not many people have guns, so we just man up and kill each other with a single punch.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#760

Post by BigJono »

kortilla wrote: post #724
yardie wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he’d be dead and the perp would have 2 guns. Why is the solution to more gun violence more guns?

Getting a CCW involves training to use the gun properly to shoot assailants. People with CCWs are more likely to win a standoff than random criminals with stolen guns and no training. If the assailant also had a CCW, he would know how stupid it is to approach someone else with a gun.

What a stupid argument. I'll take the 1% chance an assailant executes an unarmed person for no reason over the 20% chance I lose a duel, thanks.

I'm so glad I don't live in America.

Post reply on HN