Hello Everyone,
Unfortunately, provision of dangerous goods not to be stolen is just one of the usual concerns. The other ones being malicious usage and improper disposal.
I remember a case in Hungary in the early 2000s when iron chloride (!!?!?) was pushed to be banned outright, explicitly referring to homemade PCBs as the reason. It was argued that hobbyists and cost-sparing SMEs dump the used solution into the sewers. They backed off only after realizing that this would only trigger a shift to "boosted" copper etchants like HCl and hydrogen peroxide, causing more harm.
Also, the problem of malicious use does not only relevant to the thief, but to the purported user as well. If someone walks in and says "I need a small amount of HF or organophosphorus or organoboron compound for DYI semiconductor construction (currently sounds very... yapp.) and I promise i don't lie about the purpose", who knows that one does not want simply get rid of one's own wife? Or just a new and still unknown way to produce drugs? These are the questions why authorities are going mad on the idea to give poisonous or explosive or chemically useful substances to anyone in general. Not to mention the current paranoia of security agencies that everyone who breaths is a terrorist suspect unless the opposite is proven by ten successive polygraph tests and a brain dissection.
Regards,
Ferenc
On 15/08/2021 18:16, lkcl wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 4:56 PM David Lanzendörfer <leviathan@libresilicon.com mailto:leviathan@libresilicon.com> wrote:
Hmm... Good point... I mean THAT's also a thing which can happen in China LOL:)
perhaps researching and developing some physical security measures might be a good idea. again (sigh) you will likely run into "security through stupidit...^Wobscurity" in industry-standard measures ("if people don't know what security we put in place they couldn't possibly work it out"... rriiiight) so may actually have to ask a friendly physical pen-tester "how the hell do i secure these chemicals and make sure that the relevant authorities are immediately notified, and what evidence will they require?"
in the UK you have to have a gun safe and a firearms license, even for a black powder muzzle-loading musket, now [despite the fact that 50% of injuries during the English Civil War were actually down to people using their musket as a club, i.e. not firing the damn things at all because they ran out of black powder].
stupidity of regulations aside, actually either stopping someone entirely from successfully stealing these chemicals, or providing evidence (security camera footage) *that passes muster in a court of law* would make any authorities a lot less unhappy if they actually ever have to be called.
camera footage you have to be exceptionally careful about (and, also, not have cameras that are so expensive they actually end up being stolen to order!) because "processing" of the data (including post processing such as MPEG compression, scaling etc.) can be considered "tampering with evidence" (sigh) and a case thrown out despite it being blindingly obvious whodunnit.
l.