Matt Crawford wrote: > How do the tiny particles know that it's not a civilian > illuminating them with ultraviolet light? > > And how does Wired reporter Robert Andrews fail to ask that question?
And other people complain about how someone can spray their paint on someone else's valuable and then call the police. These arguments remind me of Peter Gutmann's recent post to the list about "good enough" security... You can make the same arguments about the DNA signature in blood. A civilian can analyze it. It is conceivable that someone can get a sample of someone else's blood or other biological sample and frame them by leaving DNA evidence somewhere. That does not make DNA analysis useless as a tool in forensics. So now there is a way of marking items that cannot be engraved and a way of marking intruders. It sounds more sophisticated than a red dye bomb in a sack of cash stored in a bank vault -- which also has its uses and its drawbacks. Now it will be easier to tie the dyed material and the dyed thieves to the specific crime. It is not a big deal that it does not solve all problems in one stroke. -- sidney markowitz http://www.sidney.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]