Talk:SmartWater

Any indication of what this is- e.g. a mixture of different fluorescent dyes- would be useful. Also the obvious question: if it's water why doesn't it wash off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMLl (talk • contribs) 09:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent questions. The article was quite misleading - starting from the fact that two of the liquids marketed under this brand are not water-based. I have rewritten it - it's not quite easy to find sources which are not entirely based on press releases, but the Wired article and the (legally required?) fact sheets on the company's homepage contain some actual information. Some questions remain open (how is the UV effect achieved, wouldn't one need a microscope instead of just an UV lamp to read the "SIN" etched onto those tiny particles, etc). And between the lines in the Wired article, there seems to be a bit of skepticism:

Cleary^[1] is reluctant to discuss "trade secret" details of a product he has patented, but he concedes that, together with chemist brother Mike, he has developed "a mathematical model that allows us to generate millions of chemical signatures" -- an identifier he boasts is "better than DNA."^[2]

(Since patenting entails publishing, a patented trade secret is a contradiction in terms, and genetic fingerprinting is relying on much larger numbers than "millions", or even the 10 billion that the article quotes for the Tracer blending code.)

Still, it seems that several UK areas claimed actual successes in deterrence from this product. I wonder if there are systematic studies about this in addition to the more anecdotal local reports. The statements by Phil Cleary (SmartWater CEO) here are also worth a read, although as they are made in the form of unverified blog comments they might not be quotable per WP:RS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Remarks added by PhilClea into the above posting(please do not change other user's comments, quote them instead. And please sign your commments by adding four tildes ~~~~):

Hi Phil, as I said previously, you are very welcome to point out what you see as errors in the article. Also, thanks for reminding readers that there are three, not two variants (I had meant to add a description of the third for a while, but didn't get around to do it.)

However, when you make changes in the article about your company, please consider the advice in Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and show some restraint in material which could be seen as promotional. This applies especially to these earlier edits from an IP address registered to your company. An encyclopedia has different aims than a promotional product description, the former answers questions such as "What is this and how does it work?", the latter focuses on "What benefits does it give me as a customer?".

About your second comment: The Wired article created the impression that your comparison of Smartwater to DNA was about the number of different "chemical signatures". I understand your explanation that your comment was meant to be about two aspects of chemical stability instead, but that's not in the cited source and you didn't cite a different one where you said that. (As already hinted at below, and detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, unfortunately we can't treat comments by Wikipedia users such as you and me as a source, even though I assume that you are who you say you are.) And I hope we agree it is not very helpful to call one technology "better" than the other when when what one really means is "better in aspects X and Y (while possible inferior in aspect Z)".

I have reworded the sentence in the article in a way which is more consistent with your explanation, while still remaining fully supported by the reference.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken but I have added a few more references that relate to the wider use of the SmartWater Strategy as to confine to a small scale pilot in Kent would give the wrong impression e.g. over 1 million homes have been SmartWatered and the Strategy has been in operation throughout the UK since 1998.

The SmartWater Strategy is now recognised, both practically and acedemically, as a proven holistic crime reduction programme to such an extent the police and government agencies from around the world are keen to import it. It could be argued that this in itself is worthy of comment within these pages, particularly when you consider the positive impact it is having on peoples' lives. But to do so would require an explanation as to the tactics SmartWater use and that, of course, would result in us committing 'Wiki misdemeanours'.

So, I have confined my additions to facts that can be evidenced, and will continue to do so, but will endeavour to keep any 'salesspeak' out of it.

Thanks again for your advice/comments as, seeing that I'm new to this, it's greatly received. PhilClea (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

78.33.55.130 has has left the following comment in the article sentence "... Phil Cleary, a retired senior police detective and CEO of SmartWater Ltd, ..." after the word "senior":

[Note to Author: Sorry, I wish, only made Sergeant but thanks anyway! Phil Cleary]

(Please note that there is no way for other Wikipedians to verify that this comment was indeed made by the named person. But I am going to assume that it was.)

The "senior" is a direct quote from the cited source, the 2005 Wired article :

SmartWater CEO Phil Cleary, a retired senior detective, hit upon the idea after watching burglars he had apprehended walk free from court due to lack of evidence.

Usually Wired magazine is considered a reasonably reliable source. But since the fact in question is not very important in the context of this Wikipedia article, I am just going to remove it.

Hi, I think the confusion came about because I'd passed my exams for senior officer rank and even 'acted up' on occasion but a traffic accident put an end to my police career so, in the interests of accuracy, I never actually made it to senior officer rank. Having said that, some would argue that Sergeants actually run the police service which, of course, I couldn't comment on :)PhilClea (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a precaution I'd also like to mention this advice ("Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization?"). In any case, notification of potential errors in this article is very welcome on this talk page. And I have to say it is rather refreshing to see an article's subject complain about being portrayed too positively - this kind of modesty does not seem to be too widespread ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged this article as needing the attention of an expert, it is lacking any detail on how this stuff really works. --UltraMagnus (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if any of this is worth placing within the article :

Clearly, complications arise when Smartwater labelled items are transacted (say at trade stores, such as CeX) - for how would the store distinguish between a legally transacted item, and an illegally sold item IF its record keeping activities were not of a high enough standard? (of course, ID presentation at the time of an item being sold by a reduces the chances of an illegally sold item - if CeX were to keep long term records).

In particular, somebody found with a smartwater labelled item that has been recorded under someone else's smartwater record is not necessarily guilty of theft if the item was legally sold to them. It is clearly possible that a wrongful conviction could ensue IF receipts were lost and police wrongfully believed that an item had been stolen when it had not been. The fact that smartwater is invisible compounds the problem, as one can buy an item not knowing that it is labelled with smartwater. A possible consequence of these observations is that individuals may be reluctant to buy smartwater marked items if they know that an item is marked with smartwater - one should be aware of the possibility that marking an item with smartwater could permanently result in the item remaining the property of the person marking the item (or whoever else is registered with the smartwater database) - that is, the item might be difficult to sell on. For high value items, it is not known whether Smartwater can unmark the items so that they can be sold to a new seller who is aware of the risks associated with transaction of smartwater marked items.

It is also wise to mark items with Smartwater as soon as the smartwater is received, so that there is no difference between the time that smartwater is registered with the Smartwater database AND when it has been applied (though, because of the Smartwater Use By Date, it is possible that someone could apply Smartwater to their property Long after having received the Smartwater). ASavantDude (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is supposedly about SmartWater. But most of its content is praise for the company that makes it and for the guys who developed it - there's suspiciously little useful information about how it actually works. The reader (this one, anyway) is left wondering if it's all bullshit – these clever guys sell tapwater, the householder uses it as instructed and puts up a sign as shown in the article, and the cautious burglar sees the sign and moves on to the next house. Maproom (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)