Some time ago I remember discussing special ink and paint that UK police said would help in the recovery of stolen items. Just paint your personal items with the invisible stuff and detectives could use special equipment to make it appear later. Thieves presumably would worry whether valuables suddenly become traceable, except for a simple problem. If the detectives can reveal the invisible markings, so can the theives.

Here’s a fine case example of this in practice. DataDot is a company that says you can use a paste with special identity dots to mark your valuables. How does someone later read the hidden dots? Just send $14.95 to Data Dot for a portable blacklight (UV), and another $14.95 for an illuminated 50X microscope. No criminal would ever do that, right?

And another problem is the nature of hidden identification. Whereas a common ID, such as a vehicle identification number, is supposed to be in a particular place and can be reviewed for tampering, etc. a hidden number has no “tamperproof-ness”. A simple chemical might dissolve the datadot without a trace, or even if there were a trace (like heavy scratching) the lack of a standard position for datadot means you might have a hard time proving the dots had been intentionally destroyed. A rub spot could be argued to be just an old rub spot…

But, all things considered, and if the stolen goods are recovered, it seems that the careless or unprepared thief will be more likely than not to be caught by the dot.

On the flip side, one has to wonder if there will be datadot attacks where thieves start painting other people’s stuff and registering it as their own, then claiming it as stolen.