Hardware That Recognizes You 472
Amit Upadhyay writes "Gizmodo is reporting about extra funding for smart guns at NJIT. Few have qualms about it, mostly on the line of: would optical sensor for finger prints work when the hand is soaked with blood? Would you get time to enter the override code in an emergency? But if we remove speculative emergency situations, the technology seems to be interesting. While checking out Fingkey Hamster what struck me was, this is one passkey I will not mind publishing on my webpage, and it can't be cracked, unless hardware tampering takes place. Kind of thing that you can put in all the car ignitions and lockers where password entry using keyboard can become too obtrusive."
The problem with biometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that nothing is unbreakable/unhackable/unspoofable, the real danger is putting into widespread use something that people believe to be unbreakable/unhackable/unspoofable. When you go to court because your gun was used in a shooting, everyone will "know" that you did it, since "no one else can fire the gun." Except we all know that no system is perfect, and someone else could have.
Just as bad is the case of identity theft; the more that biometrics become used to verify identity, the more vulnerable you are to having your identity easily stolen. After all, it's perfectly reliable, so there don't need to be any other checks. The fingerprint/retina scan/brainwave pattern says the person is you, therefore s/he is. Even worse, once your identity has been suborned in this fashion, you can't get it back, since you can't change it.
You can potentially address this by adding something like a PIN or password into the system, but that loses both the supposed benefits of the biometric identification and simply shifts the burden of security back where it's always been: remembering a unique piece of information that no one else has.
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:4, Funny)
People: did we learn nothing from the Judge Dredd film!
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep.
1) Some of us (like film buffs) learned that it was pretty wretched and not nearly finely crafted enough, like, for example, 8 1/2, Rear Window, Fahrenheit 451, or 2001: ASO, to be called a film. It's more in the movie, or even down to the "flick" category.
2) Some movies are better left unseen until they hit the dollar theatre or HBO.
3) Putting a top draw star in a production does not mean it'll be worth watching.
I'd say some of use learned a lot from
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Interesting)
Not coincidentally, and quite amazingly considering it is the second most populous country in the world (after Bangladesh), Holland has a very low rate of property crime (except for bicycles - but that is really a special case in Holland!), and violent property crime is almost unheard of. Well, at least that was my impression
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Insightful)
So what's your point?
<kneejerk type=bleeding-heart-liberal>We need better rock and pointy stick control laws! Think of the children!</kneejerk>
The ONLY dangerous weapon is a person intent on doing harm. ANYTHING can be a we
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2, Insightful)
Here is a reality check, without or without guns, people are going to be at the mercy of those who are more aggressive than them. Life isn't a movie, and you don't suddenly become an action hero by weilding a gun.
And here's a tidbit of advice, if you are responsible for several small children, and think brandishing a gun around is going to protect them more than getting them out of the house and away from the danger, you shouldn't be responsible for any small children. Cause
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you own a gun?
Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?
Judging from your rhetoric, I'd say the answer to all three is no. STFU until you know what you're talking about.
OK Mr. Genius, here's a scenario for you: someone breaks into your house. They are downstairs, you are upstairs. How do you get yourself, your spouse, and two small children out of the house when the only way out is to go past the intruder? The answer is, you don't. You either call 911 and cower in a corner and pray that he doesn't hurt you or your kids before the police get there, or you take direct action and neutralize the threat.
Is this a likely scenario? No. But it's possible, as are many others which would require the use of deadly force. Having a gun no more makes you rambo@home than having a fire extinguisher makes you fireman@home. Both are tools for dealing with a specific kind of emergency. If you're smart you hope you never have to use either one.
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Informative)
Of course it is going to incite violence! That's what the gun is for!
If a criminal knows that a house has a gun then they are more likely to look for another target. If they think that there is a good chance that robbing a place will get thems
Misconceptions about home intruders and risk (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Defend yourself (or attempt to)
2. Flee (or attempt to)
3. Do nothing
In the first scenareo, hopefully if you are brave/stupid enough to go after someone that has broken into your home, you will have several things under your belt. Training, a moderate amount of skill with your chosen weapon. One thing you will have an advantage of is foreknowledge of the battleground (your house). The drawback is the person in your house may not be a burgler (mistakenly entered t
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Insightful)
Police reports and studies say you will more likely be killed by your weapon than an intruder. The intruder is already more alert than you. There is no way you can get to him without him being made aware of you. He's already ready shown, by his actions (breaking in), he has no concern for you, and is much more likely to spray
RE: "..people *with* guns kill people..." (Score:2)
Maybe so but they make people pretty damned effective at it. As for the other choices, well, they are pretty poor
* People with knives kill people
Only at a very close distance
* People with bows kill people
Unlikely since you'd need some skill and practice and if you miss the first time, it's going to take a while to reload.
* People with fists kill people
Again, only at very close range (unless you happen to be a zombie and can throw yo
Re: "..people *with* guns kill people..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns don't kill people, people *with* guns kill people
Maybe so but they make people pretty damned effective at it. As for the other choices, well, they are pretty poor
Take a look at the statistics for assault in great britain. Guns simply shift power. Instead of the biggest, strongest, most aggressive, longest armed person, survival goes to the fastest, most accurate, most cool-headed person.
As to your other points, knives are often the choice of a professional killer because they are quiet, concealable, and frightening. Bows can be fired bloody fast and guns require just as much skill to hit anything. Fists and bricks and chairs and everything else can be used to kill people, and often are. Why don't you look to why people are killing each other rather than what they are using?
California recently banned .50 caliber breech loading rifles. These rifles are very high power, long range, and effective. This will stop exactly zero crimes. Why? Because this type of gun has never been used in a violent crime in the U.S. The only crime it has been used in was vandalism (shooting signs). The reason for this is simple, people who own guns costing more than a thousand dollars, don't generally commit violent crimes. That is because violent crime is usually committed out of desperation by poor, angry, young people (usually men). I'm not stereotyping, those are the recorded statistics. Passing more laws that say people can't use things/have things/do things that enable them to break other laws don't work. If they are already desperate enough to break the law, they won't care if they are breaking two or three or four laws. That is just paperwork on how long the police can lock them up. These laws do, however, take rights away from non-criminals, important rights, like the ability to defend oneself.
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
As several other replies have already pointed out, it is a lot easier with guns to kill, you can kill from a distance and this reduces the consequence you feel as a person of the result of the action.
While what you are saying is true, you forget that in most cases, it is not possible to know when someone simply intends to kill. However, when they have a gun available, they are able to do so more easily, as pointed out above.
This is also a result of your faulty argument. All the examples of "killing instruments" you gave either occur in nature (rocks, fists, pointy sticks) and because of that can hardly be controlled, are used for other purposes besides killing (knives, baseball bats and plastic bags) or require significantly more training than guns to kill (bows). So, your mock argument to have pointy stick control laws does not make any sense at all. However, gun control laws do make sense, because with a pointy stick you cannot drive by a group of people and massacre them in an instant or have these nice school shootings that I'm sure you heard about.
Yes, this is true. That why it is called "Gun Control" and not "Outlawing of guns". If a physically weak woman wants to buy a gun, and has no record of criminal activity, then she will still be able to despite the gun laws you seem to not like.
That's fine for you. Now suppose you are responsible for several small children. What do you do now, genius?
I'm sorry but the scenario that you are providing there is not very probable. How often will you be in a situation where you children are threatened by an attacker? I'm pretty sure most thieves and burglars couldn't care less about small children, as it doesn't buy them anything to hurt them. And, as also another reply has posted out, always keeping a gun around for the possibility that a mad-man will come by and attack you and the small children, is a lot less likely than that one of the children hurt themselves with the gun. I don't have statistics for that at hand, but if you use some common sense (gun is always there, madman is not, maybe never will be), you should be able to agree with this.
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Interesting)
Thankfully a number of other posters have already expressed some valid argument against this. The whole genius bit justs makes me think this is a Troll we are feeding here, but whatever, personal experience makes me a good candidate to respond to this...
My wife had a VERY scary experience, along the lines of to satisfy their sexual urges on you against your will only it was TWO men, in a dark elev
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're thinking of Quake2's Railgun :)
I don't know about you, but it took me quite a bit of training with my rifle to get to the point where I could accurately put shots into a deer's killzone. Pistols take even more training, at least at anything beyond contact range.
If the deer is moving, you do have to lead it, the bullet does not just magically appear in the deer the moment you shoot it (unlike the Railgun). You also have to acco
Rules for self defense (Score:3, Insightful)
The two rules of self-defense: 1 - Never draw a weapon unless you are prepared to use it.
2 - Never use a weapon unless you are prepared to kill.
This applies equally to a gun, a knife, or a club.
For your enlightenment, you do not draw a weapon at all unless someone is ALREADY in mortal jeopardy. If the situation IS serious enough for you to consider the use of deadly force, it is probable that it is serious enough
Re:Rules for self defense (Score:3, Interesting)
What does your argument say about legalizing drugs? I recall in the 1920s we had violent gangs too. Replace alcohol with drugs and we have today.
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2)
This always seems like a silly statistic. It's damn near impossible to be killed with a gun if there isn't one in the house, since it requires someone else bringing one in. I'm more interested in knowing how many intrusions/attacks are prevented if you don't have a gun. If this is much higher than expected it might be a better argument for not having a gun.
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2)
Those "police studies" are looking at the wrong numbers. The vast majority defensive uses of firearms do not involve discharging the firearm. Most intuder-homeowner confrontations involving firearms start with the homeowner announcing they are armed, and the intruder swiftly vacating the premises. I don't know where people get the idea that the only
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, a great deal of it depends on the situation. If I'm not sure that I can get the drop on him, then I'll reevaluate the situation and determine what to do next. If he realizes he's been spotted and is running away, your viewpoint has some merit. He's demonstrated that he's no threat to me or mine. But breaking into my house is a violent act. He initiated the use of violence. I'm not going to be the tiniest bit concerned for the value of his life so long as I feel he's a threat to me or my family, and I'm going to assume he's a threat until he proves otherwise.
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Interesting)
If Joe Burglar breaks in my home and wants to take my jewelery and other valuables that are deemed valuable I should just throw out the welcome mat because he was able to break in?
I agree with you comment "Life is more valuable than property. By a factor of infinity. There are no exceptions. Property can be replaced, living things can't."
I think where we differ is that I feel that if Joe Burglar doesn't want to abide by societys
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Insightful)
---
Life is more valuable than property. By a factor of infinity. There are no exceptions.
---
Bullshit!
I'm not even going to try and explain that you DON'T KNOW who's going to rape and murder vs. who's going to take my DVD-player. For me it's a lot simpler than that.
I think back to caveman times. Another guy comes into my cave without asking my permission I crack his skull with a large club. Now he should be thankful that I won't have him for dinner afterwards.
Since I will NOT always have a cl
RE: ""Life is more valuable than property." (Score:3, Insightful)
"Life is more valuable than property. By a factor of infinity. There are no exceptions."
Your lawfully-gained property is one of the products of your life. For example, let's say a burglar is stealing your wife's $6,000 engagement ring. How much of your life did you spend earning the money for that ring? Maybe 300 hours? If someone came up to you on the sidewalk and tried to forceably inject you with a drug that you know would instantly shorten your lifespan by 300 hours, would you use a potentially le
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Funny)
from the Gizmodo article
"including [...] the pommels of swords and stuff."
See...
They can make an electronic system that stops me from using my +5 against orcs broadsword, turning it into a -2 agains cops, unsharpened steel stick !
If they can unsharpen my broadsword in mid strike, they must have solved the puny details already 8)
And they said I should stop playing AD&D
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2)
Actually, this is really getting into the realm of science fiction, but you could use a modified deck. If you think of your brain as an organic CPU that has emissions that let people pick up on how it resonates, you could enclose it inside device/skull that doesn't let this emissions out, or changes them
No way! (Score:2)
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:2)
Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:5, Insightful)
- Something you have (ID card)
- Something you know (PIN)
- Something you are (Fingerprint)
From what I've read (Google the above terms, plus "authentication"), most people consider authentication based on any one of those insufficient. Authentication based on two of the above is generally sufficient, and based on all three is ideal.Re:The problem with biometrics (Score:3, Insightful)
As the post above yours alluded to, what if #3 becomes compromised? #1 can be replaced, so although it may be redundant in the strictest sense, it is a necessary redundancy.
As DNA put it: (Score:5, Interesting)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Funny)
Bogus. (Score:2, Informative)
On another note, Trollaxor has returned to Slashdot and has posted sdem's interview with him [slashdot.org].
Re:Bogus. (Score:3, Insightful)
As an additional one that doesn't replace any other, and which everyone is made aware they shouldn't depend on, I don't see a problem.
Other than that "emergency situation" thing, which we're supposed to be ignoring, but which is actually kind of serious.
Then why use it at all? (Score:2)
Then why use it at all? Why not identify and fix the problems in the other process and avoid this one completely?
...
Otherwise
Case A: You're adding a known broken authentication method to a system that already has good authentication. What are you gaining?
Case B: You're adding a known broken authentication method to a system that depends upon a different known broken authe
Re:Bogus. (Score:2)
More importantly... (Score:2)
for most cases where you'd have access and desire to use a firearm that was not yours, you most likely would nothave had the chance to prepare a jello mold of the owner's fingerprint in advance.
proximity. (Score:2)
bit of slippery gel on the fingers while the victim struggles and begs might mean the difference between hitting the brain stem or just blowing the entire motor cortex out of his head.
same difference.
Gun emergencies? (Score:4, Insightful)
And as we all know, guns are never used in emergencies...
Re:Gun emergencies? (Score:2)
When I was a in college (in the US) I read that many gun owners put themselves in situations that were dangerous, just because subconsiously they knew they had the gun. I never put much store in it until a friend wound up in trouble for what was essentially road rage (although in 1985 it wasn't called that). I lived with this man for 5 years in school and I thought he was more sedate than I was, I was shocked to learn that he had waved a pistol at a man who
Re:Gun emergencies? (Score:2)
At least, that's what my scary, gun-toting, overly cynical co-worker says we should do.
Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh Fuck, I have to reboot my gun before I can defend myself!"
Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (Score:2)
Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (Score:2)
"It appears you are trying to shoot an intruder... (Score:5, Funny)
1) Enter BPA (Bullet Product Activatin) code.
2) Verify that this person is really an intruder.
3) Aim weapon.
4) Pull trigger.
Did gun fire? Yes/No
No.
5) Press Ctrl-Alt-Delete while depressing trigger.
6) Did gun fire? Yes/No
No.
7) Are you still alive? Yes/No
This is probably why Smith & Wesson and Microsoft shouldn't merge.
Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed! As Thoreau said, "Laws never made man a whit more just, and by means of their respect for it, men are daily made the agents of injustice." Laws can only control the law-abiding, who don't need to be coerced to do good but do need to be coerced to do harm. Therefore, the only real effect of law is to do harm.
Re:Over-engineered solution to a non-problem (Score:3, Informative)
And when you're carjacked (Score:5, Funny)
How about your partner? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, what if you and your partner is fighting a bad guy. Your partner gets gunned down and you are out of bullets and reach for his gun to return fire.
You don't want to spend time having to get his magazine out and put it in your gun. You want to reach down and use it.
So, ideally, all police guns should be able to recognize all officers in the same precinct or something like that.
Is that feasible with todays technology?
Re:How about your partner? (Score:5, Informative)
"By using a series of sensors along the grip, the gun can determine who is holding it and can even support multiple users."
Re:How about your partner? (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be that guy that kicks the gun into a ditch. I'm going to pick it up and try to return fire, ESPECIALLY if I see a cop being shot at.
Re:How about your partner? (Score:2)
Or they could go one step further and go from smart guns to genius guns and use pubkey auth, each gun has all policeforces rings with an expirey date of maybe a week. Someone loses their ring? revoke the key. Each gun could sync with a device in the car.
Of course, then when the terrorists find a way to mass-revoke all keys in new york right before a massive attack..
Re:How about your partner? (Score:2)
I'm a bit curious about these disposable guns you use there as well. They become useless when the bullets runs out and cant be used again with spare ammo from someone else? Or do both cops carry guns but only one has extra bullets?
Re:How about your partner? (Score:2)
Re:How about your partner? (Score:3, Insightful)
And by the way... in NJ, the first state with an idiotic smart gun law, federal, state and local law enforcement officers and members of the armed forces and the National Guard serving in New Jersey are exempt from the law.
Funny, the technology isn't reliable enough for them to use, but it is for me. Nice!
Here's a good article on w [popularmechanics.com]
Re:How about your partner? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, the main reason why this idea gets so much attention to become implemented, is that statistically a lot of police officers get killed with their own gun.
So someone thinks:
disable cop gun for anyone else => no more cops get shot
Stupid logic which will not work, but the weapon industry and their sales people have seen a new opportunity to sell a lot of guns to police forces over the whole world.
It only takes a little logic to consider that the fi
Re:How about your partner? (Score:3, Insightful)
And you are claiming that the most common scenario is a perp makes an officer hand over his gun and kills him execution style? If you don't see how somebody would grab the gun from an officers holster or wrestle it from his hands then use it against him, I don't think you're looking very hard.
Given that cops
In Soviet Russia (Score:2, Insightful)
Various OS my fingkey!! (Score:2, Informative)
Freely available passkey, hey? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you wouldn't mind putting an image of your fingerprint on a webpage, where it can be downloaded and printed in gelatin, and then used to unlock all of your devices forever, thus excluding you from ever using fingerprint based security?
Which, as another poster suggested, raises the great problem with a lot of biometric security - as soon as it's defeated - someone taking a gelatin mold of your fingerprint, someone making a nice glass replica of your eye (for example), you're doomed - EVERYTHING you access then becomes invalid. Sure, you can just use your remaining eye, or fingers, but those are a finite resource .. it's like putting all your eyes in one squishy basket
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
And you think the retailers would want to buy a big expensive foolproof machine for every shop in the world or just something cheap that can read a fingerprint?
It was hard enough moving them over to what we in the UK call Chip-and-PIN where we've done away (or are going to do away) with signatures and use a four digit code. That's been years in the making and still not completely functional. I can still say "Oh, I haven't been sent a number for that card yet" and they let you sign for the transaction, much like previously.
No, I still say the best system for things like credit cards etc. is to have some sort of graphical. When you swipe the card, the owners picture appears for verification (sent direct from the credit card company, maybe chosen from a few random photographs from different angles, clothing etc.) Much more big brother, I know.
If the person in front of you does not look like the owner, you refuse the transaction. Put this on top of things like Chip-and-PIN and signatures and you've got it made. Only an CC company insider could realistically beat it and then they would be accountable (I would hope that every account created had a traceback history for which staff member created it, one that is unwriteable after creation.).
If the retailer tries to run a stolen credit card through to make a few fake transactions, and presses Yes to ID the photo, there's always the Chip-and-PIN to fall back on that he must know. But it means you can't stroll in just any shop with a stolen credit card and take someone else's money.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Ring lock (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a great idea for cops, though.
Re:Ring lock (Score:2)
I'd like my car doors and ignition and my house to let me in based on this, too.
Re:Ring lock (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hate this argument. Why? Because it assumes that I am a fucking idiot. More people are killed with their own guns because they are too fucking stupid to handle it properly. I've been around guns for most of my life and I understand proper gun etiquette and safety (same thing, more or less) and I know how to work a safety, I understand the idea behind gun safes and trigger locks... And I'm not an abusive man so I don't fear being shot by my girlfriend or something.
By saying that far more care ne
Re:Ring lock (Score:2)
Re:Ring lock (Score:3)
I've used the MagnaTrigger conversion on an S&W revolver. That technology dates way back, to the 1960s iirc. It was always expensive but, from both my brief experience and everything I've read about it over the years, it was dead solid reliable.
I never actually bought a conversion, though. It was expensive (more than the cost of the gun, IIRC) and by the time I was old enough to buy handguns I was already into computers. Having to wear a ring that would corrupt any floppy I picked up was, for me,
Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, we need fuckable hooker robots, too, but, hey, they're just around the corner.
Or they would be if the techno-wizzes of the world would stop mucking about with tablet computers and first-person shooter game engines, and deliver to the world what it really wants.
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Yes. I've learned that I'm a man and sometimes want hot, wet, sloppy, screaming monkey sex on kitchen tabletops and over the hood of a car without having to deal with "you men just don't understand women" or "do I look fat in this?" bullshit. Sorry, ladies, but I didn't draw the wiring diagram for the male brain.
That fact that I cannot purchase hot monkey sex as a side order to my fillet-o-fish at any food outlet in the country proves to me conclusively
Smart Holsters! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/i
Smart guns conjure up a lot of fears from gun owners. There's a fear that "smart" technology might be required on new guns. There's a fear that they might be too expensive, or unreliable (batteries gone dead), or that it might be possible to disable them remotely with something like EMP. Don't laugh, it's already possible to stop many motor vehicles this way.
Smart holsters could provide practically all of the same benefits without all the associated fear.
What if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What if... (Score:5, Funny)
These days, that's called Fox News...
What if... (no thanks) (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring on the Clones... (Score:3, Funny)
-----------
Self-cloning Instructions (Pat. pending)
Go fuck yourself.
Biometrics are dangerous... (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing I dislike about any biometrics solutions is that in order for them to work, they need a method of identifying you as a person, Being that fingerprint, iris recognition or facial properties.
Thus every access to biometrically controlled systems allow a unique connection between your ID data and your person. This may be wanted in many situations, but with biometrics there just is no alternative to anonymity anymore.
The widespread use of biometrics will inevitably lead to the "transparent citizen" as the option of anonymity will just fade away with the disappearance of alternative identification methods.
Re:Biometrics are dangerous... (Score:2)
No one is proposing a method of reissuing retinas or fingerprints. If biometrics are used large scale and someone manages to make a fake eyeball or finger that can fool the sensors for a particular application, that information will be permanently useless as a method of identification, leaving the victim to suffer life-long consequenc
"speculative emergency situations..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that this is for smart guns, I'm a little concerned with what appears to be the suggestion that emergency situations are rare and not worth much consideration. With the exception of practice on the firing range, all situations a handgun is being used are emergency situations. As such, something like the technology not working if the users hand has blood (or grease or dirt...) on it is a show-stopper.
"Various OS and USB interfaces"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now then, what is this good for? Oh... "PC-infra security applications." PC-infra? What the heck is that? I would assume, based on the word-roots, that they mean s
As a responsible gun owner... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just as I fight as hard as one person can for my electronic freedoms and my freedom to own a general purpose non-DRM'ed computer. I will fight extra hard to make sure I can still defend myself without having to prove to some device I am who I say I am.
Just as DRM is a cancer on computing rights, these kinds of measures are a cancer on our guns rights.
Remember, DRM and gun laws (read "safer gun") is about
Guns have to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Electronics just aren't reliable enough to trust, particularly fancy finger-print-reading or AI-grip-recognizing electronics.
Technological fixes to social problems are usually bad ideas, and I think that this is a great example of that.
NOT a technology problem (Score:2)
Besides, its not like someone won't come up with an "override glove" or something...
Is it not enough that LEO's put their life on the line every day? Now they want to chip them like the family dog?
Is this a potential image problem for NJIT? (Score:3, Funny)
My first thought on seeing this news item is that I didn't even know there was a New Jersey Institute of Technology, but if anybody would be doing research into hand guns, this would be the outfit. It just seems like an easy topic for a Leno/Letterman monolog ("Why did they choose the New Jersey Institute of Technology for designing the gun? Because of the opportunities for real world testing! Because shipping costs would be so low!").
myke
Bad, bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of serious gun owners won't even use handguns with a safety. Because if the safety is on in the fraction of a second you it to work, you're dead.
Re:Bad, bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely. The story submitter obviously doesn't understand any of the issues involved, particularly due to his flip dismissals. "Few have qualms," and "figurative emergency situations," my ass. The only people that don't have qualms are those who are trying to push legislation requiring this, and frankly the WORST time for a firearm to have a problem is when you desperately need it! The idea that "it only won't work if you're covered in blood" is absurd on it's face--if I'm covered in blood, I probably have more need of a working gun that at any time in my life, which is quite possibly about to end.
In short, this entire story should be modded, -1, Clueless.
A lot of serious gun owners won't even use handguns with a safety. Because if the safety is on in the fraction of a second you it to work, you're dead.
Now this, I disagree with. While I like my Glocks, particularly for the reason you describe (the KISS principle is in play here--the only thing you need remember to do is aim and pull the trigger) pistols like the 1911 are excellent defensive guns even though there are multiple external safety devices that need to be disengaged before firing.
The key is, of course, training--anybody who knows how to use a 1911 will tell you that disengaging the safeties adds no time and minimal complexity. The grip safety is deactivated simply by grasping the weapon, and the thumb safety should come off as the weapon is being presented. By the time the gun is on target, it's in the same condition as a Glock would be.
One need look no further than IPSC and IDPA competition shooting--sports that are all about speed, speed, speed--to reinforce this. 1911 based guns are the preferred choice of all the top competitors.
Re:Bad, bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Go to a gunstore. Buy any firearm you see, it doesn't matter which. Load the weapon, place it on a table, and take two steps back. I guarantee that the weapon will NEVER just "go off" without some sort of external act.
Besides if I snuck up behind you and put one in your head, will you have any more time to react if you hadn't had the safety on?
Ah, yes, "excellent" point. Just because there's a situation where som
NJIT, you say? (Score:2)
Misleading information in Wired article (Score:3, Insightful)
First off (for the rare individuals that didn't read the article) this approach DOES involve planting an RFID chip in the shooter. I somehow think this won't fly with most gun owners! (It also doesn't address shooting with the "off" hand.)
Secondly, the above quote incorrectly implies that the "smart gun" won't need a battery. It will need one, both to detect the RFID tag and to mechanically inhibit firing the gun.
It's bad technology. Guns should be as simple as possible, for reliability. Laser sights are bad enough - and not widely used for many reasons, dead batteries among them.
They do look cool in movies though... ;-)
Metal Storm involvement (Score:2)
I always get an involuntary whiff of snake oil when these guys are mentioned. I'd like to be proven wrong. I'm open to it. Anybody?
Already exists - old news... (Score:5, Funny)
These things are actually dimly sentient, and cantankerous to boot. I swear they know when you're under pressure from an immoveable deadline. That's when they chose to break down/clog heads/eat your last sheets of glossy presentation material at 5am / have the driver b0rk...
It's the reason we call them plotters
Biometrics promising but not well thought out. (Score:3, Insightful)
The article sumary makes this comment:
Kind of thing that you can put in all the car ignitions and lockers where password entry using keyboard can become too obtrusive.
These are exactly two places where present technololgy does NOT work well (or the stuff that works well is too expensive). The West Edmonton Mall is the worlds biggest, so as a convenience they have lockers for patrons to use as they shop. Additionally, there are lockers at the water park. The mall has recently started implementing biometrics for locker access, starting at the water park.
Let me tell, you that was THE BIGGEST MISTAKE and waste of money they could've done. I'd rather have kept the keypad and used the cost savings to lower rates (a small locker costs $6 for a day). In the water park, you get wet. The fingerprint readers to not work on wet fingers. You also get cold, and the surface of your fingers gets wrinkly and shrink slightly. This also makes the reader inoperative. Half the time, you have to dry off and warm your hands thoroughly under the air dryer before you can open your damn locker. It took me 10 minutes of trying.
Furthermore, the software is too primitive to allow multiple fingerprints to open a locker so if you share a locker to save money the person who opened the locker has to get everyone elses posessions. There is also the accessibility issue. I have a friend that has no hands due to birth defects. He could not use fingerprint biometrics and the reader is not designed to practically accommodate toe prints.
The idea of using fingerprints on car ignitions at this point is also ill-advised at this point. The technology is either too picky to reliably read the scan, or too forgiving that it allows false reads. I forsee being locked out of my car during inclement weather. In April my fingers will be too wet during rainstorms to work, and in the winter they will be too cold. I get -30 degree temperatures in January where I live. I do NOT want to have to take off my mitts and fiddle with a thumbprint lock until I get frostbite, so I'm gonna need a key to get in the car. I might as well use that key to start the car too.
It's the same thing with firearms and such. Even in non-emergency situations like hunting I'm sure the user doesn't want to futz around with some biometric safety lock scheme, and I'm even more sure they don't want to pay significantly more for the gun because of the added feature when a mechanical safety has sufficed until now. Also, the same problems apply--it could malfunction if our fingers are cold, wet or dirty which could likely happen.
Technology for technology's sake is just silly. If it doesn't make something work better or cost less without affectig usability then it shouldn't be used. I do NOT need electronics in my toaster, my coat keeps me warm just fine without being "smart" and I'm not so brain dead I cannot remember the combination to my locker. Just leave it all be please.
Re:Calling all readers with mod points (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Calling all readers with mod points (Score:2)
Why does the name "Brian" come to my mind?
Re:Next James Bond plot... (Score:3, Funny)
With seconds to spare, Bond knocks out the big guy, cuts off his hand and uses it with the gun to shoot the detail that has come to finish him off.
At the end of the movie, the big guy comes back with some wicked looking prothesis that is designed with
Re:How do you plead the fifth? (Score:2)
Re:I can't be the only one to think... (Score:2)