Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Hardware Hacking Wireless Networking Hardware IT

Build Your Own Bluetooth Sniper Rifle 309

Jim Buzbee writes "I don't think I'd do it, but these guys built a Bluetooth Sniper rifle, went to the roof of a downtown Los Angles skyscraper and pointed it at nearby buildings. See what they found, and if you're so inclined, they'll show how to build your own and maybe, just maybe, you too can snag Paris Hilton's address book." (Which was not snagged via Bluetooth snooping, as the article points out.) This version looks a bit more polished than the one mentioned last August.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Build Your Own Bluetooth Sniper Rifle

Comments Filter:
  • Frightening, ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:03PM (#11928193) Homepage
    After the DC Sniper incident, this gave me a fright as I thought someone has built a bluetooth-guided sniper rifle, which indicates when your bullet is aligned perfectly with your target's bluetooh tag, and those who auto-accept Bluetooth pairing are in trouble.

    Seriously though, I wonder how many people do auto-accept BT connections? My PDA only accepts known pairs, so you need to physically talk to me to pair you up for the first time.

    The friendly article seems to mentioned the "success" in BT detection, but didn't go in details of successful connection. It's like car thieves claim to detect 20,000 cars in the city centre, but didn't say how many were unlocked.
    • Re:Frightening, ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by YetAnotherAnonymousC ( 594097 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:11PM (#11928252)
      Fear not. Perfectly aligned in the EM wave sense does not equal correct alignment in the mass/bullet sense. One must adjust for windage, for one thing. For another, even if you could get the range via bluetooth, the parabollic trajectory of the bullet (some calibres are 'flatter' than others, and even different manufacturers) must be taken into account based on that range.
      • by back_pages ( 600753 ) <back_pages@NoSpam.cox.net> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:48PM (#11928448) Journal
        Fear not. Perfectly aligned in the EM wave sense does not equal correct alignment in the mass/bullet sense. One must adjust for windage, for one thing. For another, even if you could get the range via bluetooth, the parabollic trajectory of the bullet (some calibres are 'flatter' than others, and even different manufacturers) must be taken into account based on that range.

        Yeah, no kidding! Gosh, if someone aimed EXACTLY at my blue-tooth cell phone, held up to my ear, by the time the bullet traveled 300 yards it would be AT LEAST 12 inches lower and 2 or 3 inches to either side! HA! The joke is on them!

        Eh..

        • ... until someone builds a easy-to-carry and effective laser/microwave-based weapon...
        • Re:Frightening, ? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Pepsi__Blue ( 862561 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @07:08PM (#11928872)
          Don't say at least, ecause some sniper rifles are capable of much better performance, although they are very costly. For example, the Barrett M82A1 [wikipedia.org] has an MOA [wikipedia.org] of 1.5-2.0 or about 4.5"-6" drift at 300 yards. Additionally, the drift depends on the angle at which the rifle is fired, even if it is aimed directly at your phone. If you're shot at from above or below there will be an additional downwards component of the bullet's velocity working with the force of gravity causing the bullet to fall faster, whereas if you are up high and shot from below there will be an upwards component of the bullet's velocity working with gravity to decrease the drift of the bullet.

          just a remiander (in the absence of air resistance, and bullets are designed for minimal air resistance)

          Dy = 0.5(-32 ft/s/s)(Dt)^2 + v*sin(a)(Dt)
          Dt = (Dx)/(v*cos(a))

          so:
          Dy = 0.5(-32 ft/s/s)((Dx)/(v*cos(a)) + (Dx)tan(a)

          where:

          a=angle
          v=inital velocity
          Dt= change in time
          Dx= change in horizontal position
          Dy= change in vertical position

          therefore, if a is between 0 and 90 degrees there will be less drift than if a is between -90 and 0 degrees.
          • Bah, go study up on exterior balistics my friend. Gravity, acting on the bullet is straight down, but if the bullet isn't traveling perfectly horizontal, then the gravity vector of 32 feet per second per second isn't being applied at right angles to the path, but at a vector.

            So if you are shooting downhill at a 45 degree angle, then that 300 yards you mentioned must be multiplied by the sin of the downward (or upward, they are in fact interchangeable) angle which for 45 degrees is .707 in round terms, ma
        • Re:Frightening, ? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by pi_rules ( 123171 ) *

          Yeah, no kidding! Gosh, if someone aimed EXACTLY at my blue-tooth cell phone, held up to my ear, by the time the bullet traveled 300 yards it would be AT LEAST 12 inches lower and 2 or 3 inches to either side! HA! The joke is on them!

          You're pretty close actually, accoding to Sniper Central [snipercentral.com] typical .308 168 grain bullets when zeroed at 100 yards will drop about 16" and have a drift of about 7" in a 10mph crosswind.

          Now if you were to go with the .223 cartridge [snipercentral.com] as the DC "Sniper" did you're looking at about 1

      • by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @07:23PM (#11928950)
        Well, the parabolic issue is just math, so that's no problem.

        As for the issue of wind--you could use the cell phone's internet connection to check the weather.

        And if you miss? Have the camera snap a photo so you can see where the bullet hit, and compensate for the next shot.

        This could be a movie...

        The trailer:

        [fade in, city street scene, zoom in on businessman's cell phone, it reads 'accessing weather net...']

        Raspy Voice Guy: "In a high tech world gone mad, your cell phone can kill you..."

        [fast fade out with gunshot sound]

        RVG: "From 200 yards away."

        [abrupt music 'attack', then fast and disconcerting drums, lot's of quick shots of a normal city street life interspersed with people looking up from their phones to some distant skyscraper window]

        RVG: "This summer, in theaters everywhere, your phone bluetooths you."
      • "Fear not"? While a disregard for ballistics might make the sniper miss your head, the bullet could as well end up going through your torso or legs or what-have-you.

        It's like saying, "dude, I'm gonna die," and someone quickly correcting you, "no, you'll just be lethally wounded with an actual chance of survival."
    • Re:Frightening, ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dirvish ( 574948 ) <dirvish&foundnews,com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:32PM (#11928360) Homepage Journal
      Seriously though, I wonder how many people do auto-accept BT connections? My PDA only accepts known pairs, so you need to physically talk to me to pair you up for the first time.

      I imagine most people just use the default setting...
    • It certainly looks menacing. I would not stand on top of a building and point it at windows in downtown L.A. if you paid me. A lot.
      • It certainly looks menacing. I would not stand on top of a building and point it at windows in downtown L.A. if you paid me. A lot.

        I am sure it could be built to look like a telescope, cardboard box, antenna or whatever. They just built it like that because of all the extra testosterone coursing through their bodies. Point well taken, though.
    • How would a real sniper rifle with bluetooth be any sort of a concern?

      Bluetooth is a short-range protocol. It doesn't transmit but, what, 20 feet at max?

      A rifle, let alone a so-called "sniper rifle" would be pointless at that range. If you were 20 feet from someone and had a knife, you'd have just as good of odds of stabbing them as shooting them with an anamatronically controlled rifle... probably better, provided they don't see you and run away.
      • Besides you couldn't fire at them unless you paired your rifle with their device first.

        Not very stealthy. Duh!
      • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @10:36PM (#11929793)
        Bluetooth is a short-range protocol. It doesn't transmit but, what, 20 feet at max?

        The whole point of TFA is that the "rifle" can connect to bluetooth devices up to 1 km away.

        Unfortunately, the gun nuts are all talking about muzzle velocity, flash suppressors, one bullet one kill, etc, and starting brush wars about the 2nd amendment, as is their wont, so no one is actually discussing TFA anyway...

    • I'm a little unclear as to how being able to target a given transmitter depends on whether that transmitter is willing to engage in data transfers with you.

      The device must be sending a signal, otherwise your device wouldn't be aware of it, period.

      Or am I missing something here? I don't see how devices discover each other without them both communicating their presence.
    • I forgot about the DC incident. Instead, my thoughts went toward the d00d with the webcam and rifle on the hunting grounds.
  • I guess (Score:2, Funny)

    by varmittang ( 849469 )
    I guess we will see some more Paris Hiltin porn very soon.
    • The "write-up" spacifically mentions Paris Hilton, so the parent post is "on topic".
    • You only get the Paris Hilton porn if you have the BlueTooth sniper rifle and pick up a quad-damage modifier. Otherwise, you get past episodes of "The Simple Life".
  • Not wise... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lga ( 172042 ) * on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:03PM (#11928196) Journal
    From the article:

    We decided to quickly conclude the scan, given police activity in the area earlier in the day from a bomb scare.

    You too can get shot for looking like a terrorist!
    • Re:Not wise... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:11PM (#11928253)
      For this reason, it would be an excellent idea to make the thing NOT look like a gun at all, even if it is unidirectional. People tend to get suspicious of strangers pointing gunlike objects around their neighborhood.
        • People tend to get suspicious of strangers pointing gunlike objects around their neighborhood.

        And for a very good reason. How probable it is that the thing that looks very much like a custom-built RPG launcher or high powered riffle is in fact a piece of harmless radio equipment? Just compare the number of Bluetooth and "traditional" riffles out there.

        So it was outright stupid to design it in this way, although arguably riffle design has it's advantages - it's probably the best, evolved over time, lay

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:36PM (#11928381)
          DARWIN AWARD CANDIDATE 1: Hmm...I wonder if Airforce One has BlueTooth vulnerabilities.
          DARWIN AWARD CANDIDATE 2: Hey yeah! Get out your nifty BlueTooth detector thingie!
      • It's not just gun like things...

        On several occasions whilst my mates and I have been doing WiFi surveys with handheld dish antennas. (seeing where we can connect to our own gear), old people have come up and abused us for "eavesdropping". Yeah, real tinfoil hat type stuff.

        That said, making it looks like (and named after) a rifle is idiotic.
    • by evolutionaryLawyer ( 838264 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:17PM (#11928289)
      They made the think look like a rifle with collapsing stock etc... A kid almost got killed outside detroit about a year ago for hanging around on a roof with a paintball gun.

      So let me get this straight, if you have your device always on and discoverable you are vulnerable? Jesus, I would never expect that. Next thing you know it will be dangerous to be connected to the web without a firewall installed.

      Bluetooth is nice, but the security measure do seem pretty weak, no minimum pin length etc.
    • Well, the article is down so I am not sure what it actually looks like. But it seems to me there is absolutely no reason to make this device look like a dangerous weapon.

      Are any reasons given for why they decided to go with this flamebait (for lack of a better term) design? They could have made it look like a telescope instead I imagine.

      Of course this is coming from somebody who used to think it was fun to sneak around and shoot frat jocks with bb guns back in highschool.
  • Bluetooth (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Snoop my Apple Bluetooth wireless mouse and switch the button (singular) to right-click.
  • Bluetooth (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SteelV ( 839704 )
    It seems like Bluetooth is in almost EVERYTHING these days (the Power Book I recently ordered, my new cell phone, etc. all are enabled). Is this merely an extention of the ubiquitousness of the technology? Or is there some inherent flaw that makes Bluetooth vulnerable? I'm inclined to believe the former -- that a properly secured Bluetooth system would be safe -- but I don't know much about the technology.

    Any experts in the house (of course there are, we're on Slashdot!).
    • Yes, Bluetooth is in almost everything these days - I have 3 gadgets within arms reach of me with BT - but if others are anything like me, it's almost always turned off.
      • I have my PowerBook's Bluetooth turned off 99% of the time to save battery power,
      • my iPAQ 2210's Bluetooth turned off 99% of the time (which BTW I sync to the PowerBook using PocketMac [pocketmac.com] - works like a charm for bringing PocketPC into the Mac OS X world shows up in iSync and everything),
      • and my Sony Ericsson cellphone turned off 98% of the
  • by NightWulf ( 672561 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:05PM (#11928215)
    This way the secret service could have identified him, he's the guy with the annoying blue spotlight shining out of his ear while yelling "Can ya shoot her now?"
  • by KinkifyTheNation ( 823618 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:06PM (#11928219) Journal
    See what they found...
    You mean other than a dozen FBI agents bursting down their door?
  • Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:06PM (#11928223)
    I think the server just got headshot.
  • by lxt ( 724570 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:09PM (#11928237) Journal
    ...is human curiosity. Yes, there are many dangers from snooping, and there have been recent reports of prototype Bluetooth viruses - but even upgraded and securer versions of the protocol won't stop the fact that you just won't be able to refuse opening that interesting looking picture somebody is trying to send you.

    I've seen it a lot at my school, whereby a particularly dodgy or deprecating picture (no goatse yet, but can't be long) is passed along in the lounges by somebody simply searching for Bluetooth phones and sending a pic, which simply can't be refused ("because it might be something important!!!"). I'd say it's even more tempting to accept a Bluetoothed file than an email attachment, because in Bluetooth you're only getting the bare information about a file (ie, the size of it and file type), whereas you can generally filter out automatically generated email viruses with ease...

    The solution is to turn Bluetooth off all the time except when you want to use it (something I do anyway, since it conserves battery power), but a surprisingly large number of people seem to have it on all the time.
  • by k.ovaska ( 752790 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:09PM (#11928239)
    Site is dying. Now they're facing the real test: can you use a Bluetooth rifle against a Slashdot attack? There's one Slashdotter... another one... look, over there! But the battle is hopeless, most Slashdotters are secure in their parents' basement.
  • ObMirrorDot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by semaj ( 172655 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:10PM (#11928247) Journal
    It's not even funny any more how fast these sites go down. It doesn't do the site owner or us any good - once again, what will it take for Slashdot to implement a mirror system?

    For example... this one [mirrordot.org].
    • Re:ObMirrorDot (Score:2, Insightful)

      by baadger ( 764884 )
      I wish mirrordot would cache linked pages. A depth of 1 within the same domain would do wonders.
  • google cache (Score:2, Informative)

    by chevman ( 786211 )
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RUM0Y5_0xhEJ: www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article106.php+&hl =en&client=safari
  • by Sv-Manowar ( 772313 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:22PM (#11928318) Homepage Journal
    how about instead of sniper rifles in a city, binoculars on a nudist beach ?

    why do the best inventions always need to be modified to be better.
  • by Eminence ( 225397 ) <akbrandtNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:25PM (#11928329) Homepage
    It's not a trivial question. On one hand airwaves are free for anyone to receive. On the other if someone would steal data from my BT enabled device and went to publish it on the web (Paris Hilton case) I would very much like to get him punished for that.

    In other words, users are generally right in their expectance of some form of protection of their privacy. You could argue that BT devices should have been built in a way that would prevent any of that from happening, but it's easy to criticize with hindsight. I think some line in the sand would have to be drawn on this one too, the problem is that it would be technologically ignorant lobbying-prone politicians who would do the drawing. It's enough to look at the case of good, old-fashioned radio scanners to foresee results.

    • It is not a matter of hindsight. You can say that if you are talking of SMTP or something alike. When BT was developed, it should have known that allowing any device to connect to yours is a security risk. And it should have been known that 90% of the users won't RTFM if its device just works. So, by default, BT devices should have been set by default to connect only to known devices. Or, at least, the first time a customer uses it, he should be asked. The reason it was not done was probably it would make e
      • You are right, of course. However, I believe BT designers were not geeks and their thinking was not twisted enough. The were operating within the "very very local connections" mindset - I'm totally sure no one even considered the possibility of any sort of attack on such device coming from a mile away or so. BT was supposed to create the "PAN" or Personal Area Network - in other words to communicate within few feet.

        Now, I wonder if designers of the Zigbee [wikipedia.org] would pay attention.

    • True the airwaves are free and many times the courts have supported the rights of individuals to intercept open, unencrypted broadcasts. But the key is the unencrypted and the broadcast. Look at the old satelite dishes, you could latch on to most signals, but if they tried to scramble it then it was stealing.

      If it is encrypted, you cannot decrypt it, because it is obviously not yours. If it is not broadcast, i.e. you use RF to gain access to a system and gather information that is not being broadcast,
  • I'm sorry, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:27PM (#11928340)
    ...this is idiotic. Not their little invention (which is pretty slick), but their test on top of a skyscraper. Are you really that fucking stupid? A couple of guys with a sniper rifle sitting on top of a tall building is just asking for trouble. Probably doesn't even have a license for it. This is even more stupid than that guy who shined a laser into an airplane cockpit on more than one occasion. I've done some dumb things in my life, but Jesus Fucking Christ. Cops have killed people for less than that.
  • by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:34PM (#11928370) Journal
    Really, they should of called it something besides a 'Sniper Rifle' I'm sure that'd go down well when the cops ask what you're doing.

    "Oh i'm just pointing my Bluetooth Sniper Rifle at that crowded building of . . ."

    *insert police beatdown here*
  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:40PM (#11928404)
    This article shows that "short range" RF technologies such as bluetooth or RFID are only short range in the context of a particular transceiver. If someone wants to access an RF device from a greater distance, they need only build a high-gain antenna.
    • by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @06:01PM (#11928523)
      True. Voyager 1 was on the order of 23 watts and the last signal was received from over 8 billion miles away. Meanwhile, agents on Proxima Centauri have already begun a global RFID inventory of Wal*Mart stores world-wide in preparation for the invasion. They should have the results sometime late summer 2013.
    • No! RFID tags like those that Wal-Mart will be using are powered by the radio signal. It's not simply a matter of having enough antenna gain or a sensitive enough reciever - you need to produce enough power to activate the tag. It's hard enough to read them 3 inches away - and you need 64x more power to read them even two feet away. At 8ft, you need 1024x more power. Even a relatively low-power signal is now approaching the power range of a microwave oven.

      Remember, Bluetooth was designed to have 30+ foot r
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:44PM (#11928422)
    www.tomsnetnotworking.com
  • by cheezus_es_lard ( 557559 ) <cheez17.gmail@com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:46PM (#11928437) Homepage
    You know the Tom's Hardware web admin is sitting in a family room somewhere wondering why his pager keeps going off.... Sunday Slashdottings must be one of the most evil things inflictable on a person ;-)
  • by Keruo ( 771880 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:54PM (#11928486)
    if you snooped my slashdot login just now, I know you're within 30 meters

    you'll recognize me from my baseball bat and my tinfoil hat
  • *HEADSHOT* (Score:5, Funny)

    by HTL2001 ( 836298 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @05:55PM (#11928493)
    "slashdot" did 46723723346844684 damage to "innocent webserver" in 1 hit(s) with the "bluetooth sniper rifle"
    head: 46723723346844684
    body: 0
    arms: 0
    legs: 0
  • When connecting something to my phone, I have to enter a pin code. Like my PowerBook, I have to physically tell the phone to allow a contaction via bluetooth, then enter a pin code that the PB gives into the phone to have them conneted to eachother. I even had to enter a pin code into my phone when connecting my headset. So which providers just let anything connect via bluetooth, or am I still open to attack?
  • by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @06:11PM (#11928564) Homepage Journal
    If they had made this look like a telescope rather than a weapon, and mounted it on a tripod, they could have pointed it just about anywhere they wanted and nobody would have paid a whole lot of attention to them. The rifle-like appearance only served to make the device look much more dangerous than it was.

    There are times when the form factor of a rifle makes perfect sense (rifle stocks for cameras, for example), but many others where it just DOESN'T. This is one of the latter group.

    Mal-2
    • Either way someone will notice. If you looked out your window and saw a bunch of nerds with a telescope looking back at you, you'd be pissed that people were spying on you.
      • You can pay a quarter to use public telescopes in many parks and public attractions, and have been able to for many years, so I don't think anyone is all that concerned about telescopes pointed at downtown buildings, even if it's from the roof of another building. Besides, if there's a significant altitude difference, it's going to be craptacular seeing anyhow, as ceilings and floors are going to limit the view into any single window tremendously.

        The whole point of this was that they are far enough away th
  • I misunderstood the title of this article, but the idea of putting a bluetooth device on a gun and making it only fire if you are "within range" of your tag sounds like a good idea after the Atlanta manhunt this weekend where the accused stole the gun from a deputy in the courthouse and shot the judge (as well as others). Not a foolproof item, but it might help somewhat.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    It doesn't seem very bright to build a rifle-shaped device, and then test it by aiming it from the top of a tall building.

    Let me guess, it's powered by a bunch of large batteries, conspicuously wired together in a military-style vest.
  • by Columcille ( 88542 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @06:19PM (#11928609)
    While the early version was held together with tie-straps and rubber bands, this newest version has a much more professional look.

    Yes, the professional hit man look is exactly what I'm trying to have when I'm searching for vulnerable bluetooth devices.
  • Why a gun (Score:3, Insightful)

    by golfsportila ( 760666 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @06:20PM (#11928617) Homepage
    I understand that using a gun stock makes it look "cooler", but the article makes it seem like it wouldn't work if you didn't put it together in the same way. You really only have to buy the antenna and a connector for your card in your laptop to get it to work fine, its not as mobile as with the gumstick computer, but you could probably mount that gumstick computer on the side of the antenna if you really wanted something that mobile.
    • > the article makes it seem like it wouldn't work if you didn't put it together in the same way

      Really? From the article:
      The guys at Flexilis decided on the Ruger 10 / 22 folding stock from Ramline, but you can use any stock you want.
      You can even make the BlueSniper without the stock, if you want to be more discrete about scanning Bluetooth devices.
    • quote: "You can even make the BlueSniper without the stock, if you want to be more discrete about scanning Bluetooth devices. The stock just makes the BlueSniper look more menacing, not to mention really fun to hold."
  • I thought it was going to be a cheap and easy way to mount a sniper rifle on a powered pan/tilt tripod head and use bluetooth to control it remotely, like Brice Willis did in that lame remake of 'Day Of The Jackal' only with higher geek cred. I was disappointed.
  • by Hartree ( 191324 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @06:42PM (#11928736)
    Yes, indeed! Let's make something that looks like a heavy rifle with a scope on it. Then climb up on a skyscraper in downtown LA and start pointing it round at other buildings and pedestrians down on the street, etc.

    Double bonus points if Schwarzenegger or some other high profile politician is in town that day.
  • Our antenna thingy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by po8 ( 187055 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @06:44PM (#11928745)

    For a different take on the antenna "gun", check out our "Trackmaster 2000" [pdx.edu] 802.11/ATV rocket tracking antenna for the PSAS [pdx.edu] launch vehicle.

  • Spelling mistake! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's supposed to be a Bluetooth snooper rifle! Heh!
  • what's in a name (Score:3, Insightful)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @07:11PM (#11928885)
    Guys, don't be stupid. When you call something like this a "sniper rifle" or "bluetooth sniping", then politicians will have an easy time walking all over our civil liberties and banning anything other than government or Microsoft-approved hardware and software. Names like "sniping" and "wardriving" just make political rhetoric too easy.

    Call it a "security enforcement sensor" or a "privacy alert device" or "child protection wand" and politicians will have a much harder time banning it and throwing you in jail for using it.
    • That's actually a good idea. Here are some things with updated names:

      P2P, File sharing == Freedom sharing.
      Wardriving, warflying, warjogging == Access Point Liberation.
      Bluetooth Sniper Rifle == Terrorist Locator.

      I think if we called the thing a Terrorist Locator they'd sell it at Walmart, and my grandmother would buy 9 of them.
  • by idlake ( 850372 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @07:15PM (#11928912)
    I forgot to add: make any such device look like a gigantic Christian cross, not like a sniper rifle. People have a hard time banning crosses and you have a God-given right to point crosses anywhere you please. If it has a Bluetooth antenna at its tip, well, that's just an expression of your religious commitment to communicating with God and your fellow man.

    And, whatever you do, don't make it shaped like a 4ft dildo. With sniper rifles, at least the powerful gun lobby will stand behind you. When someone stands behind you while you are pointing a 4ft dildo off a rooftop, it's probably not to protect your civil liberties.
  • Imagine my disappointment.
  • Dangerous game (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Peaceful_Patriot ( 658116 ) <michelle@@@goldnuggetwebs...com> on Sunday March 13, 2005 @10:53PM (#11929874) Homepage
    Is it just me, or does it seem a little dangerous to be lurking on city rooftops with a very realistic looking rifle, pointing it at nearby buildings? It seems like a good way to find yourself surrounded by very real rifles that fire very real bullets and they are not aiming at your Bluetooth!

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...