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

821–830 of 940 posts

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#821

Post by jimmux »

cr0sh wrote: post #670
will_brown wrote: post #512

I just told this story on HN, but my car window was smashed on 10/13/18 and the theives got my wallet and house keys. They used my credit card at foot locker (~$500), The Store Manager confirmed two guys made the purchase and corporate said they would turn over the video if police just ask. A month later the bank fraud dept informed me someone was trying to cash a fake check ($1,600) against my account at an ATM usin…

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…

Criminals are often not the brightest sparks.

My car was stolen last Friday night. It's on a car-share platform so the thief took the lockbox that's normally fitted to the window, bashed it open to get the key, and came back later for the vehicle. There is a very conspicuous warning on the lockbox that the car is fitted with two GPS units.

When I first reported the theft, police said all they can do is wait for the car to show up and provide a report for insurance purposes.

Then I checked the location via the car-share site. GPS updates were still working. When I called the police back to let them know I had a current location and could keep them updated in (almost) real time, it changed everything. Suddenly multiple cars were sent out while I kept reporting updates, and they managed to make an arrest within maybe 20 minutes.

It's great to see how a little technology can give victims a taste of vigilantism without endangerment.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#822

Post by cr0sh »

kbenson wrote: post #634
jjeaff wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just get an actual camera and set it to track back and forth. Most of them have that option.

Yeah, at this point wifi cameras are cheap enough there's not really a reason not to just put a real one up instead of this. 15-30 years ago this might have been a good strategy though. Back then any sort of network enabled camera was kinda pricey, as well as the system to run it.

While not the cheapest, the best wifi camera I've found so far was to build one from a RasPi Zero W, and install motionEyeOS on it.

From there, you could add simple motion tracking (OpenCV or something like that - there's enough in the distro to easily do blob tracking) and command a servo to track.

Total cost for the basic camera setup (not the tracking extra) was around $60.00 - and you don't have to pay for a cloud service or anything like that (I just have it email me the images), plus it's open source, so you can vet the codebase if you need or want.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#823

Post by cr0sh »

gnicholas wrote: post #737
dv_dt wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering why Amazon oriented their smart lock delivery service to an orwellian camera and lock in the home setup instead of hooked to an outdoor box like this.

Because they want to deliver groceries into your fridge in the near future.

I can only imagine that in my case (if I were dumb enough to use such a service):

After getting past my barking dogs (plus the small one that likes to bite people) - they'd get to the fridge, the dogs would shut up ("the person is going to the magic box where good tasting things come from - maybe they'll drop something!"), open up the fridge...

...then get to "play tetris" trying to fit the crap inside an already full unit.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#824

Post by illumin8 »

ianwalter wrote: post #635
will_brown wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What happens next? Well let me tell you of another event that occurred to me in 08/17. I was kidnapped at gunpoint from a gas station, forced to drive my attacker with a gun on my for 30 minutes, eventually after getting off the highway I jumped out of my own car in gear, escaped and called the police. First words out of the sergeants mouth responding, “cut the shit what really happened.” Despite my insistence I’m a…

Damn man, where do you live? I can't imagine that happening in my town, then again, you never really know until it happens to you I guess.

Looks like Florida (Miami) from his follow-up replies. Honestly I would stay far away...

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#825

Post by illumin8 »

paxys wrote: post #805
nwsm wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do police refuse to look into it? More important cases? Not as easy to find them guilty as it seems?

In a lot of jurisdictions (like SF, where I live) the case will likely not be prosecuted by the DA even if there is irrefutable evidence, and the accused will be out on the streets the next day. This is why the police don't bother.

It's really sad, honestly. I think we need to vote for politicians that will fund our police forces appropriately, but also hold them accountable for actually doing their jobs. This means that when auto theft goes unchecked in SF, the police department doesn't just get a free pass to not arrest and prosecute thieves.

I'm sorry, but the US is still the wealthiest country in the world, and the only reason why car theft is so rampant in SF is the police and DA complete inability to prosecute against it.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#826

Post by thunfischbrot »

vec wrote: post #620
blueboo wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we as a society are OK with qualified law enforcement looking the other way, then we're OK with passing the buck to the unqualified. Yes, it's a "rabbit hole [we're] not sure we're prepared to go down". We're not prepared. We're going down it

> If we as a society are OK with qualified law enforcement looking the other way, then we're OK with passing the buck to the unqualified. You're excluding the admittedly somewhat bleak but still quite plausible third alternative: we as a society are in practice OK with this class of crime going largely unprosecuted. The legitimate authorities are resource constrained, the political process isn't prepared to allocate…

Why are the as restrained as they are right now though? A state without a functioning law enforcement that is out to effectively protect citizens and actually enforcing laws is missing the point of being a state at all.

Money: Reduce spending overseas by cutting down drastically on operations outside the nation's borders.

Education: Establish longer training, covering more in-depth the actual goals of law enforcement, effective strategies in community engagement, de-escalation tactics, psychology and the justice system.

Respect: Integrate law enforcement back into the communities they are supposed to serve. Reduce the barriers, demilitarize law enforcement from the look, equipment and the strategies employed all the way to the mindset of the law enforcement officials. Citizens (all humans in fact) should be viewed more like customers than like potential perpetrators.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#827

Post by mdpopescu »

airstrike wrote: post #733
mdpopescu wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're rational. If they look into it, they have to actually work. If they don't, there is zero disadvantage for them. Why WOULD they look into it?

Because of accountability. If enough people start complaining, this becomes an issue to politicians. But there aren't enough people complaining.

Petitioning nobility to please do their damn job has not generally been a successful endeavor.

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#828

Post by King-Aaron »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #630
rconti wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's home during the day. What neighbor? How do you know which neighbor will be home, or which neighbor to trust? When 90% of your package recipients are not home, you spend 3x as much time per package delivery. Carriers offload responsibility by allowing the sender or receiver to opt-out of signature/package acceptance, so why would they care? Just one data point, but I've been having packages delivered to my ho…

This is also the norm in the UK. If you're not in they try and leave the package with a neighbour. If that doesn't work, they'll try again, and if you're not there again, try for for a neighbour again. If that fails for a second time, they leave it at a nearby depot for you to pick it up. I've never heard of a package being stolen here in the UK.

America: "It's a real problem! There is no solution!"

Overseas viewer: "This literally never happens here. Try solution (a), (b), or maybe (c) and see if that helps?"

America: "Yep there is no solution in the entire universe"

Substitute "package theft" for: Gun crime / public healthcare / public education / insert social issue here

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#829

Post by alkonaut »

mdorazio wrote: post #740
alkonaut wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not here either - I can take a photo of anyone in the street. However, I can’t mount a fixed surveillance camera on my house and do the same (for some reason).

Please provide a citation on this.

This is Swedish law (or at least clear authority guidelines). I can’t find an English link but if you absolutely don’t believe me I could translate (but just want to make sure you didn’t think I was talking about US law before I waste that effort :D )

Re: Glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves

#830

Post by kortilla »

bradknowles wrote: post #811
agensaequivocum wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I admit I don't have stats for this, but it seems that most people who get CCWs do practice regularly or at least have extensive experience with firearms.

I don’t have the stats handy at the moment, but ISTR that the number one way that police officers get shot/killed is by having their own gun taken away from them by criminals and then used against them. Now, granted, many police officers don’t have anywhere near as much gun training than your average NRA member, but I submit they still have way more training with guns than the average person on the street. Given that…

The people that attack police have little overlap with those who attack regular people. Also, keep in mind police have their guns visible where they can be easily grabbed.

You’re confusing open carry with concealed carry.

Post reply on HN