One thing I find unbelievable is that the socalled technological "advanced" societies does not have more advanced measures against theft, criminal and other types of "hostile acts".
Excample: Is it correct that US (other countries?) weapons are stolen by enemy?
I think there should be a lot of possble measures, like weapons (or other items-cars for instance) with "spying and signaling" capability on unspecified locations. For those who may not like military uses remember there may be civilian anti-crime uses too.
Though I have little specific knowledge about such matters I find it there must be very many possible solutions.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. As for individual weapons (guns, whatever), they've looked into biotechnology such as sensors that will only fire the weapon if the owners fingerprint is detected, or the owner has to wear a ring that sends a wireless signal to it so it only works if the owner's ring is so close to the weapon.

Problem is, you don't want to ever have the owner, soldier, officer, whatever, go to use their weapon then find it won't fire because the protection isn't working right.

As far as stolen weapons as in weapons shipments of any kind, they do have pretty advanced technology for tracking them. Not the least is a worldwide communications systems that let them nearly instantly update weapons status and locations; GPS tracking, satellite survelance, etc etc.

Even home burglary alarm systems are relatively advanced. Motion detection, signature sound detection (eg, sound of breaking glass), automated lighting and lock systems, video surveylance, etc.

The problem is, as the technology advances, so does the technology to bypass that technology. It's a constant cat-and-mouse game. Technically, you could put a GPS tracker and a serial number database for everything, from guns to tvs to cars to fancy silverware. It just isn't cost effective, and there's nothing keeping a theif from disabling the tracker anyway, should he have proper knowlege and/or equipment to do so.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Ah, at least in transit, yes it is cost effective and yes they do all the time. I was a mover, they track a lot of things from individual fine automobiles to art work.

You'll be surprised how many knuckleheads with offload a car in the desert to take it for a ride. And besides getting fired they get sued.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Also, the machinery for the weapon is all right there...you could prevent someone from grabbing the weapon and using it right away, but thieves have all the time they could want to circumvent the lockout device before reselling the weapon. No matter how fancy and foolproof the biometrics are, somewhere, there's a solenoid or other actuator that can be removed or forced.

Having the technological capability to do something and actually doing it are not the same. Just as a simple example, think of the way race car drivers can survive crashes at high speeds. They are strapped in with restraining devices and helmets, etc. So we could prevent many deaths by doing the same thing with regular drivers. But would people pay the extra money and inconvenience? Obviously, not.

__________________
As above, so below

Of course there may be serious problems - the one that sensors and other "spy" items may be disabled, the other about expenses.
How to counter the "disabling" problem:1: Chose as many possible locations as possible.2: Keep it as secret as possible how many "spy and messaging" devices are on each item, and allso were they are located, It could be done by some randomising machinery, perhaps no human has to know.
3:The precise nature of those devices should of course allso be of different kinds - some could be filming, some smell detectors, sound detectors. All combined would create maximum uncertainty on the part of the thief, and make it a laborious and demanding task to be sure he/she is not spied upon - or if there is other unpleasant countermeasures. About costs:Of course again one may pay more to protect more costly items. On the other hand the uncertainty - or even surprise factor is allso relevant. The enemy, or the criminal should be risking something, know as little as possible about this risk, and not be forgotten (even if a thing ends up in a different country).

Even if you could solve those problems, you have a very big issue with privacy.
The extent that one can go with the technology is a very debatable and emotional one.
If you are not familiar with it, I suggest you see the film "1984" and get a feel for discussions around it and it's topic of "big brother".

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I admit I have never read "1984" through - stopped very soon.
About the issue of privacy: The items in case could of course either be private property (1) or owned by others -perhaps public property like the armed forces(2).In case (1) I see it as being in the interest of the owner(s) - and perhaps insurance companies - that their property is so equiped, since its purpose is preventing crime (theft, robbery etcetera).(2):Armed forces should perhaps be as interested their equipment is not used by enemies.
Perhaps those devices could be activated when the owner/legitimate user lose it.

Maybe the problem is that the technological advances you assume should already exist haven't already arrived yet, or are not yet cost-effective enough to warrant their widespread implementation.

By many measures, the Roman Empire was extremely technologically advanced for its time. But we don't fault the Legions for not having 105mm howitzers. By the same token, I should hope that future generations won't look back on you and I with disdain because we don't yet have the technologies that we don't yet have. Nor do I think the fact that some technologies are still in our future justifies putting scare quotes around the technological advances of our present time.

In the face of reality?

__________________
*

I just don't get your OP/Statement jhwegener. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying they should be able to prevent all possible theft of anything. What technology or method, real or not yet realized, do you imagine could do this?

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Yeah; I imagine so. But the OP, at least as I took it, said to prevent all theft of everything. That's not cost effective, at least not via GPS.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

My van has a tracker in it. I can log into the company database and see exactgly when the engine was started, what roads I have driven along, when and where I stopped and started and when the engine was turned off.
It's fitted mainly because the cage in the back has about £20k of computer and digital xray hardware in it.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

No, I do not expect a "perfect" situation. But wonder how large numbers of weapons can disappear (I our local media are not wrong). And I read nothing about such tracking devices. I guess even a small number of advanced devices could help in such cirkumstances.
Let us say the same group of people or organisation is behind large organised robbery of great number of items (say 10000 or some ten thousands pieces of military equipment or motor vehicles). Then they could have a problem if only a very few(say 1 to 10) of them had advanced tracking devices located somewhere. Perhaps in some cases it could be a "blessing" to be robbed, if one could get valuable information about adversary.
Last: I admit a very unprofessional background, so I could overestimate current technologies.
But as I see it such things should already be well known an in use. I think great values could be tracked by using technologies not more advanced than we know (even perhaps for items for the masses, like bicykles or handguns, cell-phones)

Ah, well the technology certianly exists to fight the thefts, but you have to keep in mind that no matter how advanced the anti-theft tech is, the anti-anti-theft tech is just as advanced. And many thefts are the result of impropper or lack of implimentation of anti-theft measures.

*I* don't hear a lot about large quantities of US weapons being stolen, but I don't exactly keep up with that kind of thing either. What thefts are you refering to?

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Disappeared weapons:US military loses 222,000 weapons sent to Afghanistan since 2001

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5721162.ece

I very seriously doubt that ANY armed conflict since the first primates picked up rocks
hasn't seen one side or the other picking up the 'other sides' weapons to use against the other.

It's a PRETTY COMMON PRACTICE.

My question is.... why would you be shocked?

Go watch some old movies....you can't see any old John Wayne-type war movie where someone doesn't pick up a weapon from a fallen soldier and start using it....

it would be really easy to prevent all theft of anything everywhere- just make private property ownership illegal.

problem solved..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

RFID chips are literally just pennies. And just as every networked device has a MAC address composed of a unique vendor ID (OUI) and a vendor-unique serial number (NIC), which combine to make a singularly unique MAC address.

They're so cheap, in fact, that libraries have been implanting them in their books for several decades. My alma mater has close to 15 Million volumes, and each and every one has an RFID chip in it. They began that process in the late 1970s! It's not exactly new technology, folks.

Many manufacturers have been including RFID chips in their products for years, most notably in the clothing industry. Unfortunately, due to incompatible formats, the tracking of the various chips would require a multitude of different scanners. Thus, while it's possible to track an item throughout a city, it's very difficult in practice.

I you don't want to be tracked, just wear clothes made by hand in third-world countries.

As for tracking weapons all over the place? Theoretically it's possible. But do you remember those amazing tinfoil hats, so effective in countering those mind-control rays? Well, it turns out they're pretty effective against RFID chips, too.