[Mark Rober] was fed up with packages going missing. He kept receiving notifications that his shipments had been delivered, but when checking his porch he found nothing there. Reviewing the CCTV footage revealed random passers-by sidling up to his porch and stealing his parcels. It was time to strike back. Over six months, [Mark] and his friends painstakingly designed, prototyped and iterated the perfect trap for package thieves, resulting in a small unit disguised as an Apple HomePod. The whole scheme is wonderfully over-engineered and we love it.
The main feature of the device is a spinning cup on the top which contains a large amount of glitter. When activated, it ejects glitter in every directions. You could say it's harmless, as it's just glitter. But then again, glitter has a way of staying with you for the rest of your life — turning up at the least expected times. It certainly leaves an emotional impression.
The trap uses an accelerometer to detect movement, geo-fencing to determine when the package has left the property, glitter and a fart spray to make the thief regret it, and smartphones to capture the thief's reaction for the enjoyment of the hacker.
Also at BBC.
See also: Jersey City PD, Amazon work together to catch package thieves
Jersey City PD nabs 12 this week in porch package sting
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Creator of viral glitter bomb video admits parts of it were staged
This week, it seemed the entire Internet rejoiced after a former NASA engineer created a custom glitter bomb designed to strike back against package thieves. His impressive invention resulted in a hilarious video of would-be criminals being coated in glitter and having their nostrils assaulted with a fart spray. But it seems the clip, which racked up more than 42 million views in just a few days, was a little too good to be true -- its creator admits parts of it were staged, seemingly without his knowledge.
Mark Rober cut around 90 seconds from the video and reuploaded it to remove a segment in which a friend of a friend borrowed the device. As it turns out, that person recruited their own friends to pose as victims. Rober apologized for the ruse.
"Ultimately, I am responsible for the content that goes on my channel and I should have done more here," he wrote in an apology tweet. "I can vouch that the reactions were genuine when the package was taken from my house."
Previously: Hacker Makes a Flawless Booby Trap, Strikes Back Against Package Thieves
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
How Amazon Helped Cops Set Up a Package Theft Sting Operation
In response to Amazon packages being stolen from people's doorsteps, police departments around the country have set up sting operations that use fake packages bugged with GPS trackers to find and arrest people who steal packages. Internal emails and documents obtained by Motherboard via a public records request show how Amazon and one police department partnered to set up one of these operations.
The documents obtained by Motherboard—which include an operations plan and internal emails between Amazon and the Hayward, California Police Department—show that Amazon's "national package theft team" made several calls to the Hayward Police Department and sent the department packages, tape, and stickers that allowed the department to set up a "porch pirate" operation in November and December of 2018. The documents also reveal that the bait Amazon packages included real-time location-tracking devices in order to surveil and track anyone who stole a package.
According to an "Operation Plan" obtained by Motherboard, the Hayward Police Department referred to the porch pirate operation as "Operation 'Safe Porch,'" and it lasted from November 12 to December 17, 2018. The document describes package theft in Hayward as a "significant problem" during the holiday season, and it characterizes Operation Safe Porch as a way to "arrest/prosecute those individuals committing this criminal activity."
"The operation will emphasize a pro-active approach in the suppression of this criminal activity and with the use of 'bait' packages affixed with GPS tracking devices, Surveillance and Covert Operations, Probation/Parole Searches and potentially Search Warrants," the document reads.
The document claims that the Hayward Police Department Criminal Investigations Bureau, units form the Hayward Special Investigations Bureau, and Hayward Crime Analysis all assisted with Operation Safe Porch. It also notes that the program was run four days a week, for 10 hours per day, and outlined the GPS, radio, and vehicles that were used in the program (including "an assigned undercover vehicle for surveillance and covert operations.")
Related: Amazon Plants Fake Packages in Delivery Trucks to 'Trap' Drivers Who Are Stealing
Jersey City PD, Amazon work together to catch package thieves
Hacker Makes a Flawless Booby Trap, Strikes Back Against Package Thieves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Knowledge Troll on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:18PM (45 children)
This does not seem wise. I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Booby traps are generally not legal to leave around even if someone will encounter them in the furtherance of a crime at least to my understanding. While on the surface this may seem closer to a prank than a trap and has a low risk of injury in practice this can go very wrong leading to injury of other people and prosecution of people who attempt this.
Ponder if the thief opens the package in a car, the glitter goes off, gets in the thief's eyes, they crash into another car and some unrelated third party dies.
You have a chance of not being found culpable in this situation but it has a high risk of going to trial and that is never good. It is also a reasonable decision to say that there is some culpability here. It is just as reasonable as saying the thief should take all the blame and the difference will be in your jurisdiction.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:33PM (2 children)
He was a NASA guy. Wise doesn't necessarily even get a cameo when nerds get their project on and NASA guys are some of the nerdiest.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:48PM (1 child)
They caught him leaving booby traps on NASA instruments, to keep meddling aliens at bay.
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:13PM
It worked, didn't it?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:37PM (12 children)
Perhaps, but if I were on the jury I'd never vote to convict. Glitter bomb would not have been left out if those asshole thieves weren't out stealing packages.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:40PM
If there was a time for jury nullification, this would be it.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bobthecimmerian on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:45PM (2 children)
Add in the fact that he contacted the police first, and they said they couldn't help him. So it's not like the prosecutor can say, "You should have called the police!"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:46AM (1 child)
Police apparently don't even have a duty to protect children from a shooter even when they are present and witnessing (listening to the gunshots). They certainly don't give a sh*t about your stupid amazon package.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:30PM
Politicians, and rich people who pay them for 'security patrols'.
The rest of us plebs can just fuck right off, unless it's a campaign year, or they need to look tough to sidetrack from that internal investigations corruption proceeding just long enough for a few of the IA folks to be threatened, bought off, or have accidents on the hard hard streets of (insert your city).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:32PM (2 children)
Let me know when I can have you on my jury.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:57PM
Let us know when you need one.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:46PM
I would actually be a good choice, provided you were actually innocent.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:43AM (4 children)
The jury probably won't deciding if he should pay for reupholstering the thief's car interior. No, the plaintiff will be the sweet mom and her 5 year old kid who was playing in the front yard, got run over when the bomb exploded in the thief's car and the thief lost control, and the kid is now a mangled parapalegic with one arm, a grotesque face, and a wheelchair that looks like it would be sufficient for mars expeditions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:42PM (1 child)
Does not matter to me. I'd want to know where this booby trap in the car came from, and why it was in his car. Nope, the ultimate responsibility lies with the thief.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Thursday December 20 2018, @05:52AM
"Why was this guy unboxing a cell phone while driving!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:59PM (1 child)
No. It would be the thief's fault. Why is the thief opening the package while driving? Opening boxes while driving seems like a pretty bad idea. Why is the thief going fast enough in a residential area where they can't slam on the brakes and stop in 5 feet?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:15PM
This.
Unless you have an actual explosion or other event causing injury or disabling the driver, they're responsible for keeping control of their vehicle at all times.
Glitter bomb to the eyes would be disabling, but opening it at eye level is clearly distracted driving.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:37PM (22 children)
Except it's not a booby-trapped package. From TFS:
As such, your concerns about liability are misplaced. I could see a lawsuit where the glitter got in someone's eye and blinded them. Or they inhaled/swallowed the glitter and had an allergic reaction.
Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of risk there, and that's what homeowners' insurance is for anyway.
What's more, when the popo show up at such a thief's door (with the video of them stealing) and the thief is still trying to get rid of the glitter on his/her clothes, car and house, that's even more evidence.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:01PM (16 children)
From the video most were opened in cars, sometimes by an accomplice not the driver. A glitter / fart bomb is certainly enough to distract attention, which could cause a fatal accident if opened while driving.
Not to say I'm non their side or anything, I think this is rad. It just could have gone poorly.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:13PM (13 children)
In the law, you need to prove more than the sine qua non, you also need to prove legal causation. In that regard, the glitter/fart bomb, is less proximate than the behavior of the driver, an accident or injury is not reasonably foreseeable despite the heightened risk due to the required intervention of the driver, less efficient than the behavior of the driver.
In addition, even if you punched through all of that, there is even more layers to such a tort, including whether there was even a duty, a breach, assumption of risk, good faith, comparative negligence or contributory negligence, reasonable defense of property, and more.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @11:00PM
Great response- are you an attorney?
I'm not, but I would argue that the package contents were known to the addressee, so anyone else who opens it assumes all risks and consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:03AM (1 child)
I opened an air-fryer box today and found an arbitration agreement on top. Can't they just include a manditory arbitration agreement with the glitter bomb?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:57AM
No, there has to be some sort of communication of acceptance. An arbitration agreement or express waiver are not a situation where acceptance by silence is allowed in most jurisdictions, although your place or his may be different so IANYL, TINLA, and YMMV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:02AM (9 children)
You need to prove proximate cause, think domino chain -- a sequence of events that rely on the previous event happening. In legalese: But for the glitter bomb explosion, would the driver have lost control and caused the incident? To put this the opposite way: would the driver have lost control in that instant if there was no glitter bomb exploding in his face?
To top it off, the standard of proof will be a preponderance of the evidence: is it more probable than not probable (*) that the glitter bomb led to a sequence of events that caused the incident?
(*) if something is more probable than not probable, that means the certainty level is greater than a coin toss, greater than 50%. So if a jury is 50.0001% confident that the glitter bomb set the chain of events in motion, plaintiff wins. The preponderance of the evidence standard leaves a massive amount of room for doubt. Contemplate the implications of a trial in which you could lose everything where evidence that is a feather's weight over pure chance, is all it takes for entry to the poor house.
IAAL, parent poster sounds like an Allstate defense lawyer. I'd bet every nickel I ever had or ever will have and any I could borrow, that if the glitter bomb went off in a car and immediately thereafter someone unrelated to and wholly innocent of the theft was injured or killed by the car of a driver impaired by that glitter bomb, the bomb maker is going to be paying damages.
All that said -- his device is pure awesome. Glad nobody did get hurt. He should stop putting it out now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:44AM (4 children)
The problem with that reasoning is that you are not looking at the entirety of the decision chain. After placing the package on your porch, there are countless intervening causes-in-fact, not the least of which is the one where the thief made the decision to open the package. And that act is the proximate trigger to the chain. The driver is the one who decided to open and look at the contents while driving. The driver is the one with the last clear chance of preventing the whole incident and the only way anyone else could be responsible is through the decisions that person makes. If you are driving and opening packages, then anything inside of them could distract enough to cause an incident, whether or not it is a trap. What if he was shipping $30,000 of gold coins and someone stole it and opened it while driving (on a pure causal standpoint, not breach or duty)? Plus, the driver also has the ability to mitigate after it goes off; and if they didn't, then they would have crashed regardless of what is in it, which again means the glitter wasn't the proximate cause of the accident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:28AM (3 children)
But for placing an enticing bomb on the porch, none of the rest of the chain happens. The bomber will get figuratively slain in a civil trial if an injury occurs.
Like I said, I'd bet everything on the bomber facing liability in this situation (I'll grant that thief will share liability). None of it happens without a bomb and the rest is all just hand-waving what-ifs that may or may not have caused something bad to happen in a comparatively unforeseeable fashion. Bad things happening from a bomb? That's basically a given.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:04AM (2 children)
I better stop ordering live crickets and other feeders from Amazon then. After all, if some porch pirate steals them, opens them while driving, gets more distracted, and crashes, then I'm in hot water since I left them out to be snatched and opened in the car. Better bring in Amazon and USPS as my cross or third-party defendant too, since they sent it to me so it is also their fault it was left on the porch. I'd better also tell the car manufacturers to remove their radios and other car systems that might distract the thief and cause an accident too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:07PM (1 child)
If you can't see the difference between a box of crickets which are not intentionally designed to blow up in one's face, and glitter bomb which is, you are a walking liability machine. Save up, you're going to need it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:32PM
And if you can't see that both have the same distraction potential, and that the only thing that sets off either is the driver's decision to open them while driving. It is the same reason why we hold people liable for people receiving or sending texts while driving, but not the non-drivers who sent or received those texts, even if they know the person is driving. Under your theory, sending a text to someone who could receive it while driving would make you liable to an accident they cause, as it is reasonably foreseeable that intentionally sending them a signal that could distract them at a key moment could cause the accident.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:28PM (3 children)
My not-a-lawyer gut feeling is that the outcome might turn different if the resulting accident is a criminal case vs a civil case, where the threshold to get convicted is lower.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:49PM (2 children)
The standard of proof to prove liability in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence" -- this means if the jury is convinced that the there is connection above pure change between defendant's actions and plaintiff's injuries, plaintiff wins. In other words, if the jury 50.1% certain there is a connection, and 49.9% uncertain about the connection, plaintiff wins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:59PM (1 child)
Man, that sucks ... I only have enough proof to get my jury up to 50.0364% !
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @07:19PM
Different AC, but one of the best attorneys around here explains it like this:
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:41AM (1 child)
Geez Louise! You expect me to RTFA (or, in this case, WTFV)?
TFS gave me the impression that it was a device separate from the package, rather than the "package" itself.
That's was an erroneous assumption and I was wrong. Oops. Oh well.
As to liability, I imagine that if I were to rig such a device with a GPS, where movement of more than a couple hundred meters would trigger the device, and the device activated in a moving vehicle, causing injury and/or an accident, all liability would rest on whoever stole the package. Because the thief actively created the conditions for this to happen. Had he/she not stolen the device, nothing would have happened.
Contrariwise, if I were to be alerted by the GPS that the device had moved and I then activated the device with the knowledge (and quite possibly the data to confirm, in near real-time) that the device could be in motion (e.g. in a moving car), and injury and/or accident occurred, I suppose could be considered a civil tort and, possibly, even a criminal act.
N.B: IANAL, but I saw one from across a crowded room once. It was terrifying!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday December 20 2018, @12:07PM
You really ought to watch the video. It's fucking hilarious.
He doesn't trigger the device at all, nor does it trigger from simple movement. Opening it triggers the device.
It is an amazing device as well, tosses glitter and sprays fart spray. Uses four cellphones that have a 360 degree view and are hidden within a printed housing, auto uploads so if it's lost the video isn't.
I've seen a few others with minor explosives that go bang when the box is picked up, but this is a work of art...
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:33AM (3 children)
When you drive you don't open packages. Still 100% driver's responsibility.
Or is it my fault if I phone a guy and he replies when driving and crashes?
Stop removing responsibility from society, you are already sheep enough.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:17AM (2 children)
Someone sends you a package bomb. You open it in your car and it kills you. The police will deem this your fault and if they find the person who sent the bomb to you, they'll shake their heads and say "whelp, the dead guy shoulda never opened the bomb, nothing we can do here, you're free to go."
LOL -- Ask Ted Kaczynski if he tried that defense.
No what will actually happen is that there may be some joint liability between you and the bomber if your car hits someone else, but to think the bomber gets off scott free? totally nuts.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @03:13PM
Your example if highly flawed. The package was not sent to the driver of the car. The package was *stolen* by the driver of the car. There is a huge difference there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:33AM
Also, unlike an explosive, the glitter bomb is relatively harmless on its own. Which should be defense enough - otherwise nobody could afford to produce snakes-in-a-can and other novelty products that might startle you when driving, walking along the top of a cliff, etc.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:44AM
Good luck getting your homeowner's insurance to cough up a defense for an intentional act.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:52PM
On the other hand, the thief cannot report you at all without confessing to a crime. In many jurisdictions, any liability for harm that comes to anybody in the commission of a crime falls upon the criminal(s). The booby traps that are illegal are generally things such as bombs, shotgun wired to a door, tiger pits, etc that are designed to cause bodily harm. Glitter and fart spray simply don't rise to that level.
The DA will have to consider that they would be seen as prosecuting a local minor hero for pranking the lowest form of life that richly deserved what they got. The king of thing an opponent would bring up during the next election.
There is a long history of such packages being made and used against package thieves including stink bombs and spring loaded garbage ejectors. I've never heard of an attempt to prosecute the person who made the package.
My only suggestion would be replace the fart spray with a more vigorously aerosolized artificial skunk spray. That stuff lingers. If they're going to be dirty skunks, they should smell like dirty skunks.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:46AM
The "bomb" should go off long before they get into a car. He is using geo-fencing, so there shouldn't be a reason why the "bomb" goes off in a car while driving. It should go off a few feet outside of the the fence, and the fence should clearly be the sidewalk.
Get rid of the glitter anyways, and replace that with the same ink they use in the banks to mark thieves.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:39AM
Yeah, whatever. They’re thieves. The correct response is actually a .308 in to their heads from a couple hundred yards out. They should be thankful they were dealing with someone so nice.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @03:39AM
His booby trap was pretty mild, unlike the ones I set.
Mind you, this all took place back in 1985-86. I drove a convertible and got tired of people stealing my coat out of it. They'd get it unlocked somehow -- I don't exactly know how, maybe a hangar wire stuck between the ragtop and the door window? Anyway, I had a friend in Texas who was in the business of catching rattlesnakes. That's right, you probably guessed. I put a rattlesnake in a box, wrapped it with a bow and left it in the back seat of my car. The next day, it was gone. I didn't lose another coat that year.
The next year when my coat got stolen, I repeated the gag. What fun! I did make sure to watch the news and read the papers for a few days but I never heard anything about a snake-bite victim. They get pretty sluggish in the cold anyway, and the rattle gives it away, so...
Stealing packages. It's like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:25AM
I'm also not a lawyer, but if I understand correctly, most of the cases that involve a booby trap, the trap is on the premises eg break in and a crossbow shoots you in the ass. This then happens DURING the alleged crime taking place. In this case however, any potential "damage" happens long after the crime has been committed, and rights are waved after a crime has occurred if they happen as a direct cause of the crime.
Could be wrong. Again, just my take. I'd be willing to take my chances on this one as well if I made this particular little gizmo!
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday December 20 2018, @04:27AM
Your are absolutely correct.
Instead he should use an incendiary device. This way he can severely maim the thief and destroy all the evidence linking back to himself.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:27PM (10 children)
What is the demographics of these package thieves, or is it even known?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:45PM (6 children)
Stupid.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:46PM (5 children)
Its not stupid if they rarely get caught.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:58PM (1 child)
On the other hand, there's a guy around where I live that will now suffer the humiliation of doing time for stealing a jumbo pack of toilet paper.
(Score: 5, Funny) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:35PM
Well, if you're going to start stealing shit...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Immerman on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:05PM (2 children)
If the cops won't do anything even with clear video evidence of them and their crime, then it's not exactly their brilliance keeping them from being caught.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:57PM (1 child)
So is it little kids? I guess they must be 16 if theyre driving.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:39AM
From the video it looks like no kids, but everyone else from maybe 20s to 60s.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)
When they don't show pictures or describe ethnicity, then you know exactly what the demographic is (or is not).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:20PM (1 child)
They did show pictures you dumbass, and some of the thieves were white.
Racist fucks around here with functional pattern matching neural networks but broken pre-frontal cortex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:25PM
Are you saying the white ones are the stupid ones that got caught? You cant base the demographics on such a biased sample.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:28PM (5 children)
You can let AMazon into your home in multiple ways
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202104360 [amazon.com]
https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Echo-And-Alexa-Devices/b?ie=UTF8&node=9818047011 [amazon.com]
Doesn't say it was specifically Amazon but 10 to 1 it was
(Score: 5, Interesting) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:53PM (4 children)
Funny, I don't have these issues with Amazon....because the last few orders I placed never got delivered at all. Called UPS three times, emailed them twice, contacted Amazon three times as well, and the only solution offered was for me to quit my job so I could sit at home all day waiting for my packages. Amazon wouldn't let UPS hold for pickup at one of their many nearby lockers or stores, nor would they allow me to authorize a shipment release, and UPS said they could only attempt delivery while I was at work and that I would have to ensure I was home to receive it.
So I got a refund from Amazon and used it to reorder from Newegg and the stuff arrived two days later with no issue. Fuck Amazon. Their customer service has been plummeting for years already, and at this point they are definitely more hassle than it's worth.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:47PM (3 children)
Newegg also has better search filters and usually better metadata on the items they list.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by rcamera on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:31PM (2 children)
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:53PM (1 child)
So your complaint is that they comply with the law?
There are times for civil disobedience, sure...but I wouldn't really consider defending tax evasion to be much of a moral high ground...
(Score: 2) by rcamera on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:43PM
they were given a choice; start collecting CT sales tax, or provide 3+ years of customer data. they chose the latter. then started collecting CT tax a few months later anyway.
they didn't exclude clothing from their list (which is often exempt from sales tax in the state), and they don't know where the product is being used, which could also exclude sales tax. they DID include at least 1 item in their rat-out list (for me) that was delivered to a NY address - which would be a NY sales tax issue, not CT.
/* no comment */
(Score: 3, Insightful) by iWantToKeepAnon on Tuesday December 18 2018, @07:33PM (1 child)
1st) there is no such thing,
2nd) it failed to capture video in one instance (see #1)
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 19 2018, @02:40AM
Hacker Gets The Epic Victory Royale Against Package Thieves
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:17PM (19 children)
And stop buying glitter. My dislike for thieves makes me inclined to side with this Hacker, but glitter is well on its way to becoming a polluting microplastic. It used to be metal--it's people like this with a liking for throwing it at other people that prompted the switch to plastic in the first place! Don't buy it. It's everywhere and it almost never gets recycled.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:27PM (3 children)
should I sub this?
https://www.sciencealert.com/that-cake-glitter-you-re-putting-on-your-cake-might-not-actually-be-edible [sciencealert.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:47PM
That was well worth the read for the video link named great backing track [youtube.com].
Happy 1950s sounding music telling people how they may be accidentally poisoning people they know.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:56PM
So, what you're saying is marketing people hyped up this cool cake glitter and put non-toxic on it. Then, people that don't have a clue, buy it and eat it. Instead of treating it like crayons. Non-toxic, is good, but that definitely doesn't mean edible.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:24AM
Never mind the glitter.... why are there feathers on that cake??!
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Freeman on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:51PM (13 children)
Glitter or Confetti? Here's a good idea, instead of throwing glitter / confetti or the traditional rice (generally for weddings). Try throwing bird seed, generally shouldn't be a problem for the bride, groom, graduate, and won't cause pollution or make the birds explode. Win / win / win.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Funny) by archfeld on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:01PM (10 children)
My neighbor feeds the doves by the hundreds with birdseed feeders all over her property. She is such a sweet lady but OMG I'm so tired of the bird shit on everything. I have a flat top roof with an observation deck and my telescope there and I have to cover everything and clean literally pounds of dove shit off the deck weekly. I am not normally inclined to hunt doves, the return is too small and entails to much work for a bite and a-half of dove breast, but I am considering it this year for therapeutic reasons.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:53PM (7 children)
SN holiday joy: come for the glitter bomb, stay for the dove rant
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @10:37PM (5 children)
Ok I'm lost, what does this have to do with soap?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday December 18 2018, @11:30PM (4 children)
Nothing, unless the secret ingredient in dove soap is doves.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @01:21AM
We can only hope, given the recent revelations about baby food and girl scout cookies.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:43AM (2 children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU [youtube.com]
Are Girl Scout cookies made from 100% fresh girl scouts ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday December 19 2018, @04:03PM
Better read those ingredients carefully.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:10PM
Yes.
They had to adjust the marketing the "fresh", because "100% pure extra-virgin" was causing major supply issues.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday December 18 2018, @11:10PM
I am glad to have made you happy :) Hope you have a great holiday season.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG3VcCAlUgE [youtube.com]
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 4, Funny) by hemocyanin on Wednesday December 19 2018, @05:25AM (1 child)
You could string some electric fencing around your roof near popular roosting spots. Non-lethal (probably though doves are tiny) and I would think a few zaps from that would discourage visitors. https://www.homedepot.com/p/Fi-Shock-2-Mile-Solar-Powered-Electric-Fence-Energizer-ESP2M-FS/205458885 [homedepot.com]
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday December 19 2018, @10:01AM
Or you contribute to the evolution of Electricity-resistant Super-dove Overlords (who I welcome wholeheartedly BTW)
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:36AM
Then the birds discover the practice and stalk the spouse. Surely memorable wedding footage though.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @06:49AM
I'm not sure if they switched to confetti in the meantime, but the practice in romania was to throw wheat (i.e. birdfeed), some twenty-thirty years ago.
and no, brides were not attacked by birds.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday December 20 2018, @04:31AM
But if we get rid of glitter, what are strippers going to cover their body in to get noticed?
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P