It could happen. But it all has to do with timing and reporting. You would need to have already reported a crime with a list of stolen items, waited a period of time for the fencing process to work, then falsely claim a local pawn shop has your goods.
I suspect most who want to spray goods in a pawn shop and then call the police claiming the items are theirs, will not have a police report already filed nor waited out the time for the fence process to work.
It’s another form of tracking that can be executed without the individual knowing about it, being able to do much against it, and have no defense against.
Which like a lot of things could be an invaluable asset in lawful, ethical, careful hands.
Or a walking nightmare for anyone who can’t explain why they have tracking dust CDX901P32M64 all over their jacket, when only people who were at a violent street protest were sprayed with it.
At a certain point, a conspiracy is so pervasive that They are going to get you if they want to. We’re way past the point where they would need smartwater to do it.
Mmm,
Lsl Guy,
‘The Smartwater technology is inherently dangerous to civil liberties. As is widespread automated facial recognition, widespread online activity tracking, and most manifestations of Big Data. We as free people in a free society ought to be paying a lot more attention to how these innovations can be, are being, and ever-increasingly will be used against us.’
I think you are conflating the two ideas, I have my own concerns about the spread of CCTV cameras but I fail to make the intellectual leap from Smartwater to mass, and intrusive surveillance. One proposal does not logically lead to the next.
As DrCube mentioned upthread we could all hallmark our possessions with our own blood which apart from the very major drawbacks could link us to an item, in a perfect world. However it would demand the far more potentially damaging idea of a DNA database.
If you agree with that, ‘to protect the innocent’, then how on earth can a Database which only records that a vial of liquid containing a uniquely identifiable liquid is registered to an individual and an address? It contains nothing about me as an individual or my possessions. It’s only use is to assist me in the return of stolen items, that’s all.
Peter
In the UK, the police do not expect anybody to have ID on them at any time (driving or whatever). It would probably come as a surprise to them if someone did produce some kind of ID. If they stop you for some reason, they don’t even ask most of the time - they might ask to see a driving licence if they are actually going to charge you with a driving related offence but not if they just intend to admonish you or talk to you.
Absolutely true.
As long as the product is only issued and used in that manner.
As Really not all that bright commented above:
‘At a certain point, a conspiracy is so pervasive that They are going to get you if they want to. We’re way past the point where they would need smartwater to do it.’
This technology was devised and is currently used for crime prevention and interdiction.
If you can envisage a scenario where the idea can be used in a way against anyone that isn’t vastly more expensive, complex, illegal or subject to primary legislation then please tell.
If you are arguing that Governments routinely monitor their citizens in an increasingly secretive and encompassing manner then I agree.
If you argue that the threats that entrenched elites propose to us as their justifications for the ‘salami slicing’ of our freedoms exist and increase then I agree.
If you are dubious about big business having access to vast amounts of data concerning us as individuals then I agree.
Smart water, I’m afraid I still can’t see the problem, please think carefully about the whole concept.
Peter
I don’t in any way mean to imply my position is “Aieeee! Smart Water! End times! Run!” - but it’s another depressing high-tech innovation with as much potential for misuse against innocent or at least private lives as for getting back Granny’s stolen teapot.
IMHO, we don’t need any more high-tech tracking, monitoring and control innovations, at least not in the hands of police and agencies tending to make excessive use of such tools.
But then, if the consensus here is that the government already has so much power of surveillance and tracking and so forth that we may as well just shrug and give up… never mind. War’s over. Good guys lost, just as Leonard Cohen predicted.
NM
A lot of stolen stuff (notably smart phones, bicycles and earth moving equipment, but I assume other as well), just goes into a container to China, where it is resold as second-hand.
I can see this shifting the balance of profitibility a bit, but not seriously altering crime.
Cars have traditionally been a bit different in Aus: we are right-hand drive, and a large proportion of the market was Aus-built. Only small numbers of expensive cars were stolen for shipment, and crime-reduction strategies were effective for most cars. So I’m not saying smart water could have no effect anywhere.
(Earth moving equipment is not street-legal anywhere, so it’s much more portable.)