Hacker News Reader

Fair enough, but as you literally state yourself, the security system does not even help. I repeat, it does nothing.

> I literally have video of the dude grabbing shit off my porch, but can do nothing about it.

The only thing all this security theater does is aiding super convoluted scenarios where your neighbors system informs you to take your package in, if you have one currently out, and are fast enough, and are at home. In the long run, all this does for prevention is creating an arms race easily won by covering up your face and randomizing routes as the thief...

So: Make a startup selling big-ass secure post boxes. Minimize crime by, you know, education and financial aid. Kill this excessive package-delivery culture which is super damaging anyways somehow. Make the police force more efficient. Make small package-taking centrals. Whatever. I understand. But this cloud-based security is the absolute worst thing you can do.

edit: spelling

>Fair enough, but as you literally state yourself, the security system does not even help. I repeat, it does nothing.

Because it's a single system and not part of a network. If it were part of a network then, theoretically, the thief could be tracked back to their car/home and arrested. Hackernews loves to jump to the dystopian when it comes to public surveillance but somehow has a blind spot for the utopian possibilities. A sufficiently broad and technologically advanced public surveillance system would essentially eliminate crime in public. Why steal a package off a porch if you're going to be immediately identified and then automatically tracked via camera until it's convenient for the police to arrest you?

> but as you literally state yourself, the security system does not even help. I repeat, it does nothing.

My first sentence said I agree with your overall point.

In my case, the main reason we have the cameras is because my wife felt they would help her feel more secure. They have been somewhat useful and/or worthwhile for other things:

* We can see who's at the door and ignore them if they are solicitors.

* When we're not home and someone knocks on the door, we can respond to them since the camera also has a speaker. When our friends dropped off a few Christmas presents while we were out at dinner, it was cool to be able to say thanks right then.

* On the off chance a more serious crime is committed, we may have footage of it. The police don't care about package theft, but they are likely to investigate trespassing, breaking and entering, etc.

* Sometimes we see bunnies and baby raccoons meandering around the alley, which is always cute.

I'm not a big fan of the system, but it is occasionally handy or rewarding to have access to a live camera around my house.

On the point about package Theft.

This is going to be a bit ranty, so be warned...

I think people in general are kind of dumb in terms of useful vs shiny.

When I first heard about Amazon wanting to unlock your door to prevent theft, my immediate response was roughly: "It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever give control of my home access to any company".

I then went on to describe what I WOULD do, and that is purchase a box with a lock on it, chained to something. But here's the thing. There are so many low-tech ways to solve this problem.

- The aforementioned box with a child-safety lock on it and a plate on the inside lid that immediately disables the lock and springs the box open.

- An alcove in the side of your house that does essentially the same thing as the box, but looks more like a mail slot but for packages.

- The same thing as above, only in your garage door.

What these things all have in common is that they're low tech and effective, which isn't the new shiny. People are so goddamned dumb about this stuff that they would rather string up cameras everywhere, or give control of their home access to a company and allow strangers into their home. It blows my fucking mind.

And so many people haven't picked up on the fact that Amazon didn't go for the low tech solution because it doesn't lock you in. Your local chinese restaurant can just as readily use that box as Amazon can, whereas, if they haven't already started doing it, they're going to start giving other companies access to those doors and charging for it. They're going to start charging the grocery store delivery service to open that door for them, and that delivery service is going to pass that on to you. You're literally going to be paying amazon to open your goddamned door.

I feel like a sane person in a sea of crazy.

> I literally have video of the dude grabbing shit off my porch, but can do nothing about it.

In that case, what is the security system really doing for you?

Imagine if it uses facial recognition to tell you when the guy is next entering the neighborhood. Dystopian, but it could work.

> Imagine if it uses facial recognition to tell you when the guy is next entering the neighborhood. Dystopian, but it could work.

And if it misidentifies the person?

Hey, he probably deserved to be beaten up anyway. </sarcasm>

Yeah, as long as the AI consistently applies the same biases humans do, everybody's happy right? /s

Mainly it helps with my wife's anxiety. We didn't get it for package theft specifically. We have had a drug addict get into our fenced-in backyard and wander around for a while, others shit in the alley, and we sometimes hear screaming matches from addicts or mentally ill people. Having the cameras helps her feel a little safer from those kinds of people.

(Whether we are materially safer is a separate question. But given that I think we are actually quite safe in general, the product is worth it to us in terms of peace of mind alone.)

> get things shipped to work, use Amazon lockers,

These seem like reasonable solutions. Why not just do them?

> I literally have video of the dude grabbing shit off my porch, but can do nothing about it.

So what will more surveillance technology do? Maybe the innovation needed is apartment-community style mailboxes or dropboxes where only the mailperson and the tenant can have access, but scaled to single-family-home use.

>>> get things shipped to work, use Amazon lockers, >These seem like reasonable solutions. Why not just do them?

Because that's bending broken backwards to accept a broken neighbourhood and society.

Where this stops? "Drive-by's are a thing, accept it and just were a bulletproof vest, it's a sensible solution"?

Needing to safeguard your possessions lest they get stolen is a sign of a broken society? By that yardstick, every human society past and present is broken. Leaving aside small sleepy towns, everyone locks up their house, car, bicycles, and other possessions, even the people complaining about stolen packages. That's not considered an unreasonable burden, but the minute unattended packages get taken off porches everyone loses their minds.

>Needing to safeguard your possessions lest they get stolen is a sign of a broken society?

Yes. You are just probably too used to it to notice.

Decades before it didn't happen as often in places it does now (yes, it did happen in other places. No excuse for a neighbourhood to go bad though, e.g. through tons of meth/opioid addicted piling to the crime rate).

In nicer neighbourhoods it doesn't happen still.

In whole countries (like Japan) it's unthinkable.

>Leaving aside small sleepy towns, everyone locks up their house, car, bicycles, and other possessions, even the people complaining about stolen packages

In my place (like in places like Tokyo or Singapore today still) we used to sleep with open windows, and had no problems even living cars unlocked. So there's that.

In other countries (like Italy where I currently live) leaving a package unattended is unthinkable. If there is nobody home they leave a slip of paper that says there will be another attempt at delivery the next day or else you have to fetch the package in some remote dispatch center (things are getting better now and many couriers are now taking their time to call you on the phone a few minutes before they drop by; sometimes you can ask them to drop the package at neighbors or at some small shop nearby, if the owner is willing)

Sure there are police in every society but even in cities some neighborhoods have bars on their first floor windows while others don’t. And if you go out of the country, you could leave a wallet on the street or bicycle unlocked in cities in Japan or Singapore.

I think we should address the root of the problem. Why are package delivery companies just leaving these packages outside, unattended anyway? Of course they're going to get stolen in a city. Any city. That's beyond absurd and they should be held liable for their missing packages. I don't leave a thousand dollars in cash in an envelope on my porch unguarded. How about properly securing valuables first before blanketing the neighborhood in surveillance that you know doesn't work? This would possibly require an act of congress, literally, to force carriers to accept liability for their actions. As is, by having a package delivered, you're tempting people to steal it and hoping that human nature will not prevail. It's hard to have empathy for such a negligent action that's so full of ignorance about human nature.

If package theft is the problem, maybe the real solution is something closer to "Package Theft Insurance" than "Cloud-based Neighborhood Surveillance."

Package theft is not just about the money. If I buy something, I want that something, not my money back. Not mentioning that some of the things I receive may be "priceless" (understand: much more valuable than the price tag the insurance will use as a reference).

Furthermore, insurance companies don't like to lose money, and they are likely the ones to encourage you to install a surveillance network. If anything, to make sure that you aren't stealing your own packages.

==Not mentioning that some of the things I receive may be "priceless" (understand: much more valuable than the price tag the insurance will use as a reference).==

These are the types of deliveries that should require a signature for drop-off.

==Furthermore, insurance companies don't like to lose money, and they are likely the ones to encourage you to install a surveillance network.==

Profitability depends on the pricing strategy. If police departments don't act on these videos anyway (as stated prior), more of them would likely just act as a visual deterrent. No different than taping an old cell-phone to your front door.

==If anything, to make sure that you aren't stealing your own packages. ==

Fraud exists in every industry insurance companies serve.

Do US postal services offer a shipping option where you need to sign for the parcel? I'd try and opt for something like that, if possible, rather than trusting the courier to leave the package on my doorstep.

What I'm saying is, the problem isn't people stealing your packages. It's that you leave valuable property outside. Perhaps a good analogy is locking your door.

They do, but the sender would have to pay extra for a signature requirement, so this is not something the receiver can do anything about.