rexb

They can't add much to the cost of CD's etc, right?

Although I favor the lifting of the liquids ban (especially on all items purchased in the airport), wouldn't this be an easy-to-implement solution? Put one of these security devices on the kinds of (more costly) items that passengers like to purchase in the airport... then require presenting it to the gate for de-magnetization. It would add... what? 10 cents to the cost of the item?

If we're going to be sheep, let us at least vote with our wallets for certain kinds of sheep purchases we want to make.

LessO2

When I saw this thread's title, I thought the OP was going to suggest installing the anti-shoplifting technology at the exit of the TSA baggage handlers.

22wingit

Depends on how many you buy, but normally about $10K for the gates and the software, and about $170 per thousand for the strips.

guy999

it depends on how fast you can run, if you can run fast enough they are virtually free

JS

I think you have it backwards. All this would do is catch vendor water bottle thieves. What's the point other than to cut Hudson News' loss rate ever so slightly? (I would imagine people steal things more valuable than water, like magazines, medicines, etc.)

Xyzzy

If we present water bottles at the gate for demagentisation they will also be subject to confiscation.

TierFlyer

The mag strips, in any quantity, cost less than one cent each. The cost to "put" them into items is actually a bit higher. Most vendors figure $0.025 total cost, including depreciation.

Loren Pechtel

And what's to stop the terrorist from peeling it off the bottle he purchased in the terminal and sticking it on his own bottle?

Unless you can anti-tamper them they're useless.

FinsUp99

They usually run from $.02-$.03 depending on the vendor. When I was in district retail loss prevention, we got ours from Sensormatic for around the low end (but we bought an ...-load every month).

They aren't that hard to disable if you know what to do. That's why the trick now is to hide them in parts of the product that the average thief wouldn't look such as behind the cover art of a DVD or inside the CD-ROM case of some brands of software. Anything to slow down the perp.

Maybe they could put a sensormatic tag in each bottle of water. It would be like swallowing the worm in a bottle of tequila!

rexb

I guess I was just trying to propose some kind of easily enforceable, voluntary-show-your purchase(s)-at-the-gate system.

Ideally, there might even be a system of serially applied machine readable codes on such bottles.

The first code has to identify the manufacturer, the name of the product, and date produced, and it would need to match some idetnifying label on the bottle.

The second code is added by the distributor, who passes secure inspection of his entire truckload of goods, and contains a codeword that has to match the date of inspection

And the third sticker is added at the cash register, showing date and time of purchase, and again a codeword that has to match the date and time of purchase.

Probably not worth all the trouble. But a cost entirely borne by the shops who sell this stuff (and their suppliers), and it allows travelers to vote with their wallets.

A transitional step to going back to less banning, less screning, less terror - - even if only in my dreams.

Loren Pechtel

Yeah, I've seen them hidden all sorts of places--and occasionally set off the alarm because the clerk missed it.

But tags on bottles are another matter--they're always on the outside, easy to see, easy to remove. I've never tried to stick a tag on another bottle after removing it from the one it's on (I dislike the tag on a bottle I'm going to be handling frequently, thus I normally pull it off when the bottle gets put to use.) but they normally come off reasonably easily.

cpx

Now that makes some sense. say NO to this government imposed terror!

JS

Don't forget the customer needs to select a 12 character alphanumeric PIN at the point of sale (a user chosen PIN or use a GUID for those unwilling to make up something while at the cash register). High quality password rules apply, such as using at least five different numbers and five different letters and no contiguous letters that appear in the Oxford English dictionary (otherwise people will punch in 111111111111 or dogcat123456).

The customer punches in the code on a screen with a privacy filter, and then when the bottle is scanned at the gate, the passenger enters the same code on another screen with a privacy filter. The PIN has to match as well as the unique bar code. Mis-type it once, and you can try again. Mis-type it twice and you get arrested for attempted terrorism.

Customers are not allowed to write down the 12 character alphanumeric PIN or it's immediate deportation to Guantanamo for obvious collusion with terrorists (i.e., one person buys the water then passes it and the code to the conspirator to board the plane).

Adding a fingerprint scanner would also be helpful but we need to make this somewhat feasible.

secretbunnyboy

Hold on, maybe we can get around it: if we make it compulsory to pay for water with a credit card secured by PIN, and then insure that everyone who receives a credit card is fingerprint scanned *at the time of card issuance*, then it would be secure. The fingerprint scan would be confirmed by the use of the CC PIN number, and you would only need to scan once, not every time a purchase was made. Of course, you'd need to turn the credit check prior to card issuance into a more secure background check, but that should be pretty easy: the systems are already in place.

The great thing would be that you wouldn't need any fresh legislation, because it would all be totally voluntary. I think most people would be willing to live with this once they understand it's for their own comfort and safety.

JS

That could be a problem with the banks. Having millions of people fingerprinted is not an easy task, and making it too easy (like mailing in your fingerprints for your terrorist conspirator's credit card) would make the whole thing pointless.

Also, using a credit card with a PIN normally means you are doing a cash advance. Then again, paying a $3 transaction fee and 19% interest on an already over-priced bottle of water will just have to be chalked up to security and safety. Let's not forget the "added convenience" of being able to legally bring a bottle of water on a plane for the low-low price of $6.50.

I guess this means people without credit cards (like me) are screwed? Oh well, whatever it takes, think of the children...