My complaint is against the parroting of patently absurd claims by
manufacturers (or governments, for that matter) under the guide of
journalism.
If you need the reason to be concrete, here's one: I might buy this
magic water and apply it to some of my stuff, figuring I don't have to
On Feb 22, 2005, at 10:57, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
The point is that the thief should think anything expensive is
protected, by which I mean it's too traceable to fence.
That would be the thinking of a thief who read the article and took it
at face value. A more clever thief would realize that the
at the risk of being accused of being humor impaired:
the particles are ignorant. it's the police officers that need to
know to look for the taggants. civilians could look, but might not
have access to the semantic content in the database.
this is similar, i think to the taggants that are
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
Matt Crawford wrote:
On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:40, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
Instant, is a property-marking fluid that, when
brushed on items like office equipment or motorcycles, tags them with
millions of tiny fragments, each etched with a unique SIN (SmartWater
identification number) that is
that is [...] invisible until illuminated by police
officers using ultraviolet light.
That's amazing! 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?
Why would it matter?
[...]
On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:40, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
Instant, is a property-marking fluid that, when
brushed on items like office equipment or motorcycles, tags them with
millions of tiny fragments, each etched with a unique SIN (SmartWater
identification number) that is registered with the owner's
