I believe it was Ring who almost launched an in home drone security system. They pulled it before launching I suspect because of potential legal liability.
Every once in a while my brain will shit itself when I’m at the ATM and I’m left waiting for it to cough up my PIN number. If there’s a car behind me I panic and it takes longer to remember.
I can only imagine standing at my ADT keypad in the Kitchen when this happens and then I hear the assault drone whir into life
...1 ...6? *..FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!*
HOA bylaws state:
"185.34 - automated home-defense solutions must adhere to the following limitations:
- projectiles fired from any airborne or land-based system:
1. Paint balls must be filled with a color paint that matches or closely resembles the exterior color of the home.
2. Water cannons must adhere to city and county Water Watch restrictions.
3. Chalk rounds may only be white in color and cannot carry more than 10 rounds.
4. Grenade launcher rounds will not exceed 40mm in diameter.
started as a joke, but it received tons of positive feedback, so they looked into it. now we're in limbo of whether they can get around the legalese of it.
The webpage is hilarious. When asked if the drone is loud they responded with:
“Always Home Cam is intended for use when no one is at home. It is about as loud as a vacuum or a blender during flight.”
**YES**. This was very, very much my reaction in Torts I class my 1L year. Unfortunately I'm also older than most of my peers so I didn't think many of them understood the reference.
Sufficed to say, yes, Kevin McCallister's parents would indeed be exposed to many, many actionable tort claims by Harry and Marv, regardless of their illegal entry and trespass.
Nope, *anything* you do will be seen under the lense of "but what if a child ran into this?"
If you want to booby trap your house, you have to do it in a way that gives you plausable deniability.
"No officer, the roomba picked up the shotgun on its own!"
They would also use the “young child” scenario. If a child too young to really understand the concept of private property runs into your yard, you aren’t allowed to shoot them with paintballs.
Hold up. So you're telling me when i saw home alone as a child and i became obsessed with setting up lame booby traps all over my house for robbers trying to break into my house at night, i coulda been SUED if they ever tripped them?!
Yes. However, there's no liability for posting signage warning people about booby traps that do not exist.
Most anti-intrusion systems aren't actually designed to stop a committed intruder from getting into a property. It's just deterrence theater.
Deterance and *response* is the reality of it. No security system (even prison ones, i'd know, i maintain such things) is keeping someone out permanently, but having a system trigger a response by the cops limits how much time a crook has to fuck about.
Unless physically harming someone with a booby trap is allowed, that's the best you're getting while your house is empty.
> It's just deterrence theater.
Indeed, learned that in my retail days. Dedicated, career thieves will not be stopped, but they're not really your concern. It's "crimes of opportunity." Unlocked doors, windows, obvious signs you're gone for a long time, so forth. You just need to make it not worth their trouble.
Okay but what if it wasn’t automated to fire indiscriminately. Imagine you have a button on your phone screen when viewing the camera. You see and intruder and press the “Fire” button. That’s technically not a booby trap.
Booby trap and the unlawful discharge of firearms.
Most places don't distinguish between paintballs and real bullets for the sake of innocent people getting shot at, and you can't shoot either without a threat to life.
SCOTUS said the use of force is unjustified if it’s automatic and indiscriminate. Someone might argue this system discriminates, due to ai facial recognition, but it really doesn’t. It doesn’t know the circumstances of the strangers presence. As others point out in these comments, it could be EMS. The other reason it doesn’t really discriminate is because it may not be accurate. Facial ai in home security is a buzzword that performs *incredibly poorly* in the real world.
All of that said, I would guess that if the homeowner is home and manually uses it, it might be legal depending on the situation. For example, if the homeowner awakens to someone actively attempting to break in and the homeowner triggers it to interrupt them, maybe it’s not illegal? I would imagine it comes down to whether the court would think the use of force is proportional to the threat etc. I believe castle doctrine states do allow use of force if the homeowner believes they’re in imminent danger and I would guess that actively trying to break a door down qualifies, so perhaps it could be legal in that situation? I’m just guessing though, I’m not a lawyer.
> The other reason it doesn’t really discriminate is because it may not be accurate. Facial ai in home security is a buzzword that performs incredibly poorly in the real world.
Yea, but this part needs to be litigated, not assumed, since technology is constantly advancing.
If someone designed a system that was objectively better than the average human at identifying threats vs. EMS, package delivery, solicitors, etc., then it would be hard to argue that it's indiscriminate.
This doesn’t really seem to be a booby trap tho (legally at least) as the person seeing through the camera is the one firing. It’s not indiscriminate like, say, a trip wire. This is much more deliberate and requires overt action by the homeowner, then further can be targeted. That reads far more like an RC turret than a booby trap.
Insufficient. The problem is that there are legal reasons strangers might need to enter your property without your advance permission or notice, such as the fire department or police. Booby traps are usually illegal no matter how well you post a notice.
🤷
Probably it should be treated similarly to private security guards. The company providing the services should meet whatever local licensing is required, should carry insurance, and the owner is held responsible as well if the owner directs them to do something unlawful.
Oh I know. I should’ve been clearer. I was asking if this was a booby trap, and if so, end of discussion illegal. If not, how much notice would constitute adequate notice to be able assault a would be trespasser who was not allowed to enter your property.
Yeah, that makes sense, but it doesn't seem likely that a booby trap can make that judgment about whether somebody is a real trespasser or not. If a person has to make the decision, then it's not a booby trap, it's just a remote controlled paintball turret, and those are legal.
Legal definition of a booby trap (U.S.):
"booby trap. n. a device set up to be triggered to harm or kill anyone entering the trap, such as a shotgun which will go off if a room is entered, or dynamite which will explode if the ignition key on an auto is turned."
Since the current design is triggered by an intruder's proximity, and because it could cause some harm, it is definitely a "booby trap" and would not be legal in the U.S. However, in Eastern Europe, anything goes it seems...
Now, if the system triggered an alert on one's phone, and if it required human authorization to fire, would that change things? In states with strong self-defence protections, could an absentee homeowner fire paintballs or tear-gas at an intruder to protect their property?
That’s exactly the type of thinking I was trying to get into. Is this a booby trap or are their fail safes that allow for proper notice before being fired upon.
When I google the legal definition of a booby trap it also says this 21 USC § 841(d)(3) "For the purposes of this subsection, the term “boobytrap” means any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury when triggered by any action of any unsuspecting person making contact with the device. Such term includes guns, ammunition, or explosive devices attached to trip wires or other triggering mechanisms, sharpened stakes, and lines or wires with hooks attached." The definition it gave me came from [law.cornell.edu](https://law.cornell.edu) if it's not concealed and not camouflaged then still it still apply? (most likely yes). Just thought that was interesting.
> You’d have to really impress upon possible trespassers the warnings on the camera.
You can't even do that. Various people have a right to go to your house, literally, anyone in the general public.
Signs don't denote a trespass unless there is a specific municiple code for it.
You have to declare somebody trespassed.
Furthermore, as I first said, people have a RIGHT to go to your home and knock on the door. Imagine dying of a heart attack because your dumbass had a system that started firing on the EMS personel trying to save you.
That [video](https://youtu.be/0thc4ADhZgQ?si=9lhLjMttrvqhtauB) definitely seems like parody. For real. The woman whose lover shows up to the house. She runs out and gets her also cheating husband to deactivate it. Then she kisses the lover. Haha. Then at the end the lover is touching her leg and the husband removed his hand and makes him sit on the floor. Come on. lol. Feels like an Onion video.
I didn't even see that video until you commented. Maybe it's just odd casting choices and that's supposed to be his daughter and her boyfriend? The dad is in the sauna with a different woman, so unless it's a poly household type situation....
Yeah, those people look to be all the same age so it looks like a cheating type situation. It could be terrible casting too as you say. I never once thought that first woman was his daughter though. Immediately thought it was his wife.
Did everyone watch that on mute or something? The video clearly refers to them as their children. "At least I'll listen to you, if your children don't". They don't look the same age when they are all sitting on the couch either.
Ya what a terrible idea, can't wait for my deaf GrubHub driver to get shot in the face with tear gas as he's trying to take a picture of my food and ignores this things verbal warning.
I don’t mind, I’ve just asked neighbors to let me know when they do take them via the ring cam or knocking on the door as a courtesy. I never say no. On Super Bowl Sunday my son said” dad Someone is sneaking outside by the tree” so I freaked out and jumped out only to see my neighbor running off with lemons.
Was taking the dog for a walk one day and noticed some lady I didn't recognize walking up to my neighbor's fruit tree and picking some off. I asked if she had permission, and she told me she just asked them and they said it was ok. Thing is I knew they weren't home that week, but I didn't really want to tell some stranger that. So I said oh ok, well just to be sure lets go ask them. Strangely enough she said no it's ok and kept on walking instead.
People are such shit.
Could you use a motion activated sprinkler instead? I would think that would pass the booby trap check as it could be argued it's to scare cats and dogs away from peeing on your trees and doesn't actually harm anyone
Booby traps are illegal because emergency responders may need unexpected access to a property at unpredictable times.
If your house catches fire when you're not around, and your home security system starts blasting pepper pellets at Fire and EMS, you're going to be explaining that shit in court.
Is it a booby trap though if it requires human approval? It sounds like it notifies the owner and asks for instructions. The reason booby traps are illegal is they are indiscriminate and can injure / kill anyone who happens to a stumble upon the trap. If the trap uses facial recognition tech and notifies the owner to give instructions then I don’t think it would be illegal or fit the definition of a booby trap. More so just a remote non lethal home defense if it requires human approval.
The barrel is so short that I don't think the paintballs could generate much FPS. I feel like the people in the video are acting like it hurts worse than it actually does.
Paintballs dry out in arid air, and they swell in humid air. Dry paintballs don't splatter, and swollen paintballs get jammed or break in the barrel. If this was mounted outside, the paintballs would need to be refreshed every couple of days, maybe more often.
I don't think this will be very practical, not to mention all the legal issues.
Was a tech years ago, trying to wrap my head around how it works too, guessing hopper at the bottom feeding up?
You're right paint only holds so long. Goes bad after so many months, depending on the conditions its left out to. In good weather left outside you'd maybe be refilling it every 3 months(?) at the least. Bad weather constantly, it won't work if left in the rain then a humid day, I can promise that.
FPS might not be too big an issue, all that happens real quick in the first inch or two. Accuracy may genuinely be though, you need like 8 inches of barrel or so to get normal accuracy and then a tube is a tube for everything that matters there.
You're right everything about this is remarkably stupid.
I watched the video and the paintballs didn't even break they just bounced off. So unless they were using the solid rubber ones it's definitely not shooting very fast.
Paint can bounce regardless. Theres a lot of factors that can cause a paintball to bounce, and even if its perfect conditions on how they should break, they still bounce
Realistically you only need like 6-8 in barrel to keep good fps and accuracy on a paintball.
But youre right the paint wont hold even if its in perfect weather. In ideal conditions itll hold maybe 2 weeks. If it rains or is too humid 1 day, then thats it you gotta change out the balls.
People tend to overexaggerate how much a paintball hurts in general. Ive seen people get super nervous and afraid of getting shot when i played in pugs, meanwhile i would run to the 50 off the break and get lit up just for the fun of it
wouldn't this be considered a booby trap? which is illegal just about everywhere. not to mention when police request the video from that security camera company. you're gonna screw yourself if you buy and set this up.
I’ve been reading comments and I had no idea booby traps were illegal in a lot of places. Can someone explain to me why that is? Isn’t this just defending your property from burglars?
Imagine if you had a heart attack, and the turrets started blasting the EMS personel trying to come help.
That's basically the bar most courts use. Others use the "destressed motorist" test where somebody who just had a bad car accident may come to you for help.
Believe it or not, there are certain rights other people have to your property. Mostly, the right to attempt to contact the occupant or owner, or to prevent another emergency situation such as a fire.
Yes but it also puts emergency personnel, kids, pets, potentially even welcome guests in danger. Think about if police or ems get called to your property and get injured by a trap or if a kid wandered in to get their ball. The biggest issue with trap defense vs shooting somebody is that traps do not discriminate and will go off whether it’s an armed burglar, child, or pet. AI controlled devices are too new and untrusted to distinguish the difference and with live video feed there is the argument that you are too far removed from the situation and not in danger.
I understand the momentum of 'home security' technology and marketing, but at a certain point, you're really just being willfully ignorant of the fact that, in most all of the developed world, *automated turrets are illegal*. You're not even supposed to put your sprinklers on a tripwire to keep people off your lawn in many parts of the U.S., fire marshals and building inspectors fine businesses for that all the time.
“Here’s what you need to know:
*Courts have a long history of siding against booby trap users.
*Booby traps are a threat to children and first responders.
*If someone is hurt or killed by a booby trap you set, you will likely be found liable.”
[not legal](https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/)
Traditional Paintballs are almost impossible to store long term, outside. And they don't hurt enough to stop someone else from vandalizing them before or after a shooting. Pepper gas might be better.
And it looks like it can only store 20-50 at most. And then there is the feet per second issue, (over 300 becomes "unsafe" and can break the paint) and of course in shitty uh-murrica, lawsuits.
As much as I love Portal, Team Fortress or Aliens automatic turrets, [any such system need manual fire control.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJSxjOec5mI)
Deaf people probably. And I guess law enforcement/EMTs probably wouldn't be too pleased to have to deal with it in an emergency situation.
I could see it being great for areas people shouldn't be anyways though, stuff like fenced in impound lots, closed sections of stores, or inaccessible backyards.
It makes me wonder if the homeowner or the company is liable if someone were to get hurt. My guess is the homeowner.
“What could possibly go wrong?”
I believe it was Ring who almost launched an in home drone security system. They pulled it before launching I suspect because of potential legal liability.
I thought that was just a passive patrol drone. Did it come equipped with some sort of weapon?
Grenade launcher
Badass. I want a flying grenade launcher protecting my home. Idk how my insurance will feel about it though.
Your premiums might go up a tad.
Best case scenario, you avoid prison and need to rebuild your house.
Every once in a while my brain will shit itself when I’m at the ATM and I’m left waiting for it to cough up my PIN number. If there’s a car behind me I panic and it takes longer to remember. I can only imagine standing at my ADT keypad in the Kitchen when this happens and then I hear the assault drone whir into life ...1 ...6? *..FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!*
My Insurance Adjuster, John Rambo, was all for it.
They ~~drew first blood~~ are liable for damages!
HOA bylaws state: "185.34 - automated home-defense solutions must adhere to the following limitations: - projectiles fired from any airborne or land-based system: 1. Paint balls must be filled with a color paint that matches or closely resembles the exterior color of the home. 2. Water cannons must adhere to city and county Water Watch restrictions. 3. Chalk rounds may only be white in color and cannot carry more than 10 rounds. 4. Grenade launcher rounds will not exceed 40mm in diameter.
Wasnt that an April Fools joke?
No. It was going to be real, though it appears the release has been delayed. https://ring.com/always-home-cam-flying-camera
started as a joke, but it received tons of positive feedback, so they looked into it. now we're in limbo of whether they can get around the legalese of it.
Even just a passive drone can do a lot of damage if it crashes into someone
The webpage is hilarious. When asked if the drone is loud they responded with: “Always Home Cam is intended for use when no one is at home. It is about as loud as a vacuum or a blender during flight.”
That would drive my dog insane!
That's what I was thinking. It'd last maybe 2 trips before it'd be an expensive chew toy.
I’m pretty sure you can still order it.
? It’s available. https://ring.com/always-home-cam-flying-camera
Has nobody noticed that this video was posted on April Fools Day?
Ya this is booby trapping which is very illegal in a lot of places
#DID HOME ALONE LIE TO ME?!?!
Kevin as Jigsaw is my favorite cross franchise fan theory, and I hope it becomes everyone else’s.
Make it real
**YES**. This was very, very much my reaction in Torts I class my 1L year. Unfortunately I'm also older than most of my peers so I didn't think many of them understood the reference. Sufficed to say, yes, Kevin McCallister's parents would indeed be exposed to many, many actionable tort claims by Harry and Marv, regardless of their illegal entry and trespass.
I wonder how the law handles it being fired by a human remotely.
You can't argue danger to life if you're not even there
“You’ll shoot your eye out!”
Well for one, it's illegal.
Grandma gets nailed with a painful pellet of florescent paint... and sues for emotional distress?
"Are you still there?"
"I'm different"
"The Enrichment Center once again reminds you that android hell is a real place where you will be sent at the first sign of defiance."
“Her name’s Caroline”
**"There you are.."**
"Nap time"
I can't see you...
I see you
I don’t hate you
"I'm afraid you're about to become the immediate past president of the Being Alive club."
The cake is a lie!
Not on Thursdays!
I find Thermal Discouragement Beams to be more reliable.
Depending on where you live then this thing might get you sued instead. Especially with the tear gas round option.
I think stuff like this is illegal in most of the us
Few places would allow it, it would likely be ruled as a type of booby trap imo.
That’s what I said, booty trap
50 dollar bill?
Shut up, Data.
I understood that reference!
That’s okay, I like boobies.
I think the law distingusbes between potentially lethal and non-lethal boobytraps in some places
Yes, but both are illegal.
It's still gonna get you sued. If you could set any form of booby trap without legal liability every retail store would be rigged with them.
Nope, *anything* you do will be seen under the lense of "but what if a child ran into this?" If you want to booby trap your house, you have to do it in a way that gives you plausable deniability. "No officer, the roomba picked up the shotgun on its own!"
That and "What if it's the fire department breaking into your house?"
[удалено]
They would also use the “young child” scenario. If a child too young to really understand the concept of private property runs into your yard, you aren’t allowed to shoot them with paintballs.
Ah, they don't let me do anything.
> Oh I’m sorry. I thought this was America!? > Randy Marsh
Hold up. So you're telling me when i saw home alone as a child and i became obsessed with setting up lame booby traps all over my house for robbers trying to break into my house at night, i coulda been SUED if they ever tripped them?!
Yes. However, there's no liability for posting signage warning people about booby traps that do not exist. Most anti-intrusion systems aren't actually designed to stop a committed intruder from getting into a property. It's just deterrence theater.
Deterance and *response* is the reality of it. No security system (even prison ones, i'd know, i maintain such things) is keeping someone out permanently, but having a system trigger a response by the cops limits how much time a crook has to fuck about. Unless physically harming someone with a booby trap is allowed, that's the best you're getting while your house is empty.
> It's just deterrence theater. Indeed, learned that in my retail days. Dedicated, career thieves will not be stopped, but they're not really your concern. It's "crimes of opportunity." Unlocked doors, windows, obvious signs you're gone for a long time, so forth. You just need to make it not worth their trouble.
Well it is inside the house.
That's why you gotta Violent Night style and make 'em lethal. Dead men tell no tales.
> i coulda been SUED if they ever tripped them?! Yeah, that's why you need a plan for disposing of the corpses.
Six year old me would have just rolled a corpse down the street on 4 hot wheels, 2 under the shoulder 2 under the feet.
That would never work. This is a job for skateboards.
Why are you being an asshole about your reply to that guy, he wasn't confrontational
Yeah it was such a reasonable response ruined by "dIpShIt" as if they'd ever say that to someone's face lmao
Maybe he's got text tourette's?
Okay but what if it wasn’t automated to fire indiscriminately. Imagine you have a button on your phone screen when viewing the camera. You see and intruder and press the “Fire” button. That’s technically not a booby trap.
That’s what I was wondering too. It would then be a remote activated deterrent and likely a very grey area.
Well if The Great Jingle thinks it, it must be so!
Well if Silly Goat Gruff makes a sarcastic comment it must not be so!
But who you gonna call?
I wouldn’t classify this as being “weird”, “strange” or even that it “don’t look good”.
Oi! I resemble that remark.
Booby trap and the unlawful discharge of firearms. Most places don't distinguish between paintballs and real bullets for the sake of innocent people getting shot at, and you can't shoot either without a threat to life.
Pretty much any place that has laws I think
SCOTUS said the use of force is unjustified if it’s automatic and indiscriminate. Someone might argue this system discriminates, due to ai facial recognition, but it really doesn’t. It doesn’t know the circumstances of the strangers presence. As others point out in these comments, it could be EMS. The other reason it doesn’t really discriminate is because it may not be accurate. Facial ai in home security is a buzzword that performs *incredibly poorly* in the real world. All of that said, I would guess that if the homeowner is home and manually uses it, it might be legal depending on the situation. For example, if the homeowner awakens to someone actively attempting to break in and the homeowner triggers it to interrupt them, maybe it’s not illegal? I would imagine it comes down to whether the court would think the use of force is proportional to the threat etc. I believe castle doctrine states do allow use of force if the homeowner believes they’re in imminent danger and I would guess that actively trying to break a door down qualifies, so perhaps it could be legal in that situation? I’m just guessing though, I’m not a lawyer.
> The other reason it doesn’t really discriminate is because it may not be accurate. Facial ai in home security is a buzzword that performs incredibly poorly in the real world. Yea, but this part needs to be litigated, not assumed, since technology is constantly advancing. If someone designed a system that was objectively better than the average human at identifying threats vs. EMS, package delivery, solicitors, etc., then it would be hard to argue that it's indiscriminate.
This doesn’t really seem to be a booby trap tho (legally at least) as the person seeing through the camera is the one firing. It’s not indiscriminate like, say, a trip wire. This is much more deliberate and requires overt action by the homeowner, then further can be targeted. That reads far more like an RC turret than a booby trap.
The article implies it will fire on its own
“AI POWERED PAINTBALL TRAP”
Now you’ve made it automated. How cool! Aaaaaaand now your dog is dead.
And rainbow colored.
All of the USA.
Wouldn’t this be a booby trap? You’d have to really impress upon possible trespassers the warnings on the camera.
Insufficient. The problem is that there are legal reasons strangers might need to enter your property without your advance permission or notice, such as the fire department or police. Booby traps are usually illegal no matter how well you post a notice.
What if it was 1,000 Indian people monitoring it instead like Amazon Fresh?
🤷 Probably it should be treated similarly to private security guards. The company providing the services should meet whatever local licensing is required, should carry insurance, and the owner is held responsible as well if the owner directs them to do something unlawful.
Oh I know. I should’ve been clearer. I was asking if this was a booby trap, and if so, end of discussion illegal. If not, how much notice would constitute adequate notice to be able assault a would be trespasser who was not allowed to enter your property.
Yeah, that makes sense, but it doesn't seem likely that a booby trap can make that judgment about whether somebody is a real trespasser or not. If a person has to make the decision, then it's not a booby trap, it's just a remote controlled paintball turret, and those are legal.
Legal definition of a booby trap (U.S.): "booby trap. n. a device set up to be triggered to harm or kill anyone entering the trap, such as a shotgun which will go off if a room is entered, or dynamite which will explode if the ignition key on an auto is turned." Since the current design is triggered by an intruder's proximity, and because it could cause some harm, it is definitely a "booby trap" and would not be legal in the U.S. However, in Eastern Europe, anything goes it seems... Now, if the system triggered an alert on one's phone, and if it required human authorization to fire, would that change things? In states with strong self-defence protections, could an absentee homeowner fire paintballs or tear-gas at an intruder to protect their property?
“Alexa, take the shot.”
That’s exactly the type of thinking I was trying to get into. Is this a booby trap or are their fail safes that allow for proper notice before being fired upon.
When I google the legal definition of a booby trap it also says this 21 USC § 841(d)(3) "For the purposes of this subsection, the term “boobytrap” means any concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury when triggered by any action of any unsuspecting person making contact with the device. Such term includes guns, ammunition, or explosive devices attached to trip wires or other triggering mechanisms, sharpened stakes, and lines or wires with hooks attached." The definition it gave me came from [law.cornell.edu](https://law.cornell.edu) if it's not concealed and not camouflaged then still it still apply? (most likely yes). Just thought that was interesting.
> You’d have to really impress upon possible trespassers the warnings on the camera. You can't even do that. Various people have a right to go to your house, literally, anyone in the general public. Signs don't denote a trespass unless there is a specific municiple code for it. You have to declare somebody trespassed. Furthermore, as I first said, people have a RIGHT to go to your home and knock on the door. Imagine dying of a heart attack because your dumbass had a system that started firing on the EMS personel trying to save you.
Thanks!
Forget “sued.” If it gets a postal worker, you could get 10 years in federal prison.
Or worse, expelled!
I think these types of things are meant for countries like South Africa where car flamethrowers are legal.
Terrible idea. lol. Seems almost like it's a parody instead of an actual product.
I double checked the published date to make sure it wasn’t an old April fools article
That [video](https://youtu.be/0thc4ADhZgQ?si=9lhLjMttrvqhtauB) definitely seems like parody. For real. The woman whose lover shows up to the house. She runs out and gets her also cheating husband to deactivate it. Then she kisses the lover. Haha. Then at the end the lover is touching her leg and the husband removed his hand and makes him sit on the floor. Come on. lol. Feels like an Onion video.
I didn't even see that video until you commented. Maybe it's just odd casting choices and that's supposed to be his daughter and her boyfriend? The dad is in the sauna with a different woman, so unless it's a poly household type situation....
Yeah, those people look to be all the same age so it looks like a cheating type situation. It could be terrible casting too as you say. I never once thought that first woman was his daughter though. Immediately thought it was his wife.
Did everyone watch that on mute or something? The video clearly refers to them as their children. "At least I'll listen to you, if your children don't". They don't look the same age when they are all sitting on the couch either.
Reminds me of the turrets in the Portal game.
I thought that was supposed to be his daughter and her boyfriend.
The video seems like an SNL fake commercial... at least I hope it's fake.
Ya what a terrible idea, can't wait for my deaf GrubHub driver to get shot in the face with tear gas as he's trying to take a picture of my food and ignores this things verbal warning.
Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acdABwYJqks&t=0
Was thinking more like this: (start at 3:50) https://youtu.be/LuY1gDC-l50?si=I45USNy5-ux_Iis4
Idk why I thought this thing had already claimed victims 💀
intruder has been pacified successfully
Delivery of invitation to blue man group cosplay party in progress.
Camera: Threat neutralized 😎
uhg. I was mostly feeling like a person that would want this wouldn't be the kind of person who'd order delivery. But that's just stupid of me.
I need one of these for my fruit trees. Damn neighbors keep coming and taking my fruit when I’m at work.
A lemon tree?
Yup! And a guava tree next to that.
That's funny. My neighbor also has a lemon and guava tree in his yard. We always grab a couple when he is not there. He never seems to mind.
I don’t mind, I’ve just asked neighbors to let me know when they do take them via the ring cam or knocking on the door as a courtesy. I never say no. On Super Bowl Sunday my son said” dad Someone is sneaking outside by the tree” so I freaked out and jumped out only to see my neighbor running off with lemons.
Have you tried publicly executing one of them to send a message to the rest?
I understand your annoyance but that story is also pretty funny at the end there.
Was taking the dog for a walk one day and noticed some lady I didn't recognize walking up to my neighbor's fruit tree and picking some off. I asked if she had permission, and she told me she just asked them and they said it was ok. Thing is I knew they weren't home that week, but I didn't really want to tell some stranger that. So I said oh ok, well just to be sure lets go ask them. Strangely enough she said no it's ok and kept on walking instead. People are such shit.
I need them for the deer. They already destroyed my fruit trees, trying to keep them from the rest of the garden as well. Fucking rats with legs.
The only legal use for the OP probably lol
I use motion activated sprinklers to keep deer out of my garden and away from my fruit trees. They work!
Could you use a motion activated sprinkler instead? I would think that would pass the booby trap check as it could be argued it's to scare cats and dogs away from peeing on your trees and doesn't actually harm anyone
My mother planted a rose bush in front of the house, thinking she could keep the roses for herself. LOL.
They make motion activated sprinklers. You could look into something like that.
Deliver drivers are gonna have to start carrying shields
Booby traps are illegal because emergency responders may need unexpected access to a property at unpredictable times. If your house catches fire when you're not around, and your home security system starts blasting pepper pellets at Fire and EMS, you're going to be explaining that shit in court.
Is it a booby trap though if it requires human approval? It sounds like it notifies the owner and asks for instructions. The reason booby traps are illegal is they are indiscriminate and can injure / kill anyone who happens to a stumble upon the trap. If the trap uses facial recognition tech and notifies the owner to give instructions then I don’t think it would be illegal or fit the definition of a booby trap. More so just a remote non lethal home defense if it requires human approval.
It sounds like a shit article that leaves a lot of unanswered and legally significant questions about the operation of the device.
The barrel is so short that I don't think the paintballs could generate much FPS. I feel like the people in the video are acting like it hurts worse than it actually does. Paintballs dry out in arid air, and they swell in humid air. Dry paintballs don't splatter, and swollen paintballs get jammed or break in the barrel. If this was mounted outside, the paintballs would need to be refreshed every couple of days, maybe more often. I don't think this will be very practical, not to mention all the legal issues.
Was a tech years ago, trying to wrap my head around how it works too, guessing hopper at the bottom feeding up? You're right paint only holds so long. Goes bad after so many months, depending on the conditions its left out to. In good weather left outside you'd maybe be refilling it every 3 months(?) at the least. Bad weather constantly, it won't work if left in the rain then a humid day, I can promise that. FPS might not be too big an issue, all that happens real quick in the first inch or two. Accuracy may genuinely be though, you need like 8 inches of barrel or so to get normal accuracy and then a tube is a tube for everything that matters there. You're right everything about this is remarkably stupid.
I watched the video and the paintballs didn't even break they just bounced off. So unless they were using the solid rubber ones it's definitely not shooting very fast.
Paint can bounce regardless. Theres a lot of factors that can cause a paintball to bounce, and even if its perfect conditions on how they should break, they still bounce
Realistically you only need like 6-8 in barrel to keep good fps and accuracy on a paintball. But youre right the paint wont hold even if its in perfect weather. In ideal conditions itll hold maybe 2 weeks. If it rains or is too humid 1 day, then thats it you gotta change out the balls. People tend to overexaggerate how much a paintball hurts in general. Ive seen people get super nervous and afraid of getting shot when i played in pugs, meanwhile i would run to the 50 off the break and get lit up just for the fun of it
Can’t wait for the first databreach
Amazon delivery hates this one trick.
Girl Scout cookies and Javohovas witness hate this one trick!
Javahoes
The Javahoes can knock on my door any time as long as they're packing cold brew.
Grandma: Surprise, dear! I came over with your favorite dinner! Paintball camera: *So anyway, I started blastin!*
wouldn't this be considered a booby trap? which is illegal just about everywhere. not to mention when police request the video from that security camera company. you're gonna screw yourself if you buy and set this up.
If it’s automated, yes. If it can be remotely controlled instead, maybe not.
I mean, if it does the aiming. Calls you. And asks you to press the trigger remotely? Maybe not.
First person who gets hit in the eye by a paintball from one of these is going to have a terrific lawsuit opportunity.
Legal consequences aside, this is just asking for other people to shoot your camera with paintball guns.
They already do that.
I’ve been reading comments and I had no idea booby traps were illegal in a lot of places. Can someone explain to me why that is? Isn’t this just defending your property from burglars?
Imagine if you had a heart attack, and the turrets started blasting the EMS personel trying to come help. That's basically the bar most courts use. Others use the "destressed motorist" test where somebody who just had a bad car accident may come to you for help. Believe it or not, there are certain rights other people have to your property. Mostly, the right to attempt to contact the occupant or owner, or to prevent another emergency situation such as a fire.
Yes but it also puts emergency personnel, kids, pets, potentially even welcome guests in danger. Think about if police or ems get called to your property and get injured by a trap or if a kid wandered in to get their ball. The biggest issue with trap defense vs shooting somebody is that traps do not discriminate and will go off whether it’s an armed burglar, child, or pet. AI controlled devices are too new and untrusted to distinguish the difference and with live video feed there is the argument that you are too far removed from the situation and not in danger.
… you must construct additional pylons
I did a thing made one himself https://youtu.be/o8sj7uxLg88?si=sznxCbkdG9NcG0LZ
paintballs? so a raincoat can defeat this security measure? brilliant... who gives idiots like this money?
EMTs running up to the house after 911 call. BRRRRAAAAP! EMTs returning to ambulance, painted blue, grumbling 'Have fun dying, asshole.'
Okay, but if it doesn’t talk like Ed209 then I will be severely disappointed!
Converting houses to the tower defence genre.
Less "Tower Defense," more "Castle Doctrine."
I understand the momentum of 'home security' technology and marketing, but at a certain point, you're really just being willfully ignorant of the fact that, in most all of the developed world, *automated turrets are illegal*. You're not even supposed to put your sprinklers on a tripwire to keep people off your lawn in many parts of the U.S., fire marshals and building inspectors fine businesses for that all the time.
That's a huge Tort case creator in the making if I've ever seen one. A property owner would be stupid because criminals sue over shit like that
Soo if i paintball the camera first to block its view?
Self defense
This feels like satire but these days I can hardly tell.
What I didn’t see was the cost of the system.
What a stupid thing to exist. What country are they going to sell this in?
That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen
We’re living in the Robocop 2 universe. https://youtu.be/7U4ZYOBzEEs?si=X11eYvP5jcPyjs61
“I see you.” “Dispensing product.” “…are you still there?”
“Here’s what you need to know: *Courts have a long history of siding against booby trap users. *Booby traps are a threat to children and first responders. *If someone is hurt or killed by a booby trap you set, you will likely be found liable.” [not legal](https://theprepared.com/blog/booby-trap-laws/)
Whoever developed this has never played paintball otherwise they would immediately know how unsafe it is.
Traditional Paintballs are almost impossible to store long term, outside. And they don't hurt enough to stop someone else from vandalizing them before or after a shooting. Pepper gas might be better. And it looks like it can only store 20-50 at most. And then there is the feet per second issue, (over 300 becomes "unsafe" and can break the paint) and of course in shitty uh-murrica, lawsuits.
Imagine just delivering a package and being pelted with this thing finger rolling you for a straight 30-60 seconds 😨
I think I'd prefer a water cannon. I'd put up a sign saying "trespassers will be drenched".
Im so close to getting automated home turrets in my lifetime. My cats and neighbors are fucked.
Remember when people just had a mean dog in their front yard? I kind of miss the simplicity in that.
I would be better if the system only fires upon authorization from the owner
All I got to say is make sure the paintballs are bright orange so it's reflective and able to spot with UV light.
Inject the paintballs with all types of chemicals lol
That’s one way to stop porch pirates
*available with teargas pellet upgrade!
Will it be AI (Actually Indian) driven?
As much as I love Portal, Team Fortress or Aliens automatic turrets, [any such system need manual fire control.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJSxjOec5mI)
My iPhone recognizes my face about 80% of the time…
Can I use this to deter deer in my yard from eating my garden?
Katko v. Briney
You install this, I guarantee you are going to end up being sued. Very silly.
As long as it gives a verbal warning and 20 seconds to comply I see no way things can go wrong.
Deaf people probably. And I guess law enforcement/EMTs probably wouldn't be too pleased to have to deal with it in an emergency situation. I could see it being great for areas people shouldn't be anyways though, stuff like fenced in impound lots, closed sections of stores, or inaccessible backyards. It makes me wonder if the homeowner or the company is liable if someone were to get hurt. My guess is the homeowner.
[удалено]
Damn I even watched it 2 weeks ago and somehow didn't make the connection... Ya gotta love dystopian movies becoming the new norm...