Irrigation Controller Stolen, Wirelessly Rescues Itself

wooferhound sends along an amusing piece about thieves who got run over by technology and never knew what hit them. "A Rain Master Eagle-i Irrigation Controller recently stolen out of a housing development just outside of Tucson traveled nearly 80 miles before rescuing itself. The smart controller is now back in place on the wall where it was originally pinched... In this day and age, something that may look passive like an irrigation controller may not be so passive. The thieves didn't realize they were removing equipment that features 2-way wireless communications via the Internet. Three weeks later, the unexpected happened. The Maintenance Supervisor noticed a signal coming in from the stolen controller. He thought it was kind of odd that it was up and running... Whoever had stolen it had plugged it back in."

Comments

never ceases to amaze me

[v1]

how they will visually identify the stolen property, call it in, and then leave and expect it to just stay there until they get back with more badges.

I've read about this scenario repeatedly, though this is the first time I've heard of it being voluntarily returned later. Being that stupid about it they didn't deserve to get it back.

Putting on the "wild speculation" hat, I'd say that since they were obviously tipped off, that it was likely whoever was sent out to identify the item was told to leave by his commanding officer, who then tipped them off "we're coming back in 30 minutes and it better not be there when we return". Gotta love how things like that work in rural towns. Any competent law enforcement would have left the stolen property under observation until the badges showed up.

Re:PR fluff piece by an evil company

[digitig]

The company has a patent on controlling the sprinkler system remotely. This kind of patent is stupid and evil.

You're only jealous because you didn't have the idea of taking out a patent on remotely controlling a sprinkler system by means of a manually operated rotary or other valve within the fluid delivery system at a position other than the sprinkler apparatus itself (=a tap at the other end of the hosepipe).

ad

[Tom]

Anyone else read the article and thought it smells a lot like it was written by the PR department of the company that manufactures those things? Lots and lots of talks about the great and unique features of the device, very little details on the alleged crime.

If this were ZiiTrend, I'd vote 70:30 that the story is fake and PR.

Viral Marketing

[ICA]

I'm surprised I only saw about one other comment pointing out that this whole thing is most likely fake. At best, it was a real story that was published by marketing department for the parent company.

I hope it was at least something real that they chose to embellish and propagate. In either case, it all feels rather sleazy.

If you have doubts - read the story again and notice how many times the article has to mention the company that makes it by name, and how often they have to tout the various features of the device.

Re:huh?

[poisoneleven]

Why don't grow lawns in the desert? They provide a vital function of producing oxygen, cleaning the air, lowering the heat island effect and are often areas used to recharge underground aquifers. Having a lawn in the desert is good for everyone.

Re:Will be expected soon

[Firethorn]

I think the idea is sort of like the laws against false advertising. If I'm in trouble and run to where I've 'seen' a camera, so actions against me can be witnessed, I'd be pissed if it turned out to be fake and there's no video evidence of my being assaulted.

But, approach it from a different angle - the very appearance of security cameras deters crime, maybe. On the other hand, odds are fake cameras will eventually be found out, then the public will be operating on a false sense of security. Not good.

Oh, and going by crime statistics, the cameras in London don't do much good - you're worse off than NYC! I've read that cameras, at most, shifted crimes. Many times the perp would commit the crime right in front of the camera counting on the fact that a random cop or victim looking at the camera isn't going to be able to identify him - there's just too many faces. Thus the push for face recognition software. Then that gives you hurdle 2- you now know who perp Y is, but now you need to find out where he's living this week and actually send an officer around to arrest him. Police departments everywhere seem to fall down a lot on the second one. As studies have shown, actually following through(even if you 'don't have enough resources') tends to disproportionately reduce crime - after all, that purse snatcher, burgler, or mugger is very likely have committed crimes in the past, and commit more in the future if he's not caught and subjected to an effective correction*.

*Chosen over punishment. I don't care as much about the retribution portion as the 'make sure they aren't going to do it again'.