Slashdot Mirror
Smart Gun with Minicam and Biometric Access
StrawberryFrog writes "Ya well no fine, those crazy South Africans are at it again, this time with a "intelligent firearm". You may have heard of guns with fingerprint recognition before, but this also uses a laser to ignite the propellant, has multiple barrels and incorporates a minicam to record as evidence what you are shooting at. It's a very different gun design, and one that depends on electronics to make it work."
X10 enters the firearm business.
Now to ensure my clone never gets his hands on my gun...
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
What I want to know is when Thinkgeek will be carrying these ... any bets?
KARMA TAG! You're it.
Red LED display of number of rounds left. (Preferably facing the user when held, so no-one else can see it).
graspee
Great, can't wait to see the headlines: Dumbass kills self while trying to take picture, family sues gun manufacturer.
Insert witty comment here
Now script kiddies are going to h4x0r guns.
If Dubya can fire one bullet and it hits every evildoer in Iraq...well, I want me one of those is all I can say. =)
TLoM: Nerds + DDR + Rednecks for the win!
It's a very different gun design, and one that depends on electronics to make it work.
You might want to carry a revolver in your sock for when the OS crashes.
"ya well no fine"?
;-P
am i having a stroke and losing the ability to decipher english? what does this mean?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's also a gun easily disabled by an electro-magnetic pulse, which is especially relevant since the military now has EMP bombs.
You're only as smart as your brain.
a video record of what you're shooting at... hmmm maybe this will be the advance in technology that can bring the gun rights people and the gun control people together. i think accountability is the most important thing; if you are responsible you can have a gun if you want. now only if bullets had these minicams in them so that you can see who shot the bullet when the shooter cant be found
The problem with all of these type of technologic "advancements" in firearms is that they miss the whole point of a self-defense firearm. If one is to use a firearm for self-defense, it will be used at the last possible moment - a moment that does not allow for software glitches, hardware bugs, run-down batteries, etc...
This 'technologizing' of firearms is only viable for certain military applications - useage scenarios far removed from those of civilian owners; yet there are enough dumbass lobbyists and politicians who don't understand that one can NOT ask an attacker to 'wait while I reboot my gun'.
No thank ya! I like to get away with my violent crimes.
For a street-legal weapon that complies with civilian laws, it would have a 10-round magazine and fire single shots only, requiring the trigger to be pressed each time.
So....A "street-legal" gun is one that can only shoot 10 people in about 15 seconds or less? What street would this be? Then again this is being developed in south africa. I guess even warlords have to keep their goons under a tight leash.
... but, this would in essence be pointless. There are guns over 100 years old that still work today, and there are millions of guns without this implemented floating around. What kind of stupid-ass criminal would buy one of these when he could steal a gun without this?
I'll stick with my H&K.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Now the Chic Geek will be looking to outfit his Segway with a turret.
Then you can add blue tooth so you can fire it remotely...just make sure it doesn't get hacked.
I can see it now.
"This gun has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down..."
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
But I bet the idiots who bought 4 large crates of these guns didn't bother to ask about the little red button on the side.
I don't understand some of the logic behind some of the guns features, for example, the built-in camera. If I'm going to do something illegal, I can put a piece of tape over the lens. And if its recording data on all shots, and taking pictures, how much memory does it have? If I go to the shooting range, and I go thru a couple of boxes of ammo, will I run out of memory? If I run out of memory, does the gun lock up? Regarding the the biometric data locked into the gun. Knowing how fast most other things are cracked, how long till mod chips are available? Somehow this doesn't seem to be the answer to gun crime.
Or possibly firing in the dark? Maybe even sitting high up in your father's oak tree polishing the gun with your bottle of nu-metal shine the all new gun polisher which also happens to coat the gun's camera in 3 inches of metal nu-ness as you shine and chant "I am the angel of death."
What's the best way of eventually eliminating usage of existing weapons? Prohibit manufacture of ammo for it.
I can forsee all current types of ammo being banned one day, and only a new non compatible design being allowed. The gun that can use this ammo will be highly restricted. Eventually the existing ammo supply for "pre-legal" weapons will run out, rendering them useless to all except those willing to pay high prices for the remaining ammo stocks. A black market ammo industry will arise though.
Actually, I think the next movie could be kind of short:
Dirty Harry:I know what you're thinking punk. You're thinkin did he fire six shots or only five. Well to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is the 44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off. You've got to ask yourself a question, Do I feel lucky? Well do you, PUNK!
Punk: Umm... Umm...
Smart Gun: WARNING! Chamber is empty! Load a new magazine to continue shooting! WARNING! Chamber is empty! Load a new magazine to continue shooting!
Punk: Fuck you, cop! Tackles Dirty Harry and bashes his head in with a brick.
This would be ideal for cops. Now, the next time the police shoot, we'll have photographic evidence that could prove whether it was justified or not.
It's, oh, say... 50 years from now. You're a soldier, say a blue-helmet, supposed to be keeping the peace in some crappy country that's chock-full of gang lords and private armies. You're on patrol with your partner.
Suddenly, a crack and your buddy is down, choking on his own blood. You take cover behind whatever is available, try to figure out where the fire is coming from.
Another shot, and your Intelligent Rifle is hit, damaged beyond repair. Shit.
Luckily, the rifle dropped by your buddy is close. You grab it, jam your thumb into the stock's biometric window. No response. Damn! Covered with dust again, frickin' dirt... Still cowering, hoping you're covered, you wipe the window and try again.
"BZZZZZ... User's Smart Card does not match profile. Please ensure that you are using the proper weapon."
You jab the control button to force the gun to authorize a new user, but it's too late. You just got killed by a rifle made in your great-grandfather's day.
I think some militaries might have reservations about a few of the "features" on these guns. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell
Wasn't there an article on slashdot approximatley 3 months ago about a Japanese scientist who could fool 95% of ALL fingerprint sensors (even those that require heat/heartbeat)? According to him all one would have to do is lift a fingerprint, make a PCB mould out of it, pour Jell-o(?) and glue it to his finger, and voila, the owner could get framed for anything. I see no way one could make fool-proof guns these days, as retinal scan or DNA sampling would take too long to authenticate, and in case of emergency, chances are the user would be loong dead/injured/unconcous/kidnapped/tied up... to get any use out of it. I say it is a noble idea, but other than for the army (set a 12 hr timeout so that the gun will work for while soldier is doing his 10 hour patrol or whatnot...) i can see no useful uses.
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
Usually you buy them, but theres nothign stopping you from pouring your own. You can buy blocks of lead, along with bullet molds, from a lot of sporting goods places. The hard part might be making copper jackets, but those aren't really *needed*. I think the hardest thing to get would be the powder/casings/primers, if such things were banned. cases wear out after excess firings, so they wont' last forever.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
That's an insightful comment for about two seconds. Who's going to convince people that these are the only guns you can use? It's like passing escrow laws and assuming those wacky terrorists will update all their commercial software to the latest versions. Good luck getting the NRA to even think about supporting something like this.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Nope. We catch almost all the people who kill other people with guns, but they're still dead.
Stopping the killing is the key to bilateral acceptance.
Produce a gun that won't fire unless the target deserves it.
for example, the best idea was to not mark the bullets but rather the gun powder with plastic micro-taggants (basically a dust whose particles are made up of snadwhiched layers of plastic that form a sort of bar code that can be read under a microscope). The test project put this into commercial dynamite and in fact several 1960/1970 convictions were obtained based on the taggants. but they tried it in gunpoweder and it workd just fine. The NRA moved in and killed all the legislation. Now a days dynamite is no longer tagged.
the wonderful thing about this stuff is that when the gun fires the power gets onto the shooter, bullet and target and is hard to remove. indeed its so hard to remove its main current use is in secretly marking designer clothing (e.g. to reconize real jordache jeans over the couterfeits)
the NRA, is, surpisingly, not you and me, nor even most US gun manufacturers, but rather its mainly funded by foreign owned cheap gun maunfacturers. They want to keep hand gun laws uncomplicated so more folks can own guns cheaply. The more expensive (mainly US + european based) manufacturers are not big NRA supporters since they would prefer to see the fixed costs of gun ownership rise a bit, so that the differential costs of their higher quality weapons are not as noticable. In fact the better gun manufacturers are solidly behind legistlation to improve handgun safety since anything that would make people have to go out an buy new and higher quality guns is good for them
taggants and the consequent legislation and regulation and tracking of bullets would increace the costs of gun ownership but not the cost of guns, thus favoring the quality manufactureres.
unfortunately the quality gun makers dont have the clout the NRA has.
As it is police dont even track ballistics and shell casings across juristiction boundaries. THe homeland defense hysteria may finally cure this with a central database. Which is a great worry to 2nd amendment people. And of course to the NRA.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The suitcase that serves as Reason's power supply and ammo dump is open on the deck next to him, its color monitor screen reading: Sorry, a fatal system error occured. Please reboot and try again.
-Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
You forgot about the cute, animated barrel brush that will pop up and offer helpful suggestions like "It looks like you're trying to shoot an intruder! Would you like me to:
- Research legalities of shooting burglars in your house, based on your current location?
- Look up cleaning services that specialize in removing bloodstains from carpets?
- Remind you that the safety is still on?"
0 1 - just my two bits
I was just thinking, I wonder if there'll be bootlegged copies of those images going around, gore gallery style.. if every murder (with those guns) is captured.
but then again, who'd kill someone with one of these??
when the rain comes, they run and hide their heads. they might as well be dead.
OK, I guess it's time for eat my words. In reply to this article, I shot my mouth off about the stupid legistlators who enact stupid laws.
Now who looks foolish.
Uh... won't fool me. This thing is like a cell phone. When you finally want to use it, it will start beeping and flash *low battery*...
A Smart Weapon based on a dumb-ass concept. Hmm let see be held legally responsible for every bullet you've purchased. Purchase a firearm that cost twice as much and can be disabled by authorities at a distance. Yeh I'll take two please. First off, I don't think they've ever heard of a little concept called identity theft and second, the only way I'd be willing to buy into that is if the military and law enforcement had to as well. Of course they wouldn't want it since a thirteen year old with a wireless connection and laptop could hack their weapons making them fire in the holster or disable them. A firearm is a simple device with a simple role. Complicate that role and it becomes more dangerous to the user and nearly worthless as a tool. The only place I could see such a weapon be even remotely useful is in places such as prisons. Where those that it is to be used against do not have much in the way of resources to fight back. I guess it's noble to try to make it more difficult for firearms from being abused, but at the same time it's pretty pointless. I've got an idea, instead of chasing the symptoms as so many idealists/liberals typically do, how about going after the source, which is the scum that needs to be filtered from the gene pool. Make it illegal to have children without special safety training, a license, and being able to demonstrate a suitable degree of intelligence and competence. I think that would have a much greater impact on the problem of violence than trying to blame a inanimate object, and in the process waste a great deal of money on a useless scheme. Of course if we put restrictions on reproduction rights then there would be a few areas of the world that would die out in a single generation due to low birth rates. The again that's not entirely a bad thing, since California and parts of Europe are getting awfully crowded anyway.
How many points of failure do you need? This gun is ridiculous.
Isn't this what most geeks hate about Microsoft... too busy building in every gee-whiz feature, so that they neglect the basics, like stability and reliability? Situation seems pretty analogous to me...
No chance anyone who trusts their life to a firearm would ever carry one of these.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Nobody who seriously trusts their life to a firearm would use one of these... the FOP membership would revolt enmasse.
Check this link... NJ put a smart gun law into effect, but law enforcement is exempt.
You may form your own theory about why that is... mine says that this technology is nowhere near ready for prime-time, and police officers know it. They have enough problems with regular guns malfunctioning, and those are simple, blow-back operated mechanical devices that any machinist can make. If the simple stuff sometimes fails, how can this complex system hope to do better?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Just blast a small EMP grenade nearby and disable everyone using these guns...
Imagine bank robbers going in and firing an EMP blast to disable the guard's guns.... and then going in with traditional weaponry and shooting up the unknowing guards.
Ever need an online dictionary?
At the last hacker conference in New York (http://www.h2k2.net), I did a presentation on "Logic-Regulated Firearms Systems."
g _w eb_viewable/h2k2_arms_nitzberg_files/v3_document.h tm
I focused on where I saw firearms development heading if additional regulatory pressures (either civilian or within the military) influenced firearms design, and where the designs would lead, as well as some of the implications, if logic-control systems were integrated into firearms.
The presentation is available from:
http://www.iamsam.com (It is the third item down under presentations)
http://iamsam.com/papers/H2K2/h2k2_arms_nitzber
Some comments on this thread question the usefulness of the camera feature. A camera could be used with circuitry distinct / detached from the firing systems. Such a camera could providede logging, without affecting operational behavior of the arm. There are actually some clever tricks that would allow imagery before a shot to be recorded, as well, as audio. This could be of excellent evidentiary value. Again, I would want the gun to have well-thought-out access mechanisms to restrict tampering. The army is working on rifles with integrated video, radio, and other capabilities. This could be of benefit to soldiers in relaying situational information.
I will mention that any such arms should have secure timestamps and formal-methods applied to their computing integrity. When was the picture taken, and can you prove it?
I also see computers with transmitters and receivers coming into play. When someone who responds to emergent situations (ex/ a cop, marine, etc...) fires, a network message could be broadcast for support, also relaying position, visual, or other critical information. This could be from the gun itself, or an accessory worn by the individual. Such messages would have to be performed securely, and with integrity. Otherwise, message injection attacks (into the network) could cause numerous false-alerts to be responded to, or real alerts could be tampered with.
There could be significant value also in reconstructing shooting events involving multiple officers at different locations, with cameras recording information relevant to the firings.
Some of this may flow-down from the military. If greater accountability is desired, many of these features may come into play, and eventually flow-down into the commercial markets.
I am not personally in favor of fingerprint sensors on firearms, nor transponder-rings. There are a number of situations under which I see them as being problematic. However, if you want to ensure that one person on a patrol does not have his arm fired by an assailant grabbing it, such methods can be of value.
Sam Nitzberg
sam@iamsam.com
Out of bullets....?
No moron. Out of batteries.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
The real problem I see is what happens when these guns are adopted, at least in some sectors, be it 5 or 10 years from now, or maybe even sooner with the way the world works today.
Because it's all well and good for a cop to be able to prove that, Yes, I did fire in self-defense, but when courts start basing cases on the evidence from guns that record user details, and these things affect peoples lives, it becomes a whole lot scarier.
Sure, the crypto that ensures that only the gun and authorized dealers can modify the onboard memory is great now, and will be better when they actually hit production, what happens in 30 years, when guns made 5 years from now are a quarter century old?
Do you want to trust that the records in a gun made 25 years earlier are secure enough? Because everything's fine until some ex-employee of the gun's manufacturer cracks the ram, or flash memory, or whatever they used to store the data, and frames you for a murder. Think about it, 30 years from now how hard would it be to get somebody's fingerprint, when even today they're being used for authentication?
The real question is, if you wouldn't entrust your email and IM conversations to 1970's crypto technology, in the future is it a good idea to trust peoples' lives to what we've got today?
Wouldn't an intelligent gun know better than to go around shooting people? :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
it gives a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".
-Styopa
The concept of a biometric gun ala Judge Dredd is not a bad idea for law enforcement.
Things that would be useful:
* A gun that stores or broadcasts GPS coordinates of each shot fired. Makes post incident investigation easier.
* Biometric access to the gun. Fingerprints perhaps are a bad idea though, dirt being a prevalent problem. But what ever method chosen, it would be a good idea for the gun to recognize anyone on the force, or at least on each particular assignment. Solves the "my partner is down and my gun is damaged" scenario.
* Clear tagging of bullets by gun. Makes post incident investigation easier.
* The camera probably should be "on the officer" and not on his gun, and should probably upload it's data via wireless, rather than recording locally, otherwise the bad guy will just destroy the camera after killing the officer, or the officer would destroy it to CYA.
In regards to posters of the opinion that trusting your arse to one of these is crazy, it might break. I wouldn't trust any gun, technologically advanced or not, if it hasn't been field proven and heavily tested. There is no reason why a gun like this can't be brought to a high level of reliability, although we may not be technically capable of it yet.
--mike
Idiot.
Owning a gun requires *responsibility*. If the kid could get to the gun in the first place, load it, and use it, it's the parent's fault.
Don't believe me? There are something like 100 million gun owners in this country. The numbers of kids killed in firearm accidents every year is in the low thousands. A very small percentage, and mostly due to irresponsibility.
If you have kids that are too young to be responsible with guns, deny them access to the guns. There are many ways to do this. Then, when they are old enough, take them to classes, or teach them gun safety and the responsiblities therein yourself.
I grew up in, and live in, a state where gun ownership is practically a fact of life for most people. If you're not willing to take responsibility for it, then don't own one. If you do own, and are careless and one of your kids dies as a result, *don't blame the guns* blame yourself, because you're the idiot who let it happen!
Sheeese!!!!!!!!!!!
SB
Guns don't kill people, irresponsible idiots/violent human beings do. Are you going to ban kitchen knives because your kid might stab himself with it? Moron.
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
There are too many variables that make this gun totally un-attractive to potential buyers. To name a few, if your strong side (firing hand) is wounded or un-usable, is there a thumb scanner on both sides? Will it work with your hands covered in grease, milk, sweat, soda, or any number of other things that you could fumble with while you're scared shitless grabbing for your gun (yes, the cops are typically scared shitless when they draw on someone). What happens if you drop it in the dirt? the mud? what about water? What happens when you've been carrying it around so much that you've worn through the thumb sensor (yes, just carrying a gun will wear down just about any surface over time).
And reloading...oh boy. Ammunition costs could make this a real problem to practice with regularly, making it dangerous for the owner to carry as he doesn't have the experience he ought to.
Anyway, enough of my little rant, I just don't think these are going to be very successful.