ShareThis Page
NASA engineer gets revenge on package thieves with glitter, fart spray |
More Lifestyles

NASA engineer gets revenge on package thieves with glitter, fart spray

Steven Adams
| Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:00 p.m
Mark Rober places the bait outside his home.

Are porch pirates stealing your Amazon boxes from your front door before you can fetch them? One man is getting revenge.

Mark Rober’s background as a NASA engineer and YouTube personality was perfect preparation to design a package-thief trap that records video of the perpetrator’s reaction.

Rober on Monday shared his video, titled “Package Thief vs. Glitter Bomb Trap,” with his 4 million followers.

He explains that he wanted to get back at the people who steal packages from outside homes where delivery services have them unsecured and visible from the street. He spent 6 months designing the perfect trap.

Rober used an empty Apple product box as the bait and loaded it with some sophisticated gadgets.

Sensors detect when the package has left the victim’s front porch. Four cell phone cameras then begin recording video and uploading the footage and GPS data to remote servers. When the thief opens the package a shower of glitter emerges via a motorized launcher.

The second assault is several bursts of foul odor from a store-bought can of prank fart spray.

The cameras are rolling as the thief gets covered in glitter and inhales the stink. Expletives fly. The device is cast aside.

And, theoretically, a lesson has been learned. Or, at least, a gadget geek has been entertained.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.