"Palindrome" wrote in message
news:T95Uj.521740$ic2.389261@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>>
>> "habshi" wrote in message
>> news:4820d3ee.2304656@news.clara.net...
>>> Recently was the target of an attempted burglary.
>>> So the police came and gave me this smart water and a gun to shoot
>>> next time (just kidding!) .
>>
>> Wouldn't a UV pen and a National Insurance number be better? It's also more
>> robust than a postcode, since it doesn't change when you move house. Why pay
>> for a complicated and expensive solution (sic) when a simpler and cheaper
>> alternative exists?
>
> Wouldn't a label on the window, stating "All items of value are permanently
> security-marked" be rather better (not to mention even cheaper)?
>
> Personally, I'd rather go in for batesian mimicry than mimic an apis dorsata..
Well-taken points, but burglars are not usually well-acquainted with insect
behavioural mechanisms and would more likely to take the risk, particularly if
the lights are off in the house. My point would be that if the worst occurred,
property would be identifiable, and having been able to do this with a large
record collection some 20 years ago (the dealer threw his hands up and said "OK,
take it, it's yours", but then he probably didn't want to be arrested for
handling stolen goods), I'd argue that if prevention doesn't work,
recoverability is a backstop.
|