Mark Rober has multiple iterations of a glitter bomb (honey pot package)

https://youtu.be/3c584TGG7jQ?si=SdIyXyNdMiVQxFFq

oooooo.... that... does sound more like me.

You can purchase anti-theft purple die which is used in retail devices for not very much money. We had a problem in my previous building with someone getting through the locked vestibule and stealing packages. Had.

Low-tech: Install a one-way drawer thing, like what Hannibal Lecter had in his cell.

Nice, this actually is a decent compromise between current setup and whatever I ended up doing eventually. Thanks.

I don't know about now, but I think this is going to be another solid use case for robots, once we get to a certain high level of dexterity and capability in general. Could be 5-10 years or more.

Although an easier solution would be for a less capable robot to be armed with pepper spray. All couriers or visitors need to use an app or a verification code. If they don't provide it and are not in the face database and try to continue then they are pepper sprayed.

Also a good way to keep out unwanted solicitors.

The solution to porch pirates is social, not technical.

Dunno man, there are days I think a solid dose of electric current can solve a lot of social issues.

Why yes, assault is always a good option

A friend recently had a three person team break into his three flat building during broad daylight in Chicago near ORD. It took 60+ minutes for CPD to respond. Luckily, he had the pump action shotgun I had purchased him and was home at the time. CPD took the report and left. We’ve reached out to Flock for cameras for the street.

Assault is not great, but the necessary response is a function of a low trust society. Better to be safe than experience loss to life and property.

Is it assault when stuff on your property is being stolen ( lets assume it is not an innocent bystander )? Honestly asking.

As you seem to be thinking about an automated system… you should probably also check for laws against keeping an unsafe house (I can’t remember what the keyword is here, sorry).

Yes, in the US at least setting booby traps with the potential to cause harm is entirely illegal, even on private property.

Could you elaborate a little? This is admittedly not what I intended this thread for, but you got me really curious. I am ok if you focus only on the federal aspect, but I do live in Illinois if you want to try covering state portion.

I think that's reasonable, plus it is a fun subject.

For a totally accessible answer this article is hard to beat IMO: https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/

It gets to the core issue, which is that the laws as written are pretty vague, but the jurisprudence is overwhelmingly in favor of siding against booby traps. It's illegal at the federal level, and as far as I'm aware prohibited by all states as well, either explicitly or more usually through precedent in court. The reasoning of the courts seems to be more or less identical: it's a dangerous destructive device incapable of making the sort of prudent judgement required for a use of force. In short, it's an irresponsible and indiscriminate use of force.

Now you asked about Illinois in particular, so here's the relevant statute there: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...

Thank you. That was genuinely illuminating and what I love HN for.

If you had a remote door opener the Amazon driver could use after he got back outside the gate, he could release your dobermans and you would be OK.

If you had a robot dog instead, not so much.

It's banned under international law too, Protocol II. There's a few loopholes, but a good lawyer could probably get you tried for a war crime for putting a glitter bomb on a toaster.

That one is largely irrelevant in my view. International law these days ( or maybe always has been ) appears to be largely trying to channel Stalin's quip about Pope divisions.

I think the idea of international law is very appealing, but the reality, at least when we're talking about war crimes, seems to be that IHL is a way for the winners of a conflict to punish the losers. The political and military realities of trying to hold existing bodies accountable in international courts seems... difficult.

I assumed it's the opposite. The Allies got away with firebombing and nuking whatever they like. So they probably drew lines like, "Hey, you can't drop aid right next to the cluster bombs. Also when sieging a populace, they must be provided with food and given advance warning before bombardment."

Yes. Unless you're making some weird "stand your ground" Florida-law-style argument.

Accept that wherever you live has transformed from a high trust area to a low trust one.

Where I live, just leaving a package outside the fence (postman can't even get to the door) would be bonkers. And this isn't an area with a lot of crime. People just don't trust eachother much to begin with.

If I decided to order something (through Amazon) that I can't afford to have left out on the porch, I'd have it sent to one of their lockers about 200 meters away at the local Gas Station, and pick it up there.

If this happens often, consider getting a UPS drop box, or a box at your Post Office.

Otherwise, a neighbor who is home at all hours.

Buy an industrial post box, paint it black and anchor it to your porch.

Reminder that booby traps are a war crime, and that includes zapping them with lasers:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/ccw-protocol-...

I believe glitter bombs and dye packets don't qualify as "superfluous injury", but I am not a lawyer.

How about a fake camera that has some blinking LED but doesn't actually record anything?

And maybe shit in a bag and put it in a retaped Amazon box and leave it out for someone to take. Bonus points if you can stick a bunch of maggots in there that become flies by the time they open it.